Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TheWobble on January 30, 2001, 10:12:00 PM
-
Everyone knows the Record company's and the Owner of Napster's opinions on this, what are Yours??
Is napster harmful to the Music artists?
Is it harmful to consumers??
-
I have been known to use Napster on occasion, and I like it. Of course, it's probably fraud as you put it, but that doesn't stop about 25 million people from downloading to their hearts content. It's almost like a modern Robin Hood--rob from the companies and give to the average people.
J_A_B
-
I HATE IT ! Because when the wife's Downloading I get Spikes in my AH connection !
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
My defense on the part of Napster is the fact that by the time an artist is popular enough to be "victimized" on Napster they have already made enough money to live the rest of their lives in great confort. BTW 2 million dollars at even crappy interest say (7%) from a savings account will allow you to live the rest of your life in great luxury, and if you cant live on 140,000 a year you have problems. Therefore if the artist is being downloaded a lot on Napster it is more than a safe bet to assume they are already set for life.
So the record company saying Napster victimizes their clients is somewhat negated.
My defense for the record company is...."we are filthy rich and we want more money"
hmmm.. wonder which one I am biased twords
-
Well my good friend TheWobble I agree with you.
Being a part time musician myself and knowing how the "biz" works, I can tell you most artists lose little or nothing with napster. Record companies do. And record companies are blood sucking bastards. The artists that DO lose money are already rich enough to buy Canada.
Small time artists and indie bands actually benefit from Napster. I know of quite a few bands who owe their success to Napster and Mp3.com
-
"already rich enough to buy Canada."
LOL!
thats a good one
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ya I had a few friends in a band a while back, they got as far as playing a few Austin clubs but split when 2 of them went to college out of state, they were all napster junkies, It seems that for the most part musicians dont hate napster and many actually like it....accept Lars from Metallica, that avacadoweed (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
Total BS.
Napster is theft, no two ways about it. Everything else just rationalization for theft. "They must be rich, so it must be ok". I guess it would be OK if I broke into Gate's house and took a few things then, eh?
You have no idea how little musicians make... even the ones with huge signing bonuses and 4 album deals. The record company screws ya over, and on top of that, they recently (all but one) settled with Napster for hundreds of millions... Who got that money? Not the artists.
How can this possibly be any different from software piracy or JoeMud screwin' AH over? It aint.
This "they're rich (BS) so it's ok" attitude is crap.
Animal, if you know as much about the biz as you say, you wouldn't have that opinion. Sure - unsigned bands can benefit. But we all know the absolute majority of downloads aint the ones nobodies heard of.
At its very base level, this argument is untennable. You didn't create it, you didn't buy it, hence it aint yours to steal. I've heard so many forms of justification of theft wrt napster that it's silly.
Haven't heard one that makes any sense to me yet.
-
well here is one, if it is so evil and hurts the artists so much how come when asked most have nothing against it and many like it...and they ARE the musicians..and just maby they know more than you...???
-
Yeah, you know so much about it don't ya wobble?
-
Originally posted by Nash:
Haven't heard one that makes any sense to me yet.
How about this one...
I like many different kinds of music, some of which I wouldn't ever value enough to pay for (my 700MB 80's directory for example). Add that to the fact that I don't have any problem justifying it with myself, and there you go. Whether that makes me a lowlife theif or just some dude who likes music and has a way to get it for free. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
On the other hand, if and when Napster ever goes pay, I'm likely to subscribe. But hopefully CenterSpan (http://www.centerspan.com) does it sooner and better.
SOB
-
"Yeah, you know so much about it don't ya wobble? "
Yup,
been following it in the napster boards and in the news since Napster came out, plus im open minded which some would consider a virtue...unless they are closed minded folks that only see things as good or bad/black or white. And seeing as how (in your words)"The record company screws ya over" that aswell is "wrong" therefore but yet it is so, and is accepted. So how can a person hold animosity against napster when they are not doing anything more "wrong" than the record companies.
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
I use Napster to search those oldies I owned in -70's -80's.
Also I have made some cd's for my friends by recording their old LP's to my HD and after small "make-up" burned them to CD. If some song is having too much "snap-crackle-pops" I usually open Napster and check if I could find better version from there.
I could use Napster more but guess all good songs are already done in -80's (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
"I could use Napster more but guess all good songs are already done in -80's "
I hear that,
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT! <barf barf barf>
-
Back when the cd came out, we were told that the high prices were because it was a new media.
Then we were told it was to remain high because for every succesful selling artist, the record companies would have 9 unsucesful.
Damned if I am gonna pay for their sucky way of doing business.
They've had it coming for a long time. The artists (today, there aren't any artists left; rather Factory Workers like Spears and put together boy bands) on average get only 10% of the price for a cd; rest goes to anxillary personell.
I've used Napster to track down rare bootlegs. I use it to scout for new music; once I find something worth having, I order the cd. Which is then converted into mpg, because that way I can boost the bass more (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Here yer not even allowed to make mp3's of yer own cd's. Once again and idiotic government.
And, as Napster points out, it's not them who do the pirating - it's the users.
If Napster goes, so shoulĉd guns, because they're involved in crime. Or cars, because they kill people.
Instead of seeing Napster as a huge possibility/new way of marketing themselves, they see it as a threat. Old dinosaurs that aren't keeping up to date with technology and are paying for past sins.
Hope they all rot and die.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
"Old dinosaurs that aren't keeping up to date with technology and are paying for past sins."
TESTIFY!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Oh yea..
dont say the G.U.N word either, we dont want that stinky stew brewin in here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
If you are downloading material you haven't paid for and the rightful owner hasn't given away, it is theft. It can't be much clearer than that.
People routinely burn CD's and distribute them nowadays, so we don't think much about it, but the fact does remain if the record companies want to protect their interests they have every right to do so.
