I'm a professional musician. Napster is stealing money from recording artists, plain and simple. Just because they're "artists" doesn't mean they shouldn't get paid for what they do. Don't fool yourselves, folks - it is theft.
By stealing, you are discouraging artists from putting out new material.
jw |
The music industry is complaining because sales are down. Whose fault is that? They release so much "music" that is just garbage and then wonder why it doesn't sell.
Napster helps sell music to people who really like music. I go to napster to find out if I like something. If I like it I buy it. Everything down loaded from napster sounds like crap but it at least gives you an idea what you're getting yourself into. At the current cost of CDs who wants to take a chance anymore. The days of buying an album for $5.00 because you like the cover are past. The record companies are tightening the noose. They think the noose is around the neck of napster but that's really their own neck. I should feel sorry for the purveyors of Kid Rock and his ilk? I don't think so. |
yuve gone to war, no questions asked, even when wrong?!? 'nuff said... |
I'm sorry to all those who feel the opposite of me. Let me start by saying. I've been in the USAF for 14 yrs as a Military Police Officer the last thing I stole was when I was 9 yrs old(it was a wallet) and mother caught me and made me return it. I believe everyone is intittled to their own opinion and I believe in the freedom of this country and what it brings to all of us. We do not always do what's right, some more than others. I will go to war for this country and have whether right or wrong with no questions asked. My wife is also in the USAF and we are very republican. Now back to the tread. Yes in away it is wrong for napster to do what they are doing, but also in a different way people are sharing with people what they already own. Kind of what I do with my pay check after taxes are taken out, I spend some cash and get taxed again. I have used napster to listen to music and recorded a cd, but did not feel it was of audiophile quality. Now when someone suggust something I might like I go to napster and listen, if I like it I go to store down the road and the gentleman who owns the store finds or orders me a audiophile copy. Did I steal. I don't feel I have, I just had a listen to see if I liked before I bought. I already own about 500 cds and only about 100 cds I really like. I don't need to waste my money on something I'm not sure if I like or not. My friend comes over, I rent a dvd and he watches it with me should I charge him to watch it? No, but if he likes it he will go out and purchase it. I now if I like it enough I will buy it myself to ad to my dvd collection, I wonder if anyone will give me credit on the rental since I decided to buy it, so the movie industry made over on me twice, o'well. My friend lets me borrowed a music cd, I listen to it and if I like it I buy it, should I have been charged for the borrow. I do agree that some people copy from napster with the intention of copying and never buying and I feel that is wrong. To any that are not happy living in this country I protect with my life everyday, YOU CAN LEAVE. If you feel it is better else where than go. Life is what you make of it and whatever makes you happy as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else rights, then enjoy yourself. If you think its better else where then go, I've had the opportunity to travel around the world and I am just happy to be an American.
Pete |
New Kid on the block.. "RAPIGATOR" More Controversy to come, I thinks? If you haven't moved over or had a look at Rapigator yet... Take a look! |
i have no morals but come on, it's stealing. it doesn't matter if it helps the record industry or not. |
For me it's simple. Giving away what you don't own is theft! It is antithetical to America and precisely why the USSR isn't around any more. Napster stole the essential property rights of others in order to "gain" for themselves. Whether they "gained" directly in cash, indirectly in business, or psychologically through ego gratification the real looser(victim) is and was the writer, producer, artist and middlemen whose livelihoods are based on the production, sale and use of the music.
Esoteric dissertations as to conventions of use in tapes and cds are interesting. However, to me, unless the original is paid for...IT'S THEFT! I like paying for what I get and I like others to do it also. I like my children to do it as well. It's simple, clean and satisfying.
To me there is no analogy to demo listening in music shops, where the music is for sale and the demo a licensed copy.
I am reminded about a conversation I had with the head actuary for IRS about twenty years ago when he said, " I have heard lots of rational discourses of illogical premises."
