Feelings on Napster?

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.

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).

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: 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.

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.