Feelings on Napster?

Am I buggin you?....don't mean to bug ya.

Issabre, your second post from the top says that you consider yourself to be an artist. You also have lived in Africa and seem fairly educated. If I were playing Sherlock Holmes, I would deduce that you come from a wealthy family and have a MAJOR chip on your shoulder because you had it better than most. My advice would be to either feed this need(chip) and give up all of your worldly posessions. Don't do it all at once however, as you will be able to gain valuable insight into what it feels like to "have it all", then "nothing", and what it feels like to be at all levels in between. You then could write a book about each of those perspectives from a humanistic standpoint, of course. In the end though, no one would buy your book and you'd be broke and cursing Capitalism in addition to all the damned, wayward souls that occupy the USA. You would then realize that nobody bought the book because it was "a downer" and people were actually happy with their lives! You'd further realize that you were WRONG about all of your assumptions in the past! Unfortunatley, you'd still be broke but you could take heart as you experience firsthand the generousity of our society and people who live here. You would not starve and you would not die just for having differing ideas than the people who live around you (like some of those communist places you admire). NOW, get that chip off your shoulder, stick to the thread and discuss some AUDIO related topics. And if you do get rid of some worldly goods - start with your computer - then you wouldn't have to worry about Napster and we wouldn't have to read your rantings!!!

Treyhoss, first of all, If you were playing Sherlock Holmes you would have traced the past 54 posts back to the first one and discovered (brilliantly) who is the moderator of this thread. And because I posted the original statement, I can lead the discussion in any direction I please. Secondly, if you were a handy Sherlock Holmes you would have taken time to read all the subsequent posts, and noticed a couple of things...JK means Just Kidding, which would indicate a friendly jest on my part to get the juices flowing. It worked sure enough, however, everyone here is so busy being offended to the core they couldn't possibly pick up the elements of humor in my posts, say nothing about present a calm reponse. Thirdly, having read all the subsequent post you would have been able traced the line of thought to the present topic so you don't appear like a mental troll. But you might consider retiring your badge altogther Sherlock, because every single one of your assumptions was wrong. DEAD WRONG. PARTICULARLY THE ONE ABOUT NO ONE READING MY WRITING BECAUSE YOU DID. Let me give you a clue, when you have no concrete evidence to go on don't make accusations. I won't spend any more time boring you with the details of how wrong you are because your present post makes clear your inability to reflect on anything outside your own realm of experience. While I'm schooling you, I'll tell you another thing. This is a discussion forum. Discussion usually involves several points of view. If you can handle different perspective and stand upright (the callouses on your knuckles will soon disappera) and discuss things rationally. If you can't handle points of view different than your own, than join the church of Eber in another thread. I had previously thought this to be a discussion forum full of intelligent gentlemen willing to sanely discuss differing points of view. But all this whining and blithering and "go away, dummy" has changed my opinion altogether. You all are behaving like a pack of skittish poodles.

While you may have posted this topic, you do not own it or control it. I last looked at this post when it was about the topic you were presenting for discussion. I read everyone's comments and found them to be interesting. I even threw in my 2c at the time! I checked back a few days later and started reading things like this: "Basically, this combination has resulted in a nation of extreme wealth, little collective conciousness or conscience (america consumes far far more than its porportional share of resources), (in my opinion)a largely miserable society (as evidence in our incredibly high crime rates, suicide rates, incidence of psychological disturbance..etc." Maybe I haven't been caught up in the day-to-day progress of this thread (I am trying to be happy in my work). As I don't know you, my responses intent was to present irony - not a personal attack (did you not find irony in the writing?). If your intent was to get "the juices flowing" by espousing points of view that could be VASTLY different from someone elses - why wouldn't you expect someone to take your bait? Perhaps I did get carried away at the end and I will apologize for that - as soon as I can get upright and pomice the calouses off my knuckles. Thank you for "schooling me" and I apologize for missing all of your jokes in your earlier statements. They must have been riding on an 80kHz wave and went right over my head.

