Re: MD: Napster and RIAA
"J. Coon" wrote: http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/news/535/?nl44 http://www.hitsquad.com/smm/news/534/#body The RIAA, and the Motion Picture Academy have always been happy when they were giving a free hand to do what ever they damn please. To a large extent, that's the way it should be. In the US we live in a capitalist country and if you don't like the practices of an organization, you boycott. Unfortunately, although strikes still go on, I haven't seen a good boycott in years. Boycotts work. If enough people stop buying a product, the person that they are boycotting against either comes to a compromise or throws in the towel and closes shop. The RIAA thing is really a minor thing compared to the drug industry and the banks. Lets leave the banks out of this because one could argue that since they do not directly affect the public's health and welfare, they should be deregulated. But the drug companies are another matter. Like anything in the health provider area, here there must be more government intervention. This is one of the exceptions to the "keep the government out of it rule, in my opinion. Drug companies have to be made to to realize (just as doctors and health insurance companies do) that if they can not police themselves, the government is going to have to take some steps. If you want to charge $400 for an MD recorder that cost you $25 to make go a head. But when they don't sell, that's the price the manufacture pays. If you want to charge $17 got a blank MD that costs you... But health care and medication are an entirely different thing. As a health care provider, if the government came to me and said, you are going to have to treat some people who can not afford your fees a reduced government subsidized fee, as long as I did not lose money, I think that I would have to work out an agreement with the government. I have never expected MP3 songs to be available totally free. If you want that, go to the radio and copy the crap off of an FM broadcast in analog (with the DJ talking through it and the ending usually cut off). For quality MP3 digital songs, I think it is fair to pay a small royalty. BTW, I have played around with my Sharp MD-CD3 a little more. If you are looking for the kind of quality that only ATRAC R will deliver and plan to copy your CDs to MD and then eliminate your CDs (e.g.. sell them on eBay), this might not be the system for you (just like any standard portable with ATRAC 4 would not be either). However, if you want decent sound quality to jog with or listen to in your car, this is the way to go. You load 3 CDs and 3 blank MDs and press CD to MD. Come back later and you have 3 digital copies of your CDs. You still have full editing and titling capability and can then go back and add more much to each MD. Since this is not a Sony product, you don't have to worry about end of search. Just place a different CD in and hit copy again. It will be added to the MD without deleting the songs on the MD. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and RIAA
las wrote: You still have full editing and titling capability and can then go back and add more much to each MD. Since this is not a Sony product, you don't have to worry about end of search. Just place a different CD in and hit copy again. It will be added to the MD without deleting the songs on the MD. Sony decks work the same way. It is only the portables that have the stupid END SEARCH feature. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and RIAA
On 3 Nov 2000, at 10:28, las wrote: For quality MP3 digital songs, I think it is fair to pay a small royalty. snip If you [...] plan to copy your CDs to MD and then eliminate your CDs (e.g.. sell them on eBay), this might not be the system for you snip Does anyone else see a flaw here? -- JT - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and RIAA
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I personally wouldn't call 128kbps MP3s quality. And isn't MP3 worthwhile because there are less and less quality songs that's worth our money, as far as mainstream pop/rock is concerned? :) Leon From: "JT" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 17:09:58 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: Napster and RIAA On 3 Nov 2000, at 10:28, las wrote: For quality MP3 digital songs, I think it is fair to pay a small royalty. snip If you [...] plan to copy your CDs to MD and then eliminate your CDs (e.g.. sell them on eBay), this might not be the system for you snip Does anyone else see a flaw here? -- JT - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do they know?) Obviously, David has never drinked beer me, myself and I on the other hand are very found of beer. There are loads of different beers, all with a different taste. Being born in Maastricht (The Netherlands), having 4 different beer brewers within a range of 20km (Ridder, Brand, Gulpener and Leeuw) and living in one of the city's of the Netherlands with the highest concentration of pubs per inhabitant, all added to this There are beers that you drink warm, but most of the beers you should drink cold. However, if you drink a beer a beer at room-temperature Well, I would say that it tast likely like p*ss (urine). Cheers, Ralph - Making his off-topic contribution to this mailing-list. -- === Ralph SmeetsFunctional Verification Centre Of Competence - CMG Voice: (+33) (0)4 76 58 44 46 STMicroelectronics Fax:(+33) (0)4 76 58 40 11 5, chem de la Dhuy Mobile: (+33) (0)6 82 66 62 70 38240 MEYLAN E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE === "For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the powers of our imagination: We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking, later used by Pink Floyd -- === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:35:39 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or otherwise broadcasting such recordings. Agreed again. But the law does allow you to make cassettes for you own personal use. AIUI "time-shifting" of broadcast material is permitted. And it appears not to be a *criminal* activity to record something you already have a legitimate copy of. Supposedly there is a surcharge added to blank tape to cover copyright payments. So is the government and recording industry saying, it's OK to copy things as long as the quality is not so good? Digital is out of the question. The quality of your copy will be to high? Most media that I know of, allows (at least be merit of it's SCMS configuration) to make a first generation copy. The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. How does cassette recording from the radio differ from copying it to an MD? How does it in practice? You can still copy from the radio to MD - I suspect the legal situation is still the same - the premise being "time-shifting". The radio station pays a royalty each time they play a song. On the other hand adding a surcharge to a blank MD is not fair to the person who is recording his/her own original material. I guess they apply it on the balance of probabliities. Nor is stopping the artist from allowing him/her from making as may digital copies of his/her own material as they feel like. Yet that is the situation at present. A digital recording from an analogue source should still allow you to make another copy, should it not? And SCMS strippers and more commercial equipment would allow anyway. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily supporting these sort of restrictions, just being pragmatic. Cheers Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do they know?) You don't buy beer, you just rent it. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
You don't buy beer, you just rent it. RENT IT!!! Hell I'd die of thirst before I'd drink it. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Many athletes work 10-12 hours a day at their profession. Sure some days they don't, but I think to say that "most athletes do not have to work that hard" shows a profound misunderstanding about what "most athletes" actually have to do to be successful. Most professional athletes have been working very hard since they were young children in order to get where they are. They certainly have to work just as hard as any artist. And remember that athletes careers usually end about 30 or 40 years earlier than artists ;-) Dan, You can get me to support the arts and artists all the way, but when it comes sports, I stand my ground. They are still just playing!!! I don't enjoy athletics and would never equate art with athletics. OK so I'm "different" then other people. Men are supposed to enjoy sports. Men are supposed to love beer. I don't enjoy sports and I cant even stand the smell of beer, let alone the taste. I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:18:44 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: "J. Coon" wrote: OK. I'm going to try and end this discussion now. I have said all along that there should be a royalty fee paid to download "quality" MP3s from the net. Surely that fee should be for anything copyrighted, that the copyright owner wishes to charge for. Individual, or greater perception of "quality" is subjective anyway - and it's not anyone else's call. You don't have any inalienable rights to other peoples' copyrighted material - if you don't like the price for it, then don't get it. I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't that great?" Different people have differing opinions of their anecdotal evidence on this. Regardless of the intent, in general, people are still obtaining copyright material, against (I would imagine) the terms to which such copyright material is bound. We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or otherwise broadcasting such recordings. Now we have a new technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. Regards (and still friends I hope), Oh of course. Healthy debate is not something I equate to dislike. If everybody agreed it'd be a damned boring world (IMHO of course!). Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:38:52 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can get me to support the arts and artists all the way, but when it comes sports, I stand my ground. They are still just playing!!! I just don't see how you can differentiate like this, with sport and art - surely there are clear analogies. If the human species enjoys both sporting pursuits, and artistic ones - how can one be something trivial, and one not? I don't enjoy athletics and would never equate art with athletics. Why, necessarily does your like, or dislike of something, necessarily equate to your perception of the work ethic required to succeed in it? OK so I'm "different" then other people. Men are supposed to enjoy sports. Men are supposed to love beer. I don't enjoy sports and I cant even stand the smell of beer, let alone the taste. I just find it paradoxical that you could believe that sportsmen play, whilst artist work. I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. I couldn't possibly comment! ;-) Cheers Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Surely