-
Those idiots have gotten away with quelling and destroying music in the 90's and 2000, and robbing us at the same time.
Death to the record industry. Use all means necessary.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Santas got a good point there:
Not all gun owners are killers and not all Napster users are thefts.
If you shut down napster what goes down next, your right to own gun maybe? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Maybe problem is that Napster is not made by huge multinational company and it doesn't have a powerfull back-up like NRA?
-
I feel the problem with digital theft (in this case music) is not the one guy who downloads one favorite song from 20 years ago, it's the guy who downloads a CD that was released last week and burns a copy for himself (and maybe his friends). Although both instances are still theft.
I am no fan of record companies. I think they have done more harm to music than good in the past half-century. But it does not justify theft.
"If Napster goes, so should guns, because they're involved in crime."
If they're used for criminal activity, then yes. That's the way it works now in our society.
"Instead of seeing Napster as a huge possibility/new way of marketing themselves, they see it as a threat."
Many artists use the Web/Internet as a way of marketing themselves. Why should Napster be able to do it without their consent?
[This message has been edited by Mickey1992 (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
talking about music, I'm looking for mp3's of "KYUSS", they only made 2 excellent CD's and I can' find them since I moved (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
-
I'm wondering, if downloading Mp3's from Napster is actually theft, how is it that it has been allowed to go on for so long? If the courts ruled that Napster could continue operation while the issue was debated amongst the lawyers, its seems that one could interperet the ruling as temporary permission until the issue is decided. That's how I looked at it anyway...
Gunthr
-
Nash,
This Napster thing could start a 700 posts flamewar wich I dont have the Net Stamina to follow. I already see your position in the debate and I see you stand firmly by it. I stand firmly the other way.
So we should just stand in diferent sides of the fence, scream "diddly YOU!!" at each other for a few minutes, and move on.
-
On the other hand, if and when Napster ever goes pay, I'm likely to subscribe. But hopefully CenterSpan (http://www.centerspan.com) does it sooner and better.
Any idea where their office is SOB?
Shameless, simply shameless (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
AKDejaVu
-
This argument doesn't have a single thing to do with guns. No reason to bring that in here.
I agree with Nash, rationalize all you want, it is legally theft. After that you decide whether you do it or not.
-
Why isn't it being prosecuted?
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
Shameless, simply shameless (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
hehehe true, but if they pull it off and the market like's 'em SOB won't be working full time while he goes to school (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Hadn't heard of CenterSpan before. I found this interesting though, from thier website:
"CenterSpan Communications evolved from ThrustMaster Corporation, makers of high quality game controls. In September of 1999, the company sold its hardware business, including the ThrustMaster name, to focus exclusively on peer-to-peer communication software."
Anyways, on this Napster stuff, I'm still seeing the typical rationalizations for theft of copyrighted materials. You can say "Record Company's suck.... screw em!" Just the same as you could say "Ford sucks so I'm heading to the dealership tonight with a balaclava and a screw driver."
"Damned if I am gonna pay for their sucky way of doing business." - StSanta
You don't have to. In fact, record companies could charge $100 a cd. That's their right. How is it your right to steal if you don't like the price? How is it your right to dictate the terms? You've got nothing to do with it. Your choice is either to buy, or not to buy.
But I guess it's just music, so it's no big deal. Is that it? That's almost the same crap attitude towards musicians as those vulchers in the recording industry.
"I'm wondering, if downloading Mp3's from Napster is actually theft, how is it that it has been allowed to go on for so long?"
Because Napster was either faced with defeat, or settlement. They settled with all the record companies (I think just one is still outstanding). So they paid these record companies hundreds of millions of dollars. Probably none of which will go to the artists. Then come June or July, you will be hit with a $5.00 a month service fee for using Napster. I assume a share of THAT will go to the record companies also. And probably none of which will go to the artist.
So.... we have the record companies and Napster in bed together now. Their gonna make boatloads of money, while the people whose work - the very thing that's being traded - will generally get screwed again like always.
I wonder how many "screw the record industry" Napster users will now say "screw Napster" and hack their way in for free there also.
-
i like them personally
- some people think they make good pets and all but mine were always trying to get away and there is just no way to keep the bedding from smelling like a bum.....oh wait this is napster i was looking for hamster sorry wrong thread
-
Napster is NOT doing anything illegal. It is simply a tool, like a gun, that people can use.
The gun analogy is quite to the point and exact.
A gun is a tool that people can use. Or misuse.
So if some people misuse Napster, and Napster are banned, it follows that by the same standard, if someone misuses guns, guns are to be banned.
I've got lots of mp3's I haven't been able to get elsewhere - rare mp3's that are part of my most reasured music.
Mickey said in a reply to me:
"If they're used for criminal activity, then yes. That's the way it works now in our society."
As mentioned, Napster is a tool. The company does not pirate cd's.
"Many artists use the Web/Internet as a way of marketing themselves. Why should Napster be able to do it without their consent?"
I am talking about the record companies strategy on dealing with Napster. Instead of seeing then potential for good, the only see the potential for bad.
If anyone is robbing anyone, it's the record companies that have been screwing us for decades. I am so glad they're hurting, and hope they'll bleed for a long time.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
Many Russian artists like MP3 music, and understand that people who DL-ed their music in MP3 and like it will propably buy a CD or tape. Many Russian record companies license their music to MP3 sites.
99% of Russians simply can't listen to MP3 at home. Not freaks like me who have a portable MP3-CD player in their pocket (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) Lenoxx MP-786 is the funniest toy I got last year, and only for $99. Accumulators work only for 3-4 hours, but it's enough for my daily subway ride (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I use Napster to get some inteesting music I can't find on CDs here without paying $30+ per disk. Last DLs: It's a Beautiful Day, Kinks "Arthur" (strange - but Kinks are extemely rare in Russia), Leaf Hound, Moby Grape, Focus, early Pink Floyd bootlegs, etc.