Issabre, or whoever you are, as soon as you want to discuss something in an intelligent manner WITHIN YOUR OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, rather than vomiting forth false-anectdotal blather that wastes the electricity of Audiogon's server (i.e., try to keep away from bs like "the majority of Americans are unhappy"), and perhaps even stick to audio subjects, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO CARRY ON SUCH A DISCUSSION WITH YOU................And yes, I take partial responsibility for the political side-trip of this thread, and of course I realize neither of us is budging on that; only a fool would think we would, so let's not waste time with that anymore...........................Napster: I'm going to try it, gonna download several terabytes (or so) of free music, and burn CD-R's. Have you done this? Have you found the 128 mbit transfer rate items to be "close" to CD quality, or have you compared directly? It'd be nice if they were, because the idea that much of, if not all music, (especially digitally stored music) should be free, is appealing to those of us who need to save money. I've spent way too much on all the vinyl reissues to be enthusiastic about paying for music in ANY format anymore, much less CD format.

No, I've found that it's not very good quality at all, with alot of the longer pieces cut off unnaturally. And unless your using a T1 or DSL service, it's laboriously slow. However, it will allow you to get into some music that previously you might not have been inclined listen to or to purchase. Then of course you can purchase the music that you really do like on CD or vinyl. Some of the stuff that I was not familiar with previously was stuff from Ali Farka Toure, Fela and Femi Kuti, and a bunch of Brazilian from Joao Gilberto and Stan Getz and Cuban stuff and believe it or not David Brubeck. Also, I'd not been really heavily into classical, but used the thread in Best of Audio "most achingly beautiful music" downloaded some of it and really enjoyed it particularly the the adagios. However, unless technology signficiantly progresses, the MP3 will not be a mainstay for audiophiles for quite some time. I've thought about getting into vinyl, but it strikes me as extremely expensive and lots more parts to tweak to bring the system. Is it really worth all the extra effort and expense?

My feeling about vinyl, is that it's something that needs to appeal to you on a gadget level. You have to find joy in the process, or else you won't want to get into it. If you've not played vinyl on a highend table before, i suggest you find a friend who has one, and watch him. Then ask if you can try it. I find it quite fun, and with all the reissues, it's certainly worthwhile from a sonic performance point of view. When I got into this hobby 5 years ago, I was curious about classical and jazz, but didn't know much about them. I just started buying all sorts of titles, and especially the ones from the golden era of stereo. I've not really come across anything I don't like, other than the recording quality sometimes (it might be in mono, but not labled as such...etc.) I will still try a bunch of downloads thru Napster, mostly modern rock stuff that is probably better had, free....heh heh...........If you are in the southeast, you are welcome to come visit my system sometime, Issabre. I've found the only path to audio happiness, is to have both vinyl, and CD.

I don't know if I'm that type of person. While I love great sound, I find myself easily distracted by a noisy tube or a scratched cd. I don't know anyone with a good turntable, but I was thinking of just getting a old thorens off ebay and taking a listen. That way, I won't spend too much cash and can hear what everyone is talking about. Sure, I'd love to drop in and take a listen and since I'm from the southeast I go there often to visit the fam. The invitation is reciprical if your in Washington DC However, my system isn't all that yet. But maybe you could help me tweak it to sound better.

Yes, my system isn't up to the very best standards either, and I can't afford the really expensive stuff. I'm not much of a tweak freak, and my listening rooms aren't in service to decor considerations, either. Those will always be compromised IMO. I'm 115 miles north of Atlanta, and hope to have my "higher output" system back in the basement "cave" sometime after Labor Day............................Regarding Napster....I must say, I love it! The joy of saving thousands of dollars is sweet! MUSIC WILL ALWAYS BE FREE...Muh hah hah hah hah haahhhh..........Well, that which should be free, anyway, since it's compressed/limited/mixed/pan-potted, and meant to go along with the kiddies in convertibles....the top down, the Kickers booming...at 140 mph...life is sweet.

I grew up, at least partly in northern georgia, my grandparents had a house in Macon county, near the line with North Carolina, in the mountains. I spent my childhood in the mountains there, working in Highlands north carolina, if you know where that is. Re: Napster--glad your having fun with it. Apparently your living life in a faster lane than I (I'm still dealing with a 56k modem). I've not burned any CD's as I don't own a burner. How did it turn out?