It was true then. It's true now. |
Napster is for children that don't have jobs. I own high end audio, napster downloads sound like crap on mine. Besides I can get online, order a CD in minutes and have it deliverd to my home. So figure if I make 20 Bucks an hour, I've jist wasted 3 or 4 hours downloading a CD not counting the time to make sure it,s ok. I would rather make 20 bucks an hour. |
Regardless what is decided in the Napster case this is the beginning of a new era in music distibution. The RIAA I believe will do what they can to prevent this but will eventually fail. They will fail because the new technology which allows us to download files will march forward. It's interesting that many music artists see themselves as progressives and support forward thinking concepts. This is in direct juxtaposition to their statements regarding Napster. The artists are for change and not for change. Hmmm, very interesting. Of course they would like to collect every dime possible from their efforts. Do you think any of the artists against Napster are unfairly compensated? Right! Do you think any of the major labels are unfairly compensated? Yeah, right! Both these parties have made billions of dollars since the advent of CD's. Even now with the ability to copy Cd's at will the revenues keep rolling in. If Napster is forced to charge fees for their services there will be a new generation of "napsters" which could reside offshore and be out of reach of US laws. The RIAA taking down Napster will not stop the progress of this technology. If Napster charged fee's I doubt that they will have many subscribers. The sound quality will have to vastly improve before the majority will pay. This may eventually happen, but in the meantime let the downloads be free. These downloads are really just sonic samples of what is available on the CD. At the same time we are on the advent of the launch of DVD-A, and SACD, both of which offer sonically superior sound to CD's and are light years ahead of MP files. In my opinion that's all MP3,s are good for, samples. If I like what I hear then I go out and get the CD. I can't understand why the labels don't see this as a great marketing tool to actually sell more CD's. I can think of many times I have passed on a CD because I know what 1 track sounds like and without hearing or sampling the others, I am reluctant to shell out the bucks for the whole thing. The Grateful Dead are a prime example of the business model I suggest. Way back at the beginning the band decided that they supported the fans taping the live shows. What this lead to was the biggest following of fans ever, in the history of any band. Fan's = revenue. They may not have sold as many studio albums as others but they grossed more for their live concerts than any other music group in history, even Michael Jackson! Not to mention sales of tye-dyes, beannie bears, jerry-dolls, stickers, and just about anything you can imagine. This advanced thinking has led to even greater sales today, long after Jerry's passing. GD Productions now has it's own record label (not a small feat for any band) and is receiving great success from current sales of live recordings made over a period of 30 years. Currently Dick's Pick's has 20 release's! This is in light of the fact many of the fan's already had a bootleg of the same show. But the promise of greater sonics keeps them coming back. Folk's that have hundreds upon hundreds of live tapes are buying up the Dick's Pick's like hotcakes. This is 5 years after the leaders passing! How can this be? Because the fan's are so grateful for all the free music that the band made available over the years. Everytime I buy I new "Pick" I happilly hand over the money. I can't say that about any other band I listen to. My favorite line and the reason Dick's Pick's keeps me comming back, "We used to play for silver now we play for live!" I guess this is why no matter if Metallica or these other bands against Napster have great albums, I will avoid them like the plague. I guess it's clear what they play for, not the fans, not the music, not the fun, but the MONEY!!! Sorry but I can't support that value in music. I guess the Dead have had a more profound effect on my thinking then they could have even imagined. I guess they also ruined it for all the greedy, conservative musician's out there that I will gladly never hear. One last thing. It is interesting that the labels with the new release of DVD-A and SACD have a chance to change what they think was the biggest mistake of the CD launch back in the 80,s...access to the master tape. Notice the delayed launch of DVD-A. This has mainly been because of their obsessive need to watermark the master. This has inevitably resulted in poorer sonics and prevents us the consumer from hearing the true potential of the new medium. This is a sad case and really too bad for us audiophiles. This may also result in this new medium being still-born..I sure hope so. It just might teach them a lesson. I urge you all to boycott any DVD-A's which have been watermarked. This may make them think twice in the future. A writer recently commented that watermarking is like claiming ownership of a clear pool of water by peeing in it! Sony on the otherhand has just removed access to the master alltogether by not providing a digital out and ensuring there is no access to the decoded SACD signal. This is a better method of preventing copying but is still a disapointment. I will not be rushing out anytime soon to upgrade my CD player that't for sure. But at least Sony hasn't compromised the sonic truth by peeing in the pool. Just a little more than my 2 cents. |
As other's have noted "lawful" and "legal" are not necessarily related to "ethical." That this is so true really bites, doesn't it? I once commented to a trial judge that what was transpiring in his court room wasn't justice. Not the expected rebuff, his response left a strong impression of coming from someone who had just been reminded of a lesson learned long ago, but one they still found disgusting. "Don't confuse the law and justice. They are not always the same." I still vividly remember suddenly seeing him as a new, still wet behind the ears, going to change the world attorney who had suddenly learned one of the sad realities of the world. Years later it obviously saddened him to inform me of this fact. But it is a fact, so let's not confuse what our ethics say is right and on which side the law falls.