Also please note that an average audio-CD costs 80 rubles, less then $3. It includes Russian artists and so-called "licensed" CDs of foreign artists, that are no doubt pirated - but why should I refuse to buy a Deep Purple "In Rock Anniversary Edition" with 10-pages book included for $3 in favour of the same thing in a foreign music store on the same street for $18?..
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Wow! What a thread!
For me, bottom line: Is it copyrighted?
If it is, you already know the answer.
Without world-wide copyright protection the way new things get created and distributed would radically change. Most likely not for the better, either.
There are advantages for those that "cheat" on the system in place however. On a large scale, look at China. On a small scale, look at Napster users. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Continue the argument!
-
Yes Santa. Why do they not see the benifit in giving away for free what they used to get money for? Those short sighted fools.
I use Napster on occasion, but I am under no illusions that it is the great Robin Hood of the internet (nor do I tell the bold faced lie that it makes me buy more CDs. Really, who do you think you're kidding with that argument?). I am downloading for free music I would otherwise have to pay for, and that is theft.
Why is it not prosectuted? It's not practical. Napster itself does not do the pirating, those downloading and sharing music do, and nobody is about to start wasting resources trying to track everything transmitted through there.
-
Napster should be an alternate means of music distribution for those who don't want or cannot get a record contract and distribution deal.
Taking copyrighted music that is available through existing distribution (stores, online, etc.) is theft.
MiG
-
Napster is just the radio of the internet. You can download songs from napster, or you can record them off the radio. Same thing.
------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-
".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "
-
Sorry, don't mean to be a pest, but why would judges allow Napster to operate legally pending an agreement with the record industry if trading music over the internet via Napster is a crime? Something isn't adding up here, but I can't put my finger on it... do I have my facts wrong?
Gunthr
-
Sorry for the long post, but here's a bit of a speech that Courtney Love presented to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference, in New York. I thought it might be enlightening to all of those who think musicians are rich and don't really need you to buy their albums (duh), or who might just be interested in seeing how freaking RAPED musicians get.
If this stuff is boring, don't bother reading, but you might find it interesting.
Courtney Love:
This story is about a bidding-war band that gets a huge deal with a 20 percent royalty rate and a million-dollar advance. (No bidding-war band ever got a 20 percent royalty, but whatever.) This is my "funny" math based on some reality and I just want to qualify it by saying I'm positive it's better math than what Edgar Bronfman Jr. [the president and CEO of Seagram, which owns Polygram] would provide.
What happens to that million dollars?
They spend half a million to record their album. That leaves the band with $500,000. They pay $100,000 to their manager for 20 percent commission. They pay $25,000 each to their lawyer and business manager.
That leaves $350,000 for the four band members to split. After $170,000 in taxes, there's $180,000 left. That comes out to $45,000 per person.
That's $45,000 to live on for a year until the record gets released.
The record is a big hit and sells a million copies. (How a bidding-war band sells a million copies of its debut record is another rant entirely, but it's based on any basic civics-class knowledge that any of us have about cartels. Put simply, the antitrust laws in this country are basically a joke, protecting us just enough to not have to re-name our park service the Phillip Morris National Park Service.)
So, this band releases two singles and makes two videos. The two videos cost a million dollars to make and 50 percent of the video production costs are recouped out of the band's royalties.
The band gets $200,000 in tour support, which is 100 percent recoupable.
The record company spends $300,000 on independent radio promotion. You have to pay independent promotion to get your song on the radio; independent promotion is a system where the record companies use middlemen so they can pretend not to know that radio stations -- the unified broadcast system -- are getting paid to play their records.
All of those independent promotion costs are charged to the band.
Since the original million-dollar advance is also recoupable, the band owes $2 million to the record company.
If all of the million records are sold at full price with no discounts or record clubs, the band earns $2 million in royalties, since their 20 percent royalty works out to $2 a record.
Two million dollars in royalties minus $2 million in recoupable expenses equals ... zero!
How much does the record company make?
They grossed $11 million.
It costs $500,000 to manufacture the CDs and they advanced the band $1 million. Plus there were $1 million in video costs, $300,000 in radio promotion and $200,000 in tour support.
The company also paid $750,000 in music publishing royalties.
They spent $2.2 million on marketing. That's mostly retail advertising, but marketing also pays for those huge posters of Marilyn Manson in Times Square and the street scouts who drive around in vans handing out black Korn T-shirts and backwards baseball caps. Not to mention trips to Scores and cash for tips for all and sundry.
Add it up and the record company has spent about $4.4 million.
So their profit is $6.6 million; the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
Of course, they had fun. Hearing yourself on the radio, selling records, getting new fans and being on TV is great, but now the band doesn't have enough money to pay the rent and nobody has any credit.
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ... they can pay the mortgage forever but they'll never own the house. Like I said: Sharecropping. Our media says, "Boo hoo, poor pop stars, they had a nice ride. diddly them for speaking up"; but I say this dialogue is imperative. And cynical media people, who are more fascinated with celebrity than most celebrities, need to reacquaint themselves with their value systems.
When you look at the legal line on a CD, it says copyright 1976 Atlantic Records or copyright 1996 RCA Records. When you look at a book, though, it'll say something like copyright 1999 Susan Faludi, or David Foster Wallace. Authors own their books and license them to publishers. When the contract runs out, writers gets their books back. But record companies own our copyrights forever.
The system's set up so almost nobody gets paid.