Oh, I only have a 56k also, you just have to do it 24 hours a day that way. Not good, and what I hate is when you get halfway thru a download, and the host suddenly decides to log off...what a pain. I need to go to a place with T-1 connection sometime, and use a zip drive..........I've not burned any yet, no super hurry on that. The hurry is in getting all I want (a lot) before they're ordered to cease operations...I only have 75 songs so far................I've been thru the NC mountains several times. On the way to Asheville on highway 64, you go thru a lot of little old towns, that probably look similar to the way they did, pre-WWII era. I love the Vanderbilt mansion, I wish my future dream house could be similar...heh heh heh.

I see napster like a trial program. You get the general idea of the program but your distracted by banners, register windows, and limited funcionality. I use napster to download something im interested in, burn it, and listen to it for a while to see if I like it. If I like it I buy it because mp3s sound horible on and good system. They are by definition compressed music. I haven't bought a cd since the begining of napster before lisining to it first. Whenever a mp3 is played on a good system it's like listining to a register now window.

Not all of them sound the same, some are pretty close to CD. The transfer rate doesn't tell the whole story, either. Some at 128 sound superior to a 256, it's just a matter of how well the original was captured. For instance, if a CD was copied at several times normal speed (before MP3 conversion), then the sonic ills are obvious. My reason for using Napster, is to get the music I am unwilling to buy, but would still like to listen to. This amounts to a lot of music, and saves me many thousands of dollars off the retail price of those CD's. I've already spent many thousands of dollars on both CD, and especially recent vinyl reissues, so I feel I'm owed a "break" of sorts. They've made plenty of money off of me since I first started buying music 16 years ago, afterall...

Also, it's nice to be able to get that stuff that can't be bought in stores (or anywhere), if you catch my drift. Sure, the sonic quality of those is compromised, but so what? I'm a music lover, where my favorite music is concerned (the "audiophile" music is what you show your system off with, mostly)...and it's not my fault that they'll never release a live concert album...

Stealing is stealing.There is no justification for it. It,s that simple.

Nobody ever bitches about people trading tapes. This is the same as tape trading or loaning your cd's to your buddies, but done over the internet. I have bought more cd's this year than any other year because of Napster. I hear something I like and I go buy it. Out of the 3000 cd's I own I have definitely bought more than a few lemons. Now with Napster I can see what it's like before I spend my money on cd rack filler. Maybe I should write Napster and tell them to charge the record companies for the "advertising" that they provide. These big companies always cry foul and bitch about new technology until it helps them turn a profit. If they had their way we wouldn't own VCR's, cassette decks, minidiscs, DAT's, etc. It sure is funny how the movie industry cried like little babies until they started selling more tapes than they ever imagined, then they quit their crying. This is only my opinion, but give it some honest thought.

Right ON Grumpy!!

Hi Grumpy, I agree with what you say about swapping CD's between friends, etc. I think the idea here though is that Napster is making a profit. Someone's paying for the server space, the salaries AND their legal fees, right? I read a relevant article in today's paper about this very issue. It was a stance that the Greatful Dead has taken. We all know the Dead have always allowed people to record their concerts and have had one of the most "open" policies regarding music sharing of any established band. I think these brief comments may put the issue in more perspective: "Although the Dead officially remains neutral in the Napster controversy, the service violates a policy the band established a few months before the immensely popular Web site started last year. As digital audio files such as MP3 emerged as a viable format, the Dead reiterated its long-standing commitment to allowing fans to trade recordings of the band's 2,300 concerts. Under the April 1999 policy, though, the Dead declared that "no commercial gain may be sought by Web sites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means." The reason is clear, why should a "service", such as Napster make a buck they didn't earn? They shoudn't, because it's wrong and it's theft. I think justice will prevail in the end but it's a shame Napster will be fighting it in court, paying the attorney's with money they never earned!!!!

C'mon people!! "Thou shell not steal..." is ANOTHER lie, you've being told! You've been "riped-off" by your employer, your dentist, plumber, garage mechanic, insurance agent, lawyer...ex wife or girlfriend, every day of your life!! And you are worry about some "poor" spoiled-ass rock "star", getting paid?