To me the proper use of Napster-like services is allowing access to music not otherwise readily available for which the use of has been *authorized by the owner* for download. Used in that vein it would be a boon to the market and struggling artists alike. Sadly, that is not how it is normally used. The founders of Napster even offered that perspective in their initial defense. To their chagrin, log files from their company showed that even they were guilty of downloading music primarily from artists like Madonna and the Rolling Stones, not niche titles or arcane artists.
In specific response to Cornfedboy, I am *not* clear about Napster's position relative to the law except from an ethical perspective and know that doesn't mean squat when sorting out the legalities. The answers to that laundry list of issues will come from the courts. Current law is apparently equally unclear on the issue and will be until precedence is established or new statutes are passed and tested.
My belief is the courts will find primarily with RIAA because a) doing otherwise will create a terrific mess with respect to existing copyright law and b) no judge wants to have a decision overturned by a higher court. It is a given that the RIAA will persist until they win, be it with this case or another or by pressuring Congress to pass statutes protecting their property. The Napster case could indeed be just the tip of the iceberg.
Regarding the reference to David Byrne, that's a case of mistaken identity. Any sembalance my words might have had to a pre-existing work was purely coincidental...
|
fpeel - excellent post. I would point out, however, that there are two arguments being made. One is based in law and is probably more relevant to what happens to Napster. The other is based in ethics and so will probably have no tangible effects (grin). I think we agree 100% on the law of the matter, although it's my personaly opinion that Napster has legitamate legal uses and so should not be punished for people abusing their product (much like I believe that we shouldn't oulaw baloons just because some people like to suck nitrous). But I don't think that you can make a purely ethical argument while just appealing to civil and criminal law. Ralph - Crumb is a product of his own self destruction and not a very enlightening example. If he wanted more than $600.00 for his wok, then he should have charged more for it. As far as your Cheap Thrills LP is concerned, from what I remember the RIAA will allow you to make a copy of it to listen to in your garage as long as you don't give the copy away or try to sell it. |
Round and round we go. Fpeel (any relation to Mrs. Peel?) once again brings the courts into the picture (haven't we had enough of the courts showing us what's fair?) and again I say who cares? The record companies would have us believe that they're protecting the high holy copyrighted works of their oh so talented preformers. Oh really? Did you ever see the documentary film about the artist R. Crumb? In the film he tells the story of his most famous illustration, the cover for the Janis Joplin recording "Cheap Thrills". Oh yes it's copyrighted, by Columbia Records. They paid him $600 for his work, thank you and he hasn't seen another dime since. All perfectly legal and all rather unjust. Or how about this scenario: I own a vinyl copy of a Van Morrison recording, purchased legally many years ago. I'd like to have a digital verison of this record to play on my CD boombox while working in the garage. I download the mp3s from Napster and burn a CD on my computer. What law have I broken? Not paying twice for the same recording? There are users and abusers for just about anything, Napster included. I personally feel that many the younger people downloading songs from Napster would not have purchased the CDs but rather would be just as happy to listen to the radio. And there's people like myself, who have hugh music collections and use Napster as just another source for checking out some tunes. |
fpeel: very good post, tho, i think you're a little too sure of where the copyright law presently stands vis-a-vis napster. BTW, i recognize your closing. it's a david byrne lyric. did you get his permission to use it? ;>) |
There is absolutely no question that distributing copyrighted materials without the authorization of the owner is illegal. The law is VERY clear on this point and anyone doing it is in violation. But regarding Napster, Perfectimage is right.
The question outstanding is whether Napster playing "middleman" is a violation of existing statute. One side says they facilitate the exchange of illegal goods, so are the same as a "fence." The other says their service doesn't cross that line, so is legal.