-
i blame the musicians - they dont have to let the money-grubbers pimp them to the masses it is their decision and many bands set out to do what it takes to make money regardless of style
even with napster a band is going to sell cds and make some money. i dont buy more but i still buy them - i dont like having to deal with some computer everytime i want to hear music -
the difference is they maybe make 1.2 million instead of 5.6 million - so what you are getting paid for playing for cod sake! the bus driver makes no where near that and has a real job!artists should never think of money - money sucks and defiles real art the two should always be seperate
how much money does it take to be happy? i was in a few bands in high school and through my early 20's we did pretty good - its more important to have someone know your music than to make $$$ off it - i mean really, you re just playing music - if someone pays you even $100,000 or $500,000 per year for that you should be overjoyed - that supports a very comfortable lifestyle - what more could you need? that wont buy food?
copyright law is what it is - no dispute that napster is illegal - but i am not looking to the law to change the napster situation, rather the musicians.
i mean you can still make money touring and there will always be people buying cd's its just a matter of more vs less profit - you are gonna make something just how much? all the bloodsuckers associated with musicians would never stand for that- all the lawyers and investors and money lender shrews.....
metallica and the like suck the biggun' and are a bunch of greedy ex-cool guys....they might as well put on suits and go punch a clock at goldman sachs!
who cares if you are making 100 thousand or a 100 million - if the question comes up then you arent a real musician - or athelete for that matter - you are no better than the stock broker that just lied to get the commission and pad his precious net worth
-
The analogy I would make, Gunthr, is that of an apartment tennant who is abusing the lease. You know they are breaking the law, but they are in the house. Throwing them out on the street before they have exhausted their legal rights is violating their rights. In short, possession is 9/10's of the law.
Napster has a business in place. The remedy for their illegal action is to kill that business. Before that business can be squashed it must be proven through all legal avenues that it must be squashed. Had the record industry jumped in before Napster got so big, it would have been a completely different story. As it is now, Napster is established, and much harder to kill.
-
Actually Gunthr, the courts threw an injunction at Napster pending the outcome of the trial. In otherwords, the court told Napster that they were probably gonna lose, shut it down NOW, and we'll deal with the penalties soon.
Dunno if you were aware of it, but the final day before Napster went offline, the number of d/l's on the internet were probably the largest ever. Anyone remember playing AH that night? Warp mania. It was down for about 4-5 days if I remember correctly.
Anyways, the record companies decided to take it out of court to begin discussions with Napster on how they could join forces. In the meantime (and that is now), Napster could remain running provided it is used for uncopyrighted material.
-
Kieren, Landlord/Tenant matters like your example are civil matters, and as such, are not handled in criminal courts. I know, because I've had the incredible poor judgement to own rental property. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
However, if we stick with your analogy anyway, it still seems that the party who is abusing the lease, ie, not paying rent for instance, may be hurting the landlord, but as far as the law is concerned, said party is not going to be charged with a crime. Evicted maybe, but not jailed or fined by the courts. Said party has simply not adhered to the terms of their agreement with the landlord, and said party is only civily liable in my opinion.
I downloaded the original "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window" song by Patti Page, and "Ally Oop" by the Hollywood Gargyles for my 6 year old daughter, from someone who agreed to share them with me via Napster. Assuming that the above is copyrighted matierial, did I commit a crime? It doesn't feel like it to me. Am I civilly liable though?...and if I'm civily liable, what about the civil court judge who gives Napster permission to operate? It isn't clear.
I guess the whole thing will be moot soon, regardless. $5/month for Napster would be a "steal" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)as long as you can sign up for one month at a time...
Gunthr
-
"Napster is just the radio of the internet. You can download songs from napster, or you can record them off the radio. Same thing."
It is the same thing....both practices are illegal.
-
It doesnt matter if napster, the company goes out of bussiness or are closed/jailed/whatever. Their software is out there..in huge amounts.
Heck, wasnt napster closed for a few weeks when they got into legal trouble? What happened then? People kept sharing files..thats the whole napster program for you. There is no need to have a centralized server. When napster was closed, the amounts of downloads sure were huge, but when it WAS closed, thousands of other servers "popped up" all across the world. Heck, there was even a "napigator" that would search the internet for a napster server. I'd like to see a US court try and close a server in say, the middle of China or in an alley in Hong Kong.
When metallica whined, you could still find ALL their songs in these servers without the "this is copyrighted material, you will be shut down" (or whatever) messages that would come up if you were using an official napster server.
I dont buy CD's because I dont want to pay like 20 bucks for just one or 2 songs that I like. Its bad bussiness for ME.
I remember there was an internet based company that marketed "custom made" CD's, where you would pay per song. What happened was you could put music from different bands into one CD and you would then "check out" and pay the cost. The price + S&H was about the same price as a CD on the store. It was a GREAT idea. One day the wesbite dissapeared and never saw it again. I did get 5 great CD's from them. Never found a similar company doing that either (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/frown.gif)
If record companies had done something like that, their profits not only would be enormous since people would buy CD's filled with the stuff they wanted and liked. They wouldve made me a VERY happy cd-buyer too. But they preffered to stick to selling high priced cd's filled with crap and only one or 2 songs I liked... and I would only buy a cd when I had extra cash and happened to be walking by a CD store and saw the CD (which is a very rare occassion).
Then Napster came along. Now this is free. Illegal or not, the record companies only have themselves to blame for this.
I love napster. I've found songs from bands that are struggling to get discovered, and Napster certainly helps them a LOT in that sense. www.crosswinds.net/~the475thfg/casualties.mp3 (http://www.crosswinds.net/~the475thfg/casualties.mp3) is an example of such a group. (please download it, its a GREAT song & great music).Napster has infected the market share of the record companies, and it will never heal.
LONG LIVE THE INTERNET! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Tac (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
any guitar players out there?
remember OLGA - the online guitar tablature place - people would post their versions of all kinds of songs so basically you could download free sheet music.
it was great! (and still is)
they got heat from the shrews who owned the rights to the songs and eventually got a cease and desist order - thier answer was to continuously move the archive to a different server - one in poland one in florida and so on just ahead of the authorities -
the music was just a musician's interpretations of the songs and they made no money on it anyway - i remember paying $25 or more for books of sheet music when i was learning to play - OLGA had about every song you could think of right there for free - they weren't always 100% accurate but close enough
-
"It is the same thing....both practices are illegal."