Napster Doesn't make money for the people who run it. Do you see any advertisements? NO. They make there money by getting hired to do other jobs and they get payed big time. Napster gave these guys a name and put it out there. Now everybody wants to use them for something. That's where they get there money. If they actually made a penny directly from napster say from ads then there is no way the judge would have been kind enough to allow napster to stay up. There arguments would have meant dirt because everybody would see that they would be using napster out of plain greed like the record companies greed. Also I would never buy most of the songs albums I downloaded anyway. there just one hit wonders. But when I find good stuff I'll buy the CD. I dicovered terry bozzio's music and I'm going to buy some of his cd's. I would have never known about his own albums if I didn't search his name on napster and get to hear what he does.

We don't "buy" properties like recordings or software unless our name is Gates, Verve, etc. In most cases a record company, software developer or individual retains the actual rights of ownership. What we pay for is the right to use a property within certain boundaries. Commercial use of these properties without paying an additional royalty, as well as unlicensed distribution to other users, even at no gain to ourselves, is generally disallowed by Federal statute. So, while they may not be breaking the law directly (and the courts will rule on this point soon), Napster and others like them, such as warez sites, do encourage their users to steal by facilitating their actions (the appropriate slang is "fence"). That makes them suspect of being an accessory to the crime. And it is a crime. My wish is that somehow an arrangement will be worked out so that samples of music can be legally distributed using a vehicle like Napster. Properly implemented it wouldn't cut into sales and could be a boon to the industry. But until some agreement is reached and the owners of the materials in question agree to the open distribution of their property I have to take the position that Napster is engaged in illegal activity or at very least encouraging it. With twenty years in the software business I've developed quite a negative attitude toward those that willingly steal others' work. If it's too expensive, don't buy it. But don't make up excuses about being wronged in the past and present to rationalize why it's OK. It's still theft and it's still wrong.

Fpeel well put.Stealing is stealing.

Let's make one thing clear. I am not against the concept of a Napster. In fact, I think that's the way we're all headed. Complile a favorite song list, downoad it to a flash chip the size of a pack of gum and throw it into your nearest MP-3 player. This will probably become so seamless it will replace radio some day. I think it is not an argument or an indictment of the technolgy but of the company's practice. This is akin to downloading all movies into a database(via individuals who own a digital copy of it) and allowing you to view on-line. This could well be the case in ten years or less! Is the argument then supposed to be; "Wow I like it on-line, now I'm going to buy a ticket and see it at the theater!" Or "I liked it, now I'm going to buy it on DVD"! I don't think so. Yes, we may be talking about songs right now, but think about the legal precedent it would set! And it wouldn't stop there. Do we really want more specialized laws - or more laws in general? That's what would happen if Napster wins this thing.

After spending the last 20 minutes reading ALL of these titillating posts, I'm just happy to see that Carl Eber and Issabre kissed and made up. It just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling about being a modern day audiophile...I think I'll go buy some new cable now. It also made me miss Mr. Gridlock. Where'd ya go man? Your posts were dope.

I never kissed the dude, just realized I could kill more birds with kindness, than with stones. Ok, I didn't really realize that, I'm just a nice guy, as long as nobody attacks me. And if they do, Tom and the AG staff desperately want to see me lay down and take it (actually, they desperately want me off this planet...or at least out of their forum). Tom said if somebody verbally accausted him in person, he would "just walk away". He says a lot of things...I don't pretend to be a fully mature individual, and I am a "hothead", I admit that. But, the concept of "first blood" is not lost on me. You play idiot with dogging my "serious" posts for over a month, you get "got"...that's the way I play (and I'm not talking about Issabre). Anyway, I can't believe they let me back on this place, must have been another hacker, heh heh...............AND MY FEELINGS ON NAPSTER ARE THAT IT'S A PAIN, if you only have a 56k modem, and that most of what's on there has been read at 12X speed, and there's no way of knowing this until you dowload it for an hour (assuming there's no "transfer error"). A few files have been quite nice, from CD-R's on my CD50. Some don't even translate to CD, they either say they're 4 seconds long, or else they really screw you, and just burn silence on the CD-R, instead of a song. FREE MUSIC IS A PAIN....and that's why I like it! Sort of...