The courts haven't said what they think, though the only reason Napster is still active while the case is being decided is they plead hardship in response to the RIAA's motion for a cease and desist order. Very common legal practices, BTW, which in and of themselves prove nothing.
All in all this is a very emotionally charged subject. Sadly, that elicits arguments that have no legal basis. It matters not what terrible people the RIAA members have been in the past nor how much much they've ripped us all off. Look at the oil companies history. It matters not whether they've stifled artistic growth or alternative music. Any number of groups could be acussed of that. It doesn't matter how many people are doing it. Need I mention marijuana or speeding on the highways? No, none of that has any bearing on the subject except from an emotional perspective. They carry zero legal weight.
This is a politically charged issue as well. The RIAA wants the practice to stop. Ultimately it is about money. The RIAA wants to retain control of their property (it *is* theirs, btw) and the associated wealth and power it brings. There's an issue with the sheer numbers involved, literally millions of people. RIAA could start by making a few abusers acapegoats, but they know where that could lead. Forcing the closure of little Billy's MP3 site would create a horrific public relations problem. They'd be construed as bullies. Napster, OTOH, is a company, so it's OK to take them to court.
So, the issue at hand isn't whether violating copyright law is illegal; it is without question. Read the cover of any CD and then look up the laws they reference. There's no question about it. The issue being decided in court is whether Napster has done anything illegal. My guess is they will be found guilty on some level which is why they've already decided to crawl into bed with the devil by signing an agreement with BMG.
Ultimately the RIAA will win. They'll control all the Napsters one way or the other. They'll watermark everything is sight. They'll do whatever is necessary to ensure their survival by controlling their property. There's simply too much money and power at risk for them to not do anything and everything within their power to maintain control. Sadly, as is too often the case, the losers in the end will be the honest users. They'll get to pay for everyone elses' sins. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was... |
I dont consider it stealing. If Napster supplied the music themselves then it would be. I agree this is a technacality but its an important one. |
carl, you're such a clever fellow. one can only wonder how the world ever got on before your birth. i would never have thought of the significance of my user name were it not for your ingenious sleuthing. |
One more: "Ivana Humpalot"?......Muh hah hah hah hah hah!!! That movie was silly, but I loved it anyway. |
And neither does getting banned, so I suggest you stay on subject, you pansy you...or forgive me, rosebud....or is it Citizen Kane...or snow sled ("rosebud" in the movie, in case you lack that knowledge, or missed the ending)....I get them all mixed up. Who will it be next, Dr. Who? Professor fyunch-click? Davey Jones? Captain Kirk? Dammit-Jim? My sides are splitting...I kill me! |
better check the mirror, carl. i think your nose must be very dark brown. it doesn't become you. |
|
Carl: you gotta learn to go just a little bit easier. I may not have much experience with Napster - but then again it's not all that complicated or difficult to learn and use. And yes, I have based my comments on my "limited" experience. So what. I'm still entitled to an opinion. Plus you missed the point of my comment about another "format war". It was meant as a joke about the music industry crying the blues while they are planning for yet another super-duper profit making venture. And they did make huge profits when they introduced CDs (with "prefect sound forever") and had everyone replacing all their LPs. However, I do agree with you that with the mp3's and CD-R's it's going to be much harder for the music industry to launch their next improvement on prefection. |
Ralph: Oh, I see, so you don't use Napster much at all, then? WHY ARE YOU COMMMENTING HERE, IF YOU HAVE LITTLE EXPERIENCE WITH IT? I enjoy using it, and could give a rat's keester about the "format wars". There's no "war", because NONE of them will gain wide acceptance as long as the general public can still buy CD's for less $, and download music for free off the internet. And, my above response was NOT over the top at all, thank ya very much...it was perfectly in keeping with who I was responding to. Good day, and have fun fighting your little format war...the general populace doesn't care, and we all know what happens to formats that are only supported by those handfuls of audiophiles in the world (they die). How many new release Quadrophonic LP titles have you bought lately? "It's about the music, and not gadgets"...and "Keep it real".....Carl |