that fee should be for anything copyrighted, that the copyright owner wishes to charge for. Individual, or greater perception of "quality" is subjective anyway - and it's not anyone else's call. You don't have any inalienable rights to other peoples' copyrighted material - if you don't like the price for it, then don't get it. Agreed. I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't that great?" Different people have differing opinions of their anecdotal evidence on this. Regardless of the intent, in general, people are still obtaining copyright material, against (I would imagine) the terms to which such copyright material is bound. We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. To a certain degree, copyright still applys. However domestic use is considered "time-shifting" - it would almost certainly be a different matter should you attempt (and be noticed) to be selling, distributing, or otherwise broadcasting such recordings. Agreed again. But the law does allow you to make cassettes for you own personal use. Supposedly there is a surcharge added to blank tape to cover copyright payments. So is the government and recording industry saying, it's OK to copy things as long as the quality is not so good? Digital is out of the question. The quality of your copy will be to high? Now we have a new technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. The existence of a new technology, and a general desire by many to capitalise, and get something that's not theirs', for free, should not overwrite the rights of those that produce copyrighted material. How does cassette recording from the radio differ from copying it to an MD? The radio station pays a royalty each time they play a song. On the other hand adding a surcharge to a blank MD is not fair to the person who is recording his/her own original material. Nor is stopping the artist from allowing him/her from making as may digital copies of his/her own material as they feel like. Yet that is the situation at present. Regards (and still friends I hope), Oh of course. Healthy debate is not something I equate to dislike. If everybody agreed it'd be a damned boring world (IMHO of course!). Agreed again. Have a great weekend, Larry Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === I just don't see how you can differentiate like this, with sport and art - surely there are clear analogies. If the human species enjoys both sporting pursuits, and artistic ones - how can one be something trivial, and one not? Why, necessarily does your like, or dislike of something, necessarily equate to your perception of the work ethic required to succeed in it? I just find it paradoxical that you could believe that sportsmen play, whilst artist work. Paradox?? Doesn't that mean 2 doctorsg. I realize that I'm the odd man out here. End of story. I couldn't possibly comment! ;-) You'd have to get inside my head to do that. "Being Larry Sherry" would make a boring movie. Cheers Neil ___ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"David W. Tamkin" wrote: Agreed. The average downloader is more likely thinking, "Hey, I'm getting this stuff for free. Isn't that great?" To think "I'm stealing this stuff" would require considering the situation further and thinking about its having an owner and whether its free availability was the owner's idea or someone else's. But if there were a small fee involved, I think that would not stop many people from using the service. Say a nickel for each successful download of a complete song. Kids spend $12 to $17 dollars on a CD. At 5 cents a song that could by 240 to 340 songs. At 10 songs per CD that's 24 to 34 CDs. But you get the songs that you want. Not just like buying one CD to get one song you like, which is often the case. This could bring up a whole new issue of "padding" CDs with songs just to justify charging $17 for a CD. I'm not getting into that. If the quality of MP3's is not acceptable to you (I mean "you" in general, not David) then you aren't going to be interested in downloading MP3s in the first place. Now MP3.com has been hit with a big penalty judgment; we'll see where that goes. I doubt that the supreme court will be will to take this one. If it doesn't have to with abortion, they usually don't seem interested G. David (who agrees with Larry about beer ... it looks like urine, it smells like urine, and it probably tastes like urine, and every beer drinker to whom I've said that has responded, "It doesn't taste like urine"; how do David It's like you went inside my head. Book the words out of my mouth and typed them! Have a great weekend, Larry they know?) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable professions not being paid what they're actually worth. Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that they receive while our children are getting inferior education's because we will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year and pay a great teacher $30 thousand if they are lucky? It's not like that, really. Anyone who spends more on Metallica CD's/T-shirts/videos/concert-tickets/whatever than on hir's kids' education, needs to get hir priorities straight, IMHO. But lots of people spend a little bit of money on their CDs, hence they make millions. As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". But you're not paying their salary, so it's not really up to you, is it? They get paid a huge amount of money, yes. But the people that pay them still make a profit after paying that huge salary. That's how the system works. Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. They are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much differently about artists of any kind. I think you'll find that most artists do indeed work very hard to accomplish what they do. If they limit their work to just the matches they play every now and again, they'll be off the big paylist very soon. Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. But being an artist, is much harder. Requires much more effort, time and work to accomplish what they did. I doubt they're much different. My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never mind. Maybe "performers" is a better term. I wouldn't waste an MD on them, either... But millions of teenage girls like their music and badger their parents into buying it. And, surprise, surprise... That's exactly the goal the Spice Girls' creators had in mind. They did their job well, and got rich. Remember, I might not like some or all of the same music you like. But that doesn't mean the artists you like don't deserve to get paid a cent, or vice versa. One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Well, thank god for that! ;-) ,xtG .tsooJ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 01:34:22 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable professions not being paid what they're actually worth. Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that they receive If people are prepared to pay for something the artist have produced or created, then emphatically - yes. while our children are getting inferior education's because we will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year We don't, directly. We choose, or choose not to buy their product. As to what *they* get paid, is it any of our damn business? If we want their product - then we can expect to pay the price that they are prepared to sell it for. and pay a great teacher $30 thousand if they are lucky? I understand your indignance - but people (in gneneral) *choose* to become teachers. They could equally choose to become lawyers, stockbrokers, artists, musicians, etc...etc..., assuming they had the requisite attribbutes and the tenacity and required work ethic. If you personally feel so outraged, I would imagine you are perfectly within your rights to employ a private teacher for your offspring, at whatever inflated salary you think they deserve. Once again, if somebody like an artist or musician decides to sell their work, it's their perogative as to how much they charge. We don't have any "rights" to their work, whether or not we think the price for it is undeserved or not. If they get rich on the proceeds, whilst other (in some peoples' opinions) workers in worse paid industries eek an existance - it's all choice. As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". Fine - your opinion, and your entitled to it. I have no problem with them getting as much as they can. In the majority of cases, they won't have anything like the same bargaining power once they're in the late thirties and onwards - unless they have other talents, and manage to be proactive with their career. Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. What on *earth* do you base this on? Obviously this can well depend on the sport, but in most cases that I've experienced, natural talent, aptitude and / or genetic predisposition can be of paramount importance, but doesn't necessarily mean that there's no effort involved. They are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much differently about artists of any kind. Personally I don't see the distinction - I think it's quite fallacious. Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. But being an artist, is much harder. On what grounds? With what metric? I think you are making some gross generalisations here. Requires much more effort, time and work to accomplish what they did. As somebody who's always been involved in physical activity, I find this sort of thing is quite insulting. How you can try and make out that artistic endeavours require more effort than physical / sporting pursuits, seems inexcusably ignorant. My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. And do you think the worlds best sprinters get where they are by simple use of their talents, and no hard work? World class soccer players? Weight lifters? Snooker players? Cyclists? You are demeaning entire communities who are involved in "playing" sports, or competing to suggest it doesn't require the same degree of work as those that choose artistic pursuits. Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never mind. Performers is what I'd class them. And I don't resent them a thing. If people are prepared to pay they price that the spicies market their wares as, then all strength to them. They won't be able to get away with the same sort of thing when they're in their forties. One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Many athletes and sports people do have talents, and aptitudes, but I can't think of many that don't have to work damned hard to achieve what they do. To suggest that art requires a greater degree of effort and work ethic, to me suggests that this is simply an argument from somebody that suits their