The following is the quote that started this thread. "My opinion is that Napster is really opening up accessibility to music for alot of people, allowing them to try new things that before they wouldn't have access to or simply wouldn't be prepared to invest in." The LA riots in it's own way also opened up accessibility for a lot of people, allowing them to "steal" new things that before they wouldn't have had access to or simply wouldn't be prepared to invest in. I feel that the majority of the people that are using Napster use it's downloads as an end product, and do not "purchase" the licensed and copyrighted material. This could be the start of the end of music (writers, composers and performers)as we know it. Sure Elmo Witherspoon Jr. may still be performing on a corner somewhere but in general, no gain, no music.

If the money is THE ONLY, motivating factor, than i don't want that music!! Musician, writer...or any other REAL artist will make music, write...CREATE, regardless of their reward! They are creating, not to make You feel good! But for themselves! This atitude, as "Dekay" said, is felt in the current (sorry) state of literature, music, and if you will cinematography (movies) and much less in visual art (thank god). I just wanted to say that the true artist will create...because he HAS to!

Eldragon, Sure the arts are important. But without the patronage of someone (kings, nobles, modern consumers), artists would never be able to afford the supplies they need to create their art.

Wow! A lot of responses to read! Although I didn't read them all, there seem to be two basic positions: 1. Napster is good because it disseminates music and, despite the fact that artists and distributors are not paid, this stimulates interest in the music and probably leads to greater sales than if Napster did not exist. Therefore artists and distributors should embrace Napster. 2. Napster creates an environment where consumers don't pay artists and distributors for the music. Therefore, this may or may not lead to reduction or elimination of the artists desire to create. It may lead to this reduction since the artist is not being remunerated and, since this is capitalism, that is what we are all working for. Or it may not lead to this reduction because artists, as different from the rest of us, are compelled by their very nature to create whether they are remunerated or not. All of these arguments miss the point, in my opinion. Whether the nature of artists is or is not to create, as the author or performer of a song, book, play, computer program etc, you have certain rights of ownership as a result of your authorship. These include the right to sell some of those rights, to retain the rights, to share the work or to not share it. You are not under any obligation (moral or otherwise) to share it. There is no issue of the greater societal good here which says you must even share it, far less get paid for sharing it. This is the bottom line. As a computer software developer, I resent the idea that anyone could feel that they have the right to my work without first obtaining my permission. This resentment is apart from any money lost as a result. And any party who hides behind some argument that rather than stealing the property, he is just providing the vehicle for stealing the property, just would add the feeling that his arguments were ludicrous to that resentment.

Eldragon - I agree with your ideals. But, there are not that many talented individuals that are willing to sacrifice livelyhood for their art. Some may sacrifice for a while only to be eventualy worn down by the financial responsibilities that govern most of us. Many artists stop producing in order to find a more productive way of making a living for themselves and their families. There are of course artists that meet your requirements, but not a lot of them. I collect art. Nothing mainstream just basicaly anything that my wife and myself enjoy and can afford. One of the artists that I collect is your "kind" of artist. She refused a contract to "art up" the largest coffee house chain in the US (we all know their name) because she felt that the committment would somehow change what she did. She is still producing art as always, though without a great deal of financial success. She will be featured in Mary Randolph-Carter's ,author of "American Junk", new book that should be out soon. This will help expose her work, but she will never "sell out". I also collect Haitian art, much of which is motivated/inspired by extreme poverty and by dreams that will never be realized in the artist's lifetime. If you are not familiar with Haitian art, you should check it out, you will enjoy it. On the subject of music. A good friend of mine produced, composed and played on his own jazz/R&b album in the late 80's. He used his life's savings of aprox. $50,000.00 to pay for the musicians and production costs. He ran out of money at the point where final mixing and a few more solos were still needed. Alan Holdsworth donated the use of his home digital studio and even played on one or two of the cuts. We all know where Alan got the money to own his own studio and to afford the leisure time that helped complete the project. The album was "Silent Will" which ended up being one of the top ten jazz albums of the year. To my surprise I received a non-musical credit for donating the use of my car and apartment for three months while I walked to and from work. Without the money/donations the project would have never been completed. I am content in paying for music (of course I also purchase from BMG, thrift shops, yard sales etc.) and knowing that by doing so the music will always be there, and lots of it, whether it be new music or reissues of classics.