Carl: Your response was a bit over the top and you may even be correct. The music industry has survived plenty of "scares" - radio broadcast, MTV, home taping, live taping, etc. I've heard some really poor sounding live recordings that only a true fan would want to hear, let alone own. And I'm sure that there's plenty garbage out there on Napster that I wouldn't download, let alone buy. And what the heck are we doing in this tread discussing such a lo-fi format while the powers that be are busy gearing up for yet another format war (SACD vs. DVD Audio) and another round of us replacing all our Beatles recordings. |
I agree Ralph, and btw, what did you think of my response to Pghedge? |
Kacz: You said it prefectly - and that's why the record companies had better stop complaining and find a way to deal with it. How about cutting the prices of new CDs instead of raising them? Another method could be on-line direct sales. There's a jazz label, OkkaDisc, which has their entire catalog available on-line and way cheaper than at any store or on-line vendor. But that's just wishful thinking - they'll just raise prices and come with some godawful watermarking scheme - less sound, more money. |
Oh yeah. 64 million people use napster. If napster were hurting the industry then man we would seriously see it by now with this many users. Yeah sales are down a bit but they have normal market fluctuation like that all the time. I still see tons of people in the cd stores and I can gaurantee you they all have computers and they all have napster. And besides now maybe the record companies will think twice about putting out crappy one hit wonder cd's and charging an exorbant price for it while that one song is hot. yeah they promote it like crazy like the whole cd is the best thing in the world and make killer sales on it while the bands name is the "hottest" thing out there. No more getting caught in that trap anymore for me. The record companies only let the radio stations and mtv play the one good song on the album for the first few months or so for this very reason. |
I never made a "deal" with any record company. I never agreed how I would use any of thier stuff. I Never signed a thing. If the government doesn't have a law against it and they don't say it's wrong then dang it I'm going to copy the songs and share them on napster. And download songs from other people also. |
Pghedge: I'm primarily a jazz fan, and an avant-garde jazz at that, so there's basically nothing anything like that anywhere on Napster. However, there is plenty of material by the big name acts, like U2 and Santana. Does Napster hurt them? I don't know but it would hurt someone like Ken Vandermark - a superb tenor sax player out of Chicago. However, I do know that Vandermark and several other jazz musicians that I spoke with would not mind having their music available on Napster if it would mean more exposure. And that's the rub: exposure versus "stealing". The present music distribution really sucks unless your a big name artist. |
If it were illegal, Napster would be shut down. That is fact. Whining about it won't change it. I think it's time for full disclosure here, Hedge. Admit it, you work in the music industry, and are biased. You want to protect your high paying job, and your own bottom line.......................None of us are selling the files we share thru Napster, and we gain ZERO profit from it. It's not stealing. Radio and MTV pay royalties, BECAUSE THEY MAKE A HUGE PROFIT OFF THE USE OF THE ARTISTS' COPYWRITTEN MATERIALS (they certainly wouldn't have a business without the use of the material, it's the core of the product they deliver...no one would listen or watch, if there were no copywritten materials to hear or view). Endusers make ZERO profit off the use of, and sharing of, files thru Napster. The fact that you are upset about the existence of Napster, shows your bias undeniably clearly, and also makes you look pathetic and silly, since you have zero control over the whole issue. Your crying about what the presiding judge rules, whatever that is if it ever reaches finality, is rather humorous to me. It's not up to you, it's not ABOUT you, so get over yourself. In this country, we rely on the judicial system to interpret, and hence ENFORCE the rule of law. Whatever the ruling, we abide by it. We don't cry like a baby about it, or else we might be a laughing stock, and lose our credibility. |
Pghedge - What do you think about d/ling titles from labels that don't have a website or aren't available for preview in stores? There's a record store in town that offers previews, but certain record labels won't allow them to open their cd's and sell them as new. Is is appropriate/ethical to d/l these titles and then delete them later when you've decided whether or not you want to buy them? What about songs that are no longer in print so they can't be bought in any way that would profit the record company or artist? What about songs that never will be in print such as bootlegged concerts? (The last two types are the only time I d/l .mp3's) I agree that for the most part it is unethical to d/l music instead of buying it, but I think it's absurd to think that the issue is black and white. Also, I think most people would be happy with a quality of music akin to a tape recorded of the 'waves if they could get the music for free (remember that 'philes are hardly who the record companies are worried about losing). |