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on them. Hell, I'd give 'em an MD to spend the night with me. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that they receive Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. The above statement has got to be the one of the stupidest that I have ever heard. I'm very disappointed that an intelligent person like you would make such a statement. First of all, if you are still being "hurt" by your dentist, either you haven't been to the dentist in a long time or you should find a new one. Second, Do you realize how many people come to me in severe pain each week and leave with the pain gone?? Third, dentists have one of the highest suicide rates of any profession. The stress is of the job is that high. Fourth, there are many dentists having financial problems. Fifth, what does it take to be an "artist"? The reason that there are so many starving artists is because there are so many people who consider themselves "artists"!!! What qualifications does it take to be an artist How many years do you have to go to school to qualify to be an "artist"? What examinations and how many does it take to be an artist? How do you pay for the cost of all of that school and setting up a practice? You can buy one of the best guitars you can find and a great amp to go along with it and still not approach $10,000. Finally, if every "artist" alive today dropped off of the face of the earth, what would be the result?? If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! And that doesn't begin to mention all of the pain and suffering. Have you ever had a tooth ache? The only reason it doesn't happen much now, is because of dentists. Get an abcessed maxillary (upper) molar and let it keep swelling. In many cases the infection would spread to the brain!!! Good bye!! Suppose everyone in the group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a result. The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. I could have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going to school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich over paid rock star today instead of a dentist. Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for life. This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, paintings, graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. If we had to we could survive. The most important point is that, there are no specific qualifications to qualify as an artist. Eliminate all of the people that think they are artists, but the public doesn't and suddenly the number of "starving artists" begins to drop rapidly!!! Art is something that in addition innate talents, you have to "feel". Making money at is is something that other people have to feel is worth paying for. If you are fortunate to make money at art that's great. But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any guaranties of an income. Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. We have to be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income (from painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets eliminate all of the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent by the standards of our society. If you take what's left and divided the billions and billions of dollars between all of them. There would be NO starving artists!! Most importantly, you'd better find yourself a new dentist. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 11:20:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fifth, what does it take to be an "artist"? The reason that there are so many starving artists is because there are so many people who consider themselves "artists"!!! What qualifications does it take to be an artist How many years do you have to go to school to qualify to be an "artist"? What examinations and how many does it take to be an artist? How do you pay for the cost of all of that school and setting up a practice? You can buy one of the best guitars you can find and a great amp to go along with it and still not approach $10,000. Finally, if every "artist" alive today dropped off of the face of the earth, what would be the result?? Do you mean if everybody with artistic creativity, or those that express themselves artisticly, suddenly disappeared? Or all artistic content and / or stimulus suddenly disappeared? I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably serious psychological affects on the rest of the world. If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! Perhaps given how society and modern life has developed. But go back a few hundred years, and there were no dentists - and probably far less dietary requirements, almost certainly some degree of poorer quality of life, or endurance / seriousness of certain conditions. Art (in various forms, or guises) has been a pretty much fundamental aspect of human evolvement. Even caveman drew pictures on cave walls. Without this sort of outlet in human nature, who's to say what the effects on the evolution of the humman species would have been. Suppose everyone in the group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a result. Perhaps a relatively small number of obsessed fans! ;-) The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. To a certain degree, I believe the artistic nature in humans, has been rather key to the development and evolution of us as a species - I suppose you could extrapolate that to some degree of necessity. I could have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going to school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich over paid rock star today instead of a dentist. Perhaps you wouldn't whine so much about overpayed groups, then ;-) (Just havin' a bit of a joke with ya!) Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for life. Hmm..., I'm not sure we would have evolved to our present state, without the traits and expression that "art" tends to get expressed in. This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, paintings, graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. Neither is dentistry, to be fair. A few hundred years back, humans still existed without quality dental care. True enough, perhaps they had considerably less need, and perhaps some died and suffered - but humans still survived. If we had to we could survive. That could apply to a whole range of things, and perhaps we would evolve - but both hypothetical occurences would have reasonable impact on human development, in my opinion. But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any guaranties of an income. Neither does being a plumber. You still have to attract buyers of your service, somehow. I will concede there may be a certain degree of higher likelihood of success as a plumber, though. Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. We have to be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income (from painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets eliminate all of the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent by the standards of our society. Is that a call that the "masses" should be able to make? Taking out resentment, or jealousy, the argument appears to be that you don't think some people deserve the money they get - an entirely subjective argument. If you take what's left and divided the billions and billions of dollars between all of them. There would be NO starving artists!! And get rid of greed in human nature. There are always gonna be the "haves" and the "have nots". And probably the "haves" are not gonna want to give up what they've got, and endeavour to continuely increase what they "have". And perhaps there are always gonna be the "have nots" that believe they (or some other worthy group) should have what the "haves" have (if you pardon the aliteration!) - doesn't necessarily mean this is anything but a subjective argument, though. And consider for a second the psychological (and I mean the fundamental) reasons that provoke such thoughts. Most importantly, you'd better find yourself a new dentist. Perhaps this is why you're not a mega successful rock star! ;-) There went a gleaming
Re: MD: Napster article
If the guy hasn't seen a dentist in nine years, I doubt your suggestion of finding a new one isn't going to mean much. I'm guessing oral hygeine is quite low on his priority list. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las wrote: Do dentists deserve being paid to hurt people? There are a lot more starving artists out there than there are starving dentists. The above statement has got to be the one of the stupidest that I have ever heard. I'm very disappointed that an intelligent person like you would make such a statement. Some how I knew that would get your attention. I think we are taking up too much "bandwidth" with this discussion. The bottom line is dentists sell their services and expect to be compensated. They may or may not enjoy their work. Artists, do escentially the same. Some make it big, some don't. There are a lot fewer that make the big bucks than the ones that do. Then there is the cost of producing the product. Someone has to pay for that. There is the cost of the bus and transportation for the band, sound equipment etc. The band members have to eat and be paid. It isn't all fun and games like you imply. -- Jim Coon Not just another pretty mandolin picker. mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Do you mean if everybody with artistic creativity, or those that express themselves artisticly, suddenly disappeared? Or all artistic content and / or stimulus suddenly disappeared? No! certainly not all artistic content. When you get down to things that basic, art is like food (at least that's my opinion). I suspect the lack of creative culture and stimulus may have reasonably serious psychological affects on the rest of the world. No doubt. I fully agree. But I'm not suggesting that. I'm talking about situations were it is no longer about the art, but about the money. If there were no more dentists, it wouldn't take long before people were actually dying from diseases of the mouth!!! Perhaps given how society and modern life has developed. But go back a few hundred years, and there were no dentists - and probably far less dietary requirements, almost certainly some degree of poorer quality of life, or endurance / seriousness of certain conditions. People did die from dental disease in ancient times. There are situations that exist today where people have died as a result of failing to seek treatment. This is especially true of people with certain heart disorders. People die today from bacterial endocarditis. An infection in the heart cause by bacteria that enter the blood stream from you "periodontium" (gums). Art (in various forms, or guises) has been a pretty much fundamental aspect of human evolvement. Even caveman drew pictures on cave walls. Without this sort of outlet in human nature, who's to say what the effects on the evolution of the humman species would have been. Again, no disagreement. Suppose everyone in the group Metallash!t were to die tomorrow? How many people would die as a result. Perhaps a relatively small number of obsessed fans! ;-) Yeah, but the fans that they are suing (can you believe that!!! a group actually suing the very people that made them what they are and rich too) would be much better off with them dead. All the stress of a law suit would be lifted. The problem you have is that you are equating "artist" with