My point in this discussion is to try and point out a "legal" aspect to the Napster discussion. I think "legally" this is theft and it is wrong. My views are not a knock on artists and as Dekay pointed out with his example, artists do tend to CREATE first and think about money later. But at some point artists DO have to think about money or they will no longer be able TO do their art (provided they are not independently wealthy). So, to repeat again, I think Napster engages in an illeagal activity and actually hurts artists no help them.

Treyhoss - I agree that it is an injustice but the courts will have to decide whether it is illegal. I beleive that recording music off the radio for personal use is technically illegal, but really hard to police. I did some investigations for ASCAP when I was younger and almost any use of copyrighted material without permission requires that fees be paid to ASCAP on behalf of the copyright owners. Even if it is ruled that the use of Napster is illegal, how can the abuse be stopped as the software is already in cyberspace? Will they have to create a virus that kills Napster? Or is Napster like the original sin and kind of irreversible?

Music, geopolitics and artistic motivation... what a thread! I don't often post on AG, but I do lurk here and enjoy many of the post(er)s. I think anyone who believes that this is a simple case (on either side of the fence) is surely fooling themselves. Napster has created a product which enables people to break the law (piracy is illegal, that is clear). However, Smith & Wesson have also produced products which enable people to break the law. Just about any product can be used to break the law, so one of the initial questions for the court is whether Napster has fair use outside of its illegal use. Clearly, (to me) the answer is yes. Napster allows for the distribution of music in the public domain, which is legal. Now to what degree must the creator of a product go through to insure that the product be used legally (Is placing a warning, like makers of Nitrous Oxide canisters enough?)? What percentage of a products use must be legal (How many tabacco cigs are rolled with EZ-Wider roll-out paper?)? There are more questions, and I don't really have answers to any of them. It is clear to me that the RIAA had to file suit (if you do not protect your copyright now, under American law you lose some of the right to protect it later). It is also clear that it is a complete waste of time. No matter how you feel about the ethics of Napster, it is an outdated technology (and less than two years old!!!) Gnutella offers the same functionality of Napster (users can exchange songs) without the burden of a central database. So who will the RIAA sue to stop Gnutella? The authors of the original source have stopped working on it and have received absolutely no gains from their work. I doubt the RIAA wants to target individual users of the software (suing your market is not a good way to generate good will in the marketplace). They could go after ISP's for being conduits, but that would set some dangerous precedents against privacy rights. So then what? Electronically pirated music is here to stay, and the RIAA needs to come to terms with that fact as soon as possible so that it can develop a strategy which allows it to maintain its profitability under the constraints of reality. As long as it persues strategies which ignore that fact (like suing individual software developers) it will fail to meet its goals.

There is a disturbingly growing proportion of society willing to openly disregard the boundaries that define what is "yours" and what is "mine". Claims such as "Electronically pirated music is here to stay..." are unfortunately indicative of that attitude. This trend is driving the music industry, and others, to actions that will be inflicted upon us all. Don't be deluded into believing the music industry is making hollow threats. All we've heard so far is the rattling of swords. Wait until they really get moving. They will wield all their considerable clout if that's what it takes to protect their best interests. The suit against Napster is just the first volley; look forward to additional filings regardless of the outcome of this case. Prepare for widespread watermarking and who knows what else because it's only a matter of time. Their lip service aside, the music industry won't care if copy protection is audible on higher-end systems. If watermarking has a negative effect on what they consider to be a small audience, so be it. Better to lose a little than risk it all, right? They're already using their lobbying power to push for statutes that further restrict users' rights while bolstering their own. Care to guess who will ultimately pay for these laws, lawsuits and "advancements" in the end? Kind of ironic, isn't it? Don't despair, though. With any luck someone will introduce a special box to filter the watermark from the sound signal. The appropriate technology will, of course, have to be licensed from the music industry, so it won't come cheap. Just think. With higher resolution systems we will get to pay for it twice. Once with the music and again with the hardware. Oh, joy to us all! But enough ranting for now. Here's a hearty salute to all the innocent little pirates making this wonderful step forward in technology possible. Oh, sorry. Meant to wave with all five fingers, not just the one...