If it's illegal, why do they make blank tapes, tape recorders, VCR's, recordable CD's, CD to CD recorders, and everything else like that. The SALE of recorded items is illegal.
[This message has been edited by NATEDOG (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
Napster is fine if you have patience.
I don't, but my fiance does.
I'd rather just buy the CD or have my buddy write a copy onto a CD.
QUIET
------------------
(http://members.aol.com/rwohorror/skull03.gif)
[This message has been edited by Quiet109 (edited 01-31-2001).]
-
... or the trading, Nate.
Blank tapes, recordable CD's etc. are for your own personal use. It does not allow for making your files open to any stranger that likes what ya have and decides to download it. It doesn't not allow for you to peruse 1000's of computers for something you like in return. Why? Neither of ya own it.
But don't take my word for it. Try this. Open up yer garage this sunday - plant a large sign in yer yard that says "Latest blockbuster releases copied on VHS. Will give you 3 for every one I recieve in return". Then tell the cops that will show up at yer door innabout, oh, 5 minutes that it's ok 'cuz ya legally purchased the blank VHS tapes.
Btw - it's nothing remotely LIKE radio. Because radio pays royalties on the songs it plays. In return, radio gets to subject you to advertisements. See, that's the business agreement the two parties worked out. I guess they never went to the 'entitlement' school of business the rest of ya did.
Yer well aware of Freehost, Nate. I would love it if ya could explain how this is different... I mean, (and to paraphrase your post), why do they make computers, disk drives and everything else like that if it were illegal? It would only be the SALE of Freehost that would be illegal...
Er....right?
It's all intellectual property Nate. And the internet is really a new frontier WRT these issues. I woulda guessed you'd be a bit more sensitive to them, actually, seeing as HTC's livelyhood is really no different than a song.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
Napster itself does nothing illegal. It's a medium to facilitate file exchange. Are the files legal or illegal? This has to be decided by applying current law to each individual transaction, obviously a gigantic undertaking. The fact that Napster was nearly shut down last summer demonstrates the extent of corporate control over our legal system.
If we look at the bigger picture, I think that Napster represents the first crack in the dam of corporate control. The ubiquitous nature of the Internet will now allow fans to communicate with and purchase music directly from the artists themselves. I have no problem with throwing a few bucks directly to a starving artist or even to a rich one if they produce something I enjoy. I think it's kind of cool. I believe this portends future business models; that of decentralized economic units.
-
Yeah blur, and it is THIS that the record companies cry out about; the possibility of not being the deciders, the possibility of someone finding a different way of distributing themselves.
To hell with them
blur, natedog, I'll buy you a beer for the radio argument and that last statement (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
I agree with ya there, blur. I can't say it pains me to see the record companies bleed over this. The way napster works right now, though - the creators of the work don't see a dime for it. Ah I dunno... maybe the extent of the piracy is neccessary to bring about a shift in the relationship between the musician's labour and the compensation for it. That *would* be pretty cool.
It's tricky though. Take away the wretched record companies, and who pays for the recording costs ($200,000-$500,000)? That expense has to come up front. Yer not going to see the banks floating loans like that to musicians. I don't care how much mrfish thinks musicians should work for free, there's still a ton of cash involved in getting the music from the garage of some band into yer car stereo. It will be interesting.
-
er... but don't get me wrong. It still is piracy. You make that choice. As long as you do, you completely forfeit your right to complain about what goes on in China or the folks here in AH who abuse the free 2 weeks. It's no different.
-
Nash, you can download this game for free, you can play it off line for free, you can play it H2H for free, you can even have a 8 person host for free, but you gotta pay to go to the big show... just like in music, you can download it for free, you can listen to it on the radio for free, you can barrow it from a friend for free, you can even hear it at a club or party for free, but you gotta pay to go to the big show. you even have to pay for a quaility CD..... music sales have gone up since Napster came along, people are buying stuff that they would have never bought if it wasn't for Napster. I have! I'm not saying that no one is abusing Napster, cuz alot of people are. I'm just saying that Napster is bringing back music to where it use to be, where everything was about the live shows! If they think the only way they can make money is with concerts, just think how bad bellybutton those shows will be. I support all my local bands, and all my friends' bands, and if Napster can help them along the way, like it already has, I'm all for it.
------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-
".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "
-
In other words, I would much rather give my money to the band, not the record company.
------------------
Nathan "NATEDOG" Mathieu
Art Director
HiTech Creations
-=HELLFIRE SQUAD=-
".... And on the eighth day, God created beer. "
-
StSanta I'll take you up on that beer offer as long as it's a homebrew and not the product of an environmentally unconscious ethically amoral multi-national mega-corporate dictatorship. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Kudos on yer support of local bands, Nate. Texas (especially Austin) has always been a great area for live music. You're very lucky. Up here the majority of live music venues have been converted into, well, basically discos. Buncha teens blitzed out on E swaying to BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM. Went on tour with a band throughout the USA a couple of years ago, and the same thing was pretty much starting to happen there as well.
And the record companies should be shot for spoon feeding the masses complete crap for the past few years. But these things are cyclical, for the most part. It was a pretty neat time, say, 10-15 years ago (has it been that long??!) when bands like Husker Du, the Replacements and the Pixies started to surface and turn the music industry on its ear. I suspect this will happen again relatively shortly... and who knows - maybe Napster will be the reason for it.
I'm kinda torn on the issue, to be honest.