necessity. To a certain degree, I believe the artistic nature in humans, has been rather key to the development and evolution of us as a species - I suppose you could extrapolate that to some degree of necessity. I could have been a starving artist. I was in a band for years while I was going to school. If we had what it took and or luck, then maybe I'd be a rich over paid rock star today instead of a dentist. Perhaps you wouldn't whine so much about overpayed groups, then ;-) (Just havin' a bit of a joke with ya!) I'm sure that I wouldn't be whining at all. I'd be laughing all the way to the bank. But that doesn't mean that I would be right. Art is very important. Don't get me wrong. But it is not essential for life. Hmm..., I'm not sure we would have evolved to our present state, without the traits and expression that "art" tends to get expressed in. There is no doubt that things would be a lot different. I'd say a lack of art would have affected our development adversely. But we could have survived. The Nazis sat around listening to the classics while they sent millions of innocent people to the gas chambers. Art certainly didn't make them better people. This world would be a terrible place if it were not for music, theater, paintings, graphics etc. But it isn't oxygen. Neither is dentistry, to be fair. A few hundred years back, humans still existed without quality dental care. True enough, perhaps they had considerably less need, and perhaps some died and suffered - but humans still survived. With our present diet I'm not sure that as many people would have survived if they ate the crap we ate to day. Also, I don't think a life expectancy of 20, partially caused by among other medical needs, lack of dental care, is much of a life. If we had to we could survive. That could apply to a whole range of things, and perhaps we would evolve - but both hypothetical occurences would have reasonable impact on human development, in my opinion. But art is not like becoming a plumber. It does not offer any guaranties of an income. Neither does being a plumber. You still have to attract buyers of your service, somehow. I will concede there may be a certain degree of higher likelihood of success as a plumber, though. Have you ever tried to get a plumber when you need one. Good plumbers are in demand and have a million times better chance of finding work then an artist. Lets take the relatively small number artists that are very successful. We have to be talking about billions and billions of dollars a year in total income (from painters, directors, actors, singers, musicians, etc.!! Now lets eliminate all of the people that call themselves "artists", but really do not have talent by the standards of our society. Is
Re: MD: Napster article
"J. Coon" wrote: OK. I'm going to try and end this discussion now. I have said all along that there should be a royalty fee paid to download "quality" MP3s from the net. I stand by that position. I don't think that they average person downloading stuff is thinking to him/herself, "Hey I'm stealing this stuff and getting way with it. Isn't that great?" We have a system in place for recording off of TV and radio. Now we have a new technology and we need a way to incorporate it into the system. Regards (and still friends I hope), Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
"J. Coon" wrote: No problem here, some of my best friends are dentists, my nephew just got started in his practice, and I'll probably have to go to one next week. Bit down on a potato chip wrong and it went between the gum and my front tooth. Been sore and swollen ever since. Lots of brushing and hot washes seem to be helping a bit. If it isn't better when I get back from a music festival this weekend, I'll have to make an appointment. damn. Glad you cleared that up. Last thing we need on this list is an anti-dentite. ;) Shawn 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thought that we live in a democracy? If the majority of population want Napster to exist, shouldn't that be the case? Sounds more like mob rule than democracy to me ;-) After all, if the majority of the population thinks you should give them your savings account, should you? Sorry, couldn't resist g - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Dan Frakes wrote: Sounds more like mob rule than democracy to me ;-) After all, if the majority of the population thinks you should give them your savings account, should you? The way I was always taught, our government (US) was set up where majority rules and minority has rights. If the majority want to be able to download music for free, and the minority don't want them to, then just don't make their music available to the public. Ah, you see it has nothing to do with majority infringing in the rights of the minority. It has to do with money. Nothing but money. In this country we hire incompetent teachers to mold the future of our nation and pay them modest salaries. You get what you pay for. (Which is not to say that there aren't some amazingly good teachers that are still being paid sh!t). At the same time we have this poor slob who takes always your garbage and can't afford to send his kids to college. Because we do not reward hard work. We pay people obscene amounts of money to have fun!! What do they call it when you participate in a baseball game or a band?? PLAYING!!! These people are doing just that. And I don't buy the excuse about all of the pressure on these guys hitting a little ball with a stick. The pressure on them is no greater then the kid in college who