Perhaps I was ambiguous. I do think that piracy is wrong, I just think that it's sometimes tricky to define piracy. Most of that difficulty stems from the fact that 'mine' and 'yours' are not always clearly defined. Possession is a social construct, not an inherent concept, so it is not surprising to see that definitions become muddied every once and a while. The industry will protect its margins, and watermarking (not that I like it) is exactly the kind of strategy that I was reffering to. By the by, piracy is illegal, but so is price fixing. Why is it that after 20 years, we're still all paying for R&D costs to develop the CD format? Why does every single (mainstream) music company charge about the same amount for CD's? And why do CD's cost more than tapes (which are more expensive to make)? Not that any of this justifies stealing. For the record, the only mp3's I've ever downloaded are from live shows which are not available for purchase by a band whose entire back catalog I own. Even with these I feel a slight ethical twinge.

To answer Robba's questions: These things happen and continue to occur because consumers do not have as much political clout as the special interests (I know; campaign finance reform is a different discussion group). I don't like it, but do recognize how the system works. One can rage against the machine, something I've always been prone to, but with age has come the understanding of how to do it more successfully and at less of a personal cost (i.e., anxiety, frustration, etc.). Civil disobedience has its costs. Is getting free music worth the price being paid, especially considering the alternatives and consequences? For now I consider the music companies a necessary evil. Without them the quality and variety of products would be diminished. Online distribution does have potential to increase variety, but unless there is a way to generate sufficient revenues it will be damaging to the overall quality of what is available. It's simply not a cheap endeavor to produce an excellent recording.

Fpeel - you've recognized that the system allows for record companies to avoid fair market pricing and you act according to that recognition. All I suggested in my original post was that record companies recognize that the system will allow for electronic piracy and act accordingly. I personally think that excessive litigation is akin to the machine raging against us, with similar frusterating and trivial effects (for them). It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I admit that it takes a lot of money to record a quality pressing, but to paraphrase a poster in another thread, I'd rather listen to a horrible reproduction of great music than a great reproduction of horrible music. I guess I'm more of a music lover than an audiophile.

Me: I'm greedy and want great recorded music. Poor recordings hurt my ears and if the music isn't any good it won't get played. No, I want it all. We agree about "the machine raging against us" and that how all this shakes out will be interesting. The industry did recently get its collective hand slapped for price fixing, but it appears that's all it was. Now the table is turned and let's see if that works the other way or not. Thanks for the exchange.

a few thoughts - 1st, dekay, your comments about napster & the like spelling the death of new music was *exactly* the same argument that was made when cassettes 1st came out. the reality is that the advent of the cassette *spurred* the growth of the music industry. sure, some guys dint buy the commercial software, cuz they had it on prerecorded cassette, but lotsa guys did - for the better sound quality, liner notes, bought another album from the same artist, etc. i tink the same thing will happen in this instance - it's only the profesional pirateers, who hawk their wares on city street-corners, etc, that have any real negative impact on the music industry. and, that's not what the lawsuit against napster is about. as far as the cassette, btw, the riaa gets a royalty from *every* blank cassete sold now, thanks to their legal efforts. (ps - if ya like the buena-vista social club on cd, ewe should here it on *vinyl*!) legally, i tink robba_hmm sums it up correctly when he compares napster to smith & wesson: providing a legitimate product is *not* illegal, yust cuz there are some out there that may use it for illegal purposes. on another note, i find it a bit amusing that such strong rite-wing proponents like carl & grumpy have no qualms taking *illegal* adwantage of napster, not using it the way napster sez it's meant to be used. more'n a *bit* of hypocracy, no? ;~) re: socialists trying to get everyone to have the same walues, i guess it's yust the other side of the same coin; *conservatives* also have their *own* agenda for homogenizing the populace; it's not one i find too appealing. regards to all, doug