No Carl, I'm not the same person, and Ralph, you are wrong... you exagerate the conflict between record label and artist. Their relationship is one of neccessity... a partnership. Record companies provide an invaluable service to artist. They put up capital (risk), find and coordinate the producer/engineer/graphic artist, they promote the product, and set up distribution. Only a very small percent of artist can do all this alone. As for MTV and radio... each pay licensing fees for the use of music. Roll a tape all day long. What you'll get is a low quality copy of music you may use, legally, for personal listening. If that's the way you like to listen... knock yourself out. Distribute this home recording or re-broadcast it and that's a differnt issue. If you want to check out music so badly find the website for the artist, go to the lablel's website and listen, go to your local cd store which offers "try before you buy".... just don't steal it and tell me you're justified... payback for those greedy labels? No way, you're ultimately cheating the artist and anyone whose livelyhood depends on cd sales. Would you steal a car just because you don't like dealing with salesmen and not to mention those greedy auto manufacturers? You probably would if someone could pipe it over the net to you. |
Ralph, if you read my posts in this thread you may see that I agree with you for the most part. I agree that record companies need to change their distribution paradigm, although not for the consumer's benefit but rather for their own. I also completely understand why people download music (although I don't for anything that is available for purchase). |
Robba: Here's the basic problem - there are really two parties involved in the Napster ripoff, the big bad record companies and the poor starving atrists. Most people don't seem to care if they hurt a record company but people really don't want to hurt some poor artist (unless of course they are not all that poor). I still that the record companies need to find a new way of doing things. CD's are way over priced, the radio sucks, music is pigeonholed into meaningless catagories and Napster solves a whole bunch of what's wrong. Napster is a sympton of an underlying disease and in classic American fashion we attack the sympton while the disease goes untreated. And I never said that it's okay to "steal" via an mp3 site - just that one can understand why many people feel it's okay to do so. |
The big difference, Ralph, is that record companies have agreed to allow radio/television stations to us their media. They have not made similar considerations to .mp3 software sites. It's like saying that you can take all of my stereo equipment because I choose to give my little brother some extra ic's. |
|
To Pghedge@aol.com: Maybe "distributing copywritten, intellectual property, in any form, is illegal" - if so how does MTV and radio fit into the picture? One could have a vcr or tape deck running all day and copy a whole bunch of "copyrighted" material. Napster is going to become the "radio" of the future if only because the radio (at least in most of the USA) really sucks. I've wanted to hear something from the recent recordings by several lesser known artists - what do I do? Sit in front of radio for weeks at time hoping to catch maybe a tune at 4 a.m.? No, I long onto Napster, do a search and within 5 minutes I've got at least one track to check out. Works great. Now if I buy the CD or not depends on quite a few other factors. And it's the fact that those "buying factors" differ from person to person that really upsets the apple cart. As an older, fairly well heeled audiophile, I like to pick up the best sounding version a recording that I can find. Napster certainly does not provide that but for a college student or teenager whose only stereo is their computer system, well the 128K Napster file probably sounds just fine and it doesn't cost them anything. Yeah, the new age is here, now the industry just has to find a way to deal with it. |
You ought to, you're the same guy...If it were illegal, the judge would have shut it down. Stop whining like a crybaby, and enjoy your own music. |
Pghedge@aol.com; well put! i agree with you on every point you make. join up and get your views here regularly. please. |
It's simple... distributing copywritten, intellectual property, in any form, is illegal. This forum is full of absurd allegations... greedy record companies, cheated starving artist, and those sweet, pimple-faced teenagers who download MP3's before they rush out and buy the CD. People, get real; stop trying to justify stealing. From what I've read here, it is clear many of you have little understanding of the record business. Your hard earned $15 is NOT gobbled up by Porche-driving A&R guys. There are MANY hard working and talented individuals involved in the process of creating music. Songwriters, artists, publishers, musicians, managers, studios, producers, engineers, assistants, mastering engineers, arrangers, technical people, graphic artists, photographers, manufacturers, promotions, and let's not forget... lawyers for all the above. Each of these individuals make a living from the sale and distribution of the music they help create. Napster, and the equivillents, whether by intent or not, contribute to breaking the laws are in place to protect these individuals. |