-
nash - the record companies would still put up the money for the recording and production, which is minimal compared to sales revenue - in fact their production costs are so small its practically a crime for them to charg $16 or more per cd - and they would still make a profit. the profit for the record companies would just be less definitely nowhere near zero.
as natedog mentioned the band would still make money just less for the rec. co. because their revenue stream form recording would go down but their touring income would remain static. they make less profit but there is still profit being made - quite a bit
besides - cd sales have increased 8 straight quarters despite napster - these worthless record co's are simply worried about losing a portion of the profit not all of it - they will make less but they will still be multi-millionaires and so will the band so who cares? i mean what is the difference between
10 million and 17 million? how many ferraris and mansions does one need?
-
That makes absolutely no sense to me, mrfish. It's a combination of being uninformed, screwy math, and you imposing what you think someone should earn, rather than the market deciding that for itself. Can't really comment further.
-
<S> fair enough nash - i have this wacky notion that artists can make really good money compared to people who have real jobs and still conduct themselves like human beings with more than the holy almighty dollar driving their decisions - you are right about the market though - it will have the final say
-
Yeah, how many child day cares does Micheal Jackson need to own/run?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
The Kinks, Lola vs. Powerman and Moneyground, 1970.
Wonder what Ray Davies thinks about MP3 and Napster.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
Just noticed a so-called "freehost" was mentioned here...
In fact, many people even from relatively "poor" Russia think that Russian WB server is the place where they can train for free before signing on to the "Real" WB. No kidding, it's true.
------------------
With respect,
Pavel Pavlov,
Commissar 25th IAP WB VVS
-
I will not pay for downloading the compressed junk called MP3...
MP3 has some use when played through computer speakers. But for serious listening no self respecting music lover will ever play MP3 =)
If I like an artist, I buy the record. Napster is just a way to search for new music, try out different styles and artists with ease. (Ease which is relative, on many days its jammed useless..)
So in that sense Napster is only beneficial for the new artists hoping for their break.
(One good example of this is Darude who recorded his hobby music on MP3, spreaded it on internet and is now nr. 1 on european hit singles chart.. I don't see HIM complaining.)
Of course I can see the lost market in all the youngsters with their portable cd-radioplayers (suitable for making background noise.) But the reality is that those kids couldnt afford to buy records anyway, so nobody really loses there. In my experience, the people who listen to music seriously and own a lot of records will not trade down in quality.
As much as many people would like it, MP3 can never reach the quality of the original recording. There's a market even for the next generation of cd, SACD (Super-Audio Compact Disc.) For many, the 16-bit CD quality is not enough.
Sure an MP3 coded at 320Kb/s can come close to the original CD. Still, due to extra processing, its performing worse than the original (if not for any other reason, then for going through several pre-amp stages, and even worse, some embedded audio device in the coding computer.) And with low compression rates the limit for the amount of stored music maxes out fast in the portable devices.
Sure the computer can store 80 gigs easy and cheap these days.. But most computers generate enough background noise by themselves to cancel any serious listening.
Not to mention computer remote controls are pretty rare stuff even today.
The day they charge for Napster, happens two things: Napster the original dies.
Bootleg hacked Napster servers will set up in Russia and other generally lawless places.
- Business will continue underground as usual..
.02
-
If Napster allowed millions of users free access to subcription based services (like MA access to AH, for instance), would you feel differently Nate? I'm curious, because we are on opposite sides of this discussion.
MiG
-
"If Napster allowed millions of users free access to subcription based services (like MA access to AH, for instance), would you feel differently Nate? I'm curious, because we are on opposite sides of this discussion."
thats really not a justifiable comparison, Napster isnt doing ANYTHING, the users are, I use napster most of the time to fiind comedy routiens and funny sound bites, or other stuff. Napster doesent allow anyone to get into a restricted area of any kind or to bust past pay services, i just allows people to trade mp3's
comparing it to hacking into pay to play game is unrealistic dirty pool.
-
Originally posted by MiG Eater:
If Napster allowed millions of users free access to subcription based services (like MA access to AH, for instance), would you feel differently Nate? I'm curious, because we are on opposite sides of this discussion.
MiG
Eh? On one hand, you've got a company actively hacking into another company's software and providing access to it. On the other hand, you've got a company providing users with a way to swap files with an .mp3 extension point to point between themselves.
I see you were trying to make a point, but that's a pretty big leap...you're comparing apples to oranges there.
SOB
-
I disagree that this is an apples and oranges comparison. There is a direct comparison between the two. Aces High is a creative work that is distributed for free with the hopes that people will pay for access to Main Arena online player service. The software that runs the service, I assume, is proprietary and copyrighted. HiTech Creations chooses to provide the only method that allows large scale public play. This gives the folks at HiTech an income and a reason to keep producing updated versions and improving the online service.
Recorded music is a creative work that many musicians hope to make money from through distribution services like record companies, for instance. For people that have made music their career, from bar bands up to mega groups, they depend on income to live. Buyers aren't paying for the creative work (the music, in this case), they are paying for the way it is delivered to the consumer. Yes, everone down the chain gets a cut and CD's are way overpriced but a musician can make enough on their percentage to make a living if their work is popular. The musician can choose not to work a full time job and have the ability to create better or new music that will support him or herself. Napster removes the need to buy CD's or download pay-for-play songs. It allows unrestrained public distribution of copyrighted creative works by 17 million+ users.
Imagine if a service came along that distributed the software that runs the AH Main Arena and associated servers. What if it allowed anyone to set up their own large scale arenas for free public access? Many would not feel compelled to pay HiTech a monthly subscription for a service that they can get for free. If there were enough of these arenas, HT may not be able to afford the legal fees to shut them all down.
Re. my example in the post above: Would Nate feel compelled to keep creating the artwork for the amazing airplanes we fly if people flew in public AH arenas made free by a third party? Would we see continuous updates if the programmers did not derive income from their work? The answers maybe yes, just as some musicians are happy-as-can-be knowing their music is being heard by the masses with no thought about compensation. I'd bet the answer would be no to both questions, however (I don't know if everyone at HT is a paid employee, so forgive me if this is a bad assumption). I can state, without a doubt, that it sure is better to get paid for your work than to not get paid.