Sedond - Please do not tease me with vinyl. I have not heard Johnny Rivers "Live at the Whiskey" for fifteen years and do not wish to be reminded.

hi dekay, i guess yure right - some inwisible force *made* me play that johnny rivers stuff before i could cue up the buena vista social club; it was *awful*!!! ;~)

Thank you Sedond, for dissing Johnny Rivers. I feel much less jealous right now. Did you make it to "Secret Agent Man"?

dekay, i must confess that i *loved* that johnny rivers tune *secret agent man* when it 1st came out, but i was prepubescent way back then. if yure referring to the movie *secret agent man*, nah, i don't do video. regards, doug

I like using Napster very much, and many of the files sound very good from CD-R's thru my CD player in my main system (I suspect that one or two would pass "blind tests" against the original CD...most would not, of course). I don't feel it's stealing, anymore than it's stealing to record FM radio broadcasts, or even just to LISTEN to radio broadcasts. Radio broadcasts are free, and yet are we stealing the music we listen to on the radio? Some may argue that since radio broadcasts have advertisements, that they are the ones paying for the use of the music. Well, I say it's not me who's paying for these advertisements (local car dealerships, rk surgeons, etc, pay for these), and I'm under no obligation to buy the product being advertised...therefore, I AM listening to the music for free, without having to first buy it. Is that stealing? Is it stealing when you borrowed a friend's CD (back when CD first came out), and copied it onto cassette tape? I agree that there is a vast difference in the scale, and the ease of which one can download these files for free...but like I've said before, my feeling is that the music industry has foreseen this for sometime, and that's why they charged such VERY high premiums for music up until know...to pre-offset any losses they might incur, from a large group of consumers who are now downloading their music for free. It's just "give, and take", and I think the presiding judge agrees with me. I'm sure there will be all sorts of federal and state regulation of free music over the net in the future, in any case. And for those who would disagree with me here, I challenge ANY ONE of you to cite a specific musician (or even a music label), who has filed for bankruptcy SOLEY due to the free distribution of their music on the internet....this might take a while, so I won't hold my breath.

Right on Carl! I sure hope they don't search my hard drive and arrest me for stealing. It might be kind of hard to come up with a defense for 2700 counts of theft!

I may be wrong, but I thought radio stations payed liscensing fees.

It's still free music for the end user. I don't pay the fees, but I still get to listen. Is that stealing?

To understand where the lines are drawn one has to, first, want to know and, second, take time to become aware of what the law says. Mostly its common sense, but not always. Do understand my belief is this country is so mired in legalities that the average person is doomed to eventually violate them. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes not. That's not an absolution for intentional theft, just a recognition of how ignorance and circumstance can manifest itself. But enough of my disgust with the legal climate in the USA. We don't buy music, we pay a royalty for restricted use. It's all right there on the package. When a radio station broadcasts copyrighted materials they pay a royalty, too. The restricted use granted generally does not include right of duplication for distribution. Stated simply, if it seems you're getting something for nothing you are probably breaking the law. Further, no judge has agreed that Napster is without wrong doing. Instead, they were granted a stay of any "cease and desist" order until an actual ruling is handed down. This is a very common occurance in cases of this nature and has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Such stays are allowed to specifically avoid undue damage to a company. It is understandably a harder concept to grasp. As for what the music industry charges, I have serious doubts it has anything to do with "foresight" on the music industry's behalf. Instead, since prices have risen gradually over the years, it's simply a matter of them charging what the market will bear. In conjunction with a measure of greed, of course. Capitalism at it's finest. (I am not a lawyer, but certainly played one above. My knowledge of the subject is derived from first hand experience in legal proceedings over copyright issues in the software industry. There is no intent to imply this knowledge is necessarily accurate or applicable. It is essentially my opinion, so use it at your own risk.)

To understand where the lines are drawn, one need only watch how the judge rules.

I am new to Napster. Can someone run down the 1-2-3 of why you use it? I know sound quality is limited vs. CD, FM has commercials, so what is it?