Cornfed, I'm glad you're so sure of yourself, there, especially since that makes no sense at all. |
Not so many, just you and Korn, and I'm ok with that. You need to get a life, and grow up a little bit. Keep it on audio, or you know what will happen. Others have gone before you.... |
Agree again. Why do you open yourself up so much, Carl. Don't you realize how many people you've offened on this site? |
karl: from your other posts, i'm sure your retailers suffer from eberhardt-burnout and hate to see you come in the door!! |
That's not always true, and some of us suffer from retail burnout. I bet your music store loves to see you come in the door!! |
No problem with it.I explore and listen, find something interesting, I go find and buy it.RETAIL! I have no interest in downloading and copying it as the sound quality sucks . |
Lshreve, Very good points, since the record companies have indeed been ripping off the public and musicians for quite some time. It's also quite funny that Napster and mp3's came along at a time when the record companies have seen their profits dipping not because of Napster (as they would have us believe) but due to the fact that vinyl to CD reissue profit machine has come to a grinding halt. Pretty soon they will be expecting most of us replace our CD's (which in many cases were replacements of LPs) with some form of Super Audio discs. No thank you. As for Napster providing an outlet for sampling items before buying - maybe that works but I've Napster to be somewhat hit or miss when doing this. As a jazz fan I feel somewhat guilty about ripping mp3's of a CD which is only going to sell 5000 to 10000 copies at best. Perhaps I should put a few samples of some artists on Napster and see what happens. |
There are a lot of good points already made...but a couple of things to think about. The bubble has burst! It's the record companies who feel that they have the most to loose with Napster...that's why they are paying magabucks to shut it down. They can shut it down in the US, but then it will just move offshore where US laws do not apply. They need to find a way to deal with it...shutting it down is only temporary. Ever wonder why you pay less for a cassette than a CD of the same music?...when the cassette shell actually costs more that the CD blank. Record companies have been ripping off the general public...and the artists for decades. They toss pennies at the artists and make gastly steep profits on per unit sales. The artists need to wake up and form their own businesses...invent a way to transmit CD or SACD quality, digitally, over the net and sell their product directly to consumers over the internet for $2.00 an album,instead of taking a buck a copy from the record companies. The only way to deal with the technology of the 21st century is to make the product so cheap to buy that no one will want to pirate it or "trade files" ...they will just go buy the product...of course that will mean that the record companies will have to sell the product for what it's worth...for the first time in history! Hold tight...we soon will be trading files for software and anything else that can be digitized. Everyone selling anything digital will have to sell it cheap enough to make the general public want to have their own, origional copy. This again means that Mr. Gates will have to sell his Office 2000 suite for $20 to $25 bucks a pop and only make 2-300% profit per unit instead of the gazillion percent profit he now makes on every copy. Sorry, but the laws of supply and demand will still rule the digital world. As long as the price is high...most folks will "make do" with the crappy, compressed, "Napster" like quality (but still better than that cassette that Columbia is still willing to sell you for $7.98) that they can get for free...instead of buying the real deal. |
Napster is going to go from like 6 million users to 30. Everyone I spoke to on the napster chat said "screw that I'm not paying for anything". There's plenty of other options out there and I'm sure more will pop up. Try out www.imesh.com or gnutela (not sure if I spelled the second one right). |
If this is a master plan by Napster than I want Scott (that's his name right?) running the country. The above mentioned company is BMG and I'm pretty sure this is all ad hoc. But, perhaps this is vindication of my idea that the best plan for the record companies was to assume that .mp3's would be around and to try to plan based on that assumption rather than spending too many resources fighting the inevitable. |
The latest news on this front claims Napster is negotiating with one of the Big Five record companies about becoming an online subscription service. Given their previous arrogance and disregard for generally accepted ethics, is it safe to call this move "selling out"? Not to fear, though, as they still get their day (week, month, etc.) in court. The same story says the RIAA was very reassuring on that point. After all the fuss this latest maneuver does leave me wondering whether Napster actually thought to get away with it all or were they just using their users for leverage and exposure to further a different agenda? |