Musicians and programmers both like pizza <G>, but you still need an income to pay for it.
MiG
[This message has been edited by MiG Eater (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
Exactly, MiG. It's the same thing and most definitely NOT an apples and oranges comparison.
Imagine if a service came along that distributed the software that runs the AH Main Arena and associated servers.
Thus freehost is "the radio" of the flight sim world.
Try this...
6 people band together to create an original work of intellectual property. At the start, they typically make jack-all money for it, and work insane hours in the hopes that they will be successful in that people enjoy what they've produced and will reward them for it. At this point, some may even develop nasty drinking habits (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif). And at this point, their chances of failure are monumentally greater than their chances of success. But they continue on and finally create that work. They then copyright it and decide on appropriate channels of distribution and terms (pricing etc.) It is understood that if people enjoy the product enough, they will pay for it. If not enough people enjoy it, they don't get paid, and will likely be out looking for new jobs sooner than later.
Then overnight, another group of people create inanimate, morally ambivelant lines of code (much the same as it's not the guns that kill people, right?) that allow you to bypass that distribution channel as well as receive the product absolutley, 100%, unjustifiably, free of charge.
So seriously... who am I talking about here? Bands and Napster? Or WBs and Freehost?
-
comparing hackers cracking an AH server to a program that allows people to share their mp3's is RETARDED. Your just trying to play the guilt card against napster.
NAPSTER IS COMING!! HIDE YOUR DAUGHTERS!
-
All right then wobble, tell me how it's different? Bear in mind - you can't use the sharing of uncopyrighted files defence. Get serious - like you use napster strictly for the purposes of recording fart sounds and swapping them with yer neighbours.
Mind you, with you I don't exactly put that oustide the realm of possibility. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Anyways, the so called "sharing" of *copyrighted* files, however, is indeed illegal, and is something most everyone here so far has copped to. Hence - you're using the program illegally to enjoy copyrighted work.
Yer turn wobble.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
Yup, its illegal, but then again so is driving with no shoes on, but ive never been ticketed for it, why? cause its on the fringe of law and does no real harm and is an outdated law.
Plus seeing as how its illegal it must hurt the people who make the music, the artists right? well why do most of the artsists who are traded on napster not mind it, or even like Napster, if it does so much harm?, why havent record sales gone down since it came our? in fact they have gone UP so ya cant say the record companies are being hurt by it either. for it to be a crime there must be a victim, and yet so far there has been NO proof that anyone is getting hurt by it.
With no proof that anybody has ever been harmed by Napster I fail to see how its wrong, much less how its a crime.
I do see, and very much respect Your argument though, its one of the best I have seen.
-
<shrug>
This whole justification routine is clearly a demonstration of a lack of respect for musicians, and what they offer to society. Nothing new, really.
All it amounts to is lowering the value of music and the people who create it to the point where piracy is tolerable. Hell, justifiable. It's ok for music, but not ok for software. Nice values at work here.
Try to think about how large a part music was in your growing up, and how large a part it is in your life right now - even though you might not even realize it in those terms.
Your 'diddly the parents' songs, your break-up songs, your wedding song, the songs you listened to when you graduated and became yer own man, and the songs you listen to that remind you of those things.
Cheesy, right? But is this of such trivial value to you? Do you think of the scum sucking industry and the over-paid musicians (yeah right) when you listen to them? Do you realize the enormous ammount of absolute toejam, nevermind the next to impossible odds, that the person whose voice is now coming out yer Volvo's JBL speakers had to wade through?
What if Lennon, Hendrix and hell I dunno, the Clash... or who cares... U2, whatever floats yer boat... What if they had decided to get "real jobs" instead? If you dig music to the extent that you use Napster to find it, then surely this idea, and this attitude, must make you a bit uncomfortable, no?
It seems not. But again... not too suprising, really.
Sad.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
DAMN, yer good at this Nash!
but I still must ask, who is being hurt?
record sales havent gone down since napster, so the artists and record companies still get just as much if not more money.
And when they artists whome you are portreying as victims are asked about their feelings about napster they say that they dont mind it, and many like it. If it was hurting them in any way why would they say that?
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
Ya can't use a statistic like that wobble... because record sales, much the same as movie rentals, are pretty much always on the rise. Just the same as each summer there is nearly always a new record setting movie. How that is, I don't know.
What I do know is that for every CD you d/l instead of pay for, you are directly taking money out of a musician's pocket just as if you reached into his pocket and pulled it out. What does your not paying for his work amount to? A couple of bucks. A bagel and a coffee, pretty much. Hehe yeah, I kind of like that. For every CD you d/l instead of pay for, you are stealing a bagel and a coffee... from someone who had to live on Kraft dinner in order to create the work you appreciate so much that you choose to steal it from him (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
So think of that! You Napster Freaks (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Uhm...but seriously, stats show that record sales are down almost 5% within a five mile radius of college campuses. This despite the natural rise in sales everywhere else (why is that? growing population? I dunno). A couple of interesting things about that stat, however...
Napster is basically the domain of college students. They are the ones most keenly interested in music, and the uhm, demographic most keenly familiar with Napster. Napster was *created* by a couple of college students. Now, 30-40 year olds use Napster, sure... but they are also used to paying for music. What happens when a whole generation comes of age that has no concept of paying for music?
Another thing too... The kind of music that turns a college student's crank is most definitely NOT yer Britney Agualara World Singer Bon Jonvi pop phenom. They are the Pavements, the GBVs, etc. that, let me make clear, aint nowhere NEAR rich. In all likelyhood they literally shake their coat so as to let the change fall to a point where they can reach through the lining in their pocket to finesse it out and give to the Starbucks girl for the coffee and bagel.
I don't care HOW diddlyed up the music biz is; you are stealing from these people. Like I said, you make that choice. But justifying it borders on insulting.
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-01-2001).]
-
Reflecting on it, I think I'm restraining myself quite admirably, truth be told.
What I could say, is.....
Don't be diddlying morons about this. If ya like it and want to own it - gawdamn pay for it... you cheap bastards.
SHEESH.
But no, I wont go that far (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
"record sales, much the same as movie rentals, are pretty much always on the rise. Just the same as each summer there is nearly always a new record setting movie. How that is, I don't know"
very good point i never thought of it that way.
Artists get anywhere from 7-12 cents for every CD they sell, I think thats pretty screwed up. And usually when I dl something from Napster its only 1 song that I like, I have never dl's more than 3 songs from a single album, if it has more than 3 I buy it. I just cannot make myself pay $15 for a cd, that IMO has only 1 or 2 good songs, especally knowing that the artist who made it is only going to get a dime of that $15,
So in other words I dont want to pay a record company who didnt even make the Album $14.90 for 1 or 2 songs on it, thats $15 for about 7 miniutes of music. the artists are getting dicked by the record companies BAD, and the record companies (and thos who believe them) point thei finger at Napster as a good scapegoat. Thast why the Artists dont mind napster, they arnt the ones ling money, the record companies are. Maby if the record companies gave the artist a fair deal they would actually care if they lost a few copies to a free service.
I must admit Nash, looking from a straight legal standpoint you for sure are right, but I and many like me are REBELS!!
VIVE LA REVOLUTION!!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I like your arguing style btw (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
You don't like the industry, you have better ideas, therefore it's ok. Maybe you don't like the fact that AH hasn't enough clouds, or if the niki makes two complete circles, it still retains enough E to power California and half of Oregon. Or maybe you don't like the fact that they charge 30 bucks and perhaps they aint paying Nate enough. Steal from them too.... why not, eh?
Like this is... uh... YOUR call to make?
REBEL? VIVA LA REVOLUTION?
If only Gandhi, Marx, or Jefferson were around to witness this great act defiance. Frame it however ya want - you don't give a toejam about that. While ya sit there chompin' on yer third bag of pork rinds, you reach over, click a button and it plays you a song. That's all, wobble. No, seriously man, that's all.
-
"niki makes two complete circles, it still retains enough E to power California and half of Oregon"
I would like to use napster to "steal" some of the Nik's E
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I was joking about the "vive la revolution" toejam ya doofus. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I use napster, I will continue to use it until its banned (and that wont be easy)
But the only person's opinion that will change my outlook untill i see some proff that its doing damage is mine, and i feel that paying $15 for 7 miniutes of music justifies my "theft" and to me YES thats all that matters.
"Maybe you don't like the fact that AH hasn't enough clouds...steal from them"
That apple tastes like an orange to me (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
why dont ya do a "save the children" analogy too
-
Go listen to some music or something.... you're boring me hehe (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
And don't take my ribbing seriously... Take comfort in the fact that if I have an opinion on something, it's common that 99% of the folks around here seem to disagree with it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
They're good people though (for a bunch of overweight, ill informed, wife beating lemmings!) ... so yer in fine company. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-02-2001).]
-
Alright Nash, seeing as how the 2 of us have pretty much ran away with this thread lets call it a day. I must say I really like yer style of debate, arguing with you has been a pleasure, and I am ashamed to say you have made me hate myslef a little for using Napster...BUT JUST A LITTLE! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<SALUTE!>
-
Allright then! Now lets turn our attention and give it up for former President Bill Clinton! CAN I GET A WITNESS?!?
EVERYONE, put yer HANDS together and... er... People... uh...people...? Hello? ....anyone... there? .... uhm... wobble?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by Nash (edited 02-02-2001).]
-
Btw Saintaw, yah KYUSS were unbeleivable. The two QOTSA albums are killer too.
Co-co-co-co-co-COCAINE!
Check here fer yer KYUSS:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=music&field-keywords=%20%20KYUSS&bq=1/ref=aps_more_pm_1/107-2563966-3296513 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=music&field-keywords=%20%20KYUSS&bq=1/ref=aps_more_pm_1/107-2563966-3296513)
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Or just use Napster.... did a search and it was littered with it.
-
Nash, you sure SOUND like a conservative in here? Are you really a closet REPUBLICAN?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Is it so hard to understand?
Napster is a tool like guns or even like "Notepad".
Theres always people who use tools like these in a wrong way but does it really meant tools like those should be illegal?
Some people drive their cars overspeed; Shouldn't you make a law against cars and draw car-manufactories to court?
I can already see newspapers telling:
"Nobody wont drive overspeed anymore in our highways because owning/using a car is illegal, Hallelujah !"
Think about it.
-
No matter how you feel about Napster, everyone is going to have to pay for access soon...
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/29/fee.based.napster.idg/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/computing/01/29/fee.based.napster.idg/index.html)
MiG
-
Oh well, Guess I need to use AudioGnome or Gnutella then (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Staga, don't worry. The old service will still be free (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://store4.yimg.com/I/demotivators_1619_3845234)
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I think." - A. Eldritch
-
57 million users = a paradigm shift
Gunthr
-
oops
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 02-02-2001).]
-
I think that many people are forgetting that Napster works equally as an opportunity provider for new artists. People download and try tunes they'd never buy from a shop - simply because they're unknown to them.
I found one of my favourite artists through borrowing a record from a friend of mine (no I didn't have napster yet) and with this philosophy what I did was illegal right?
I didn't pay the artist for using his product...
However, I doubt the artist is very sad today since I liked his music so much that I own probably 90% of his known production in CD's at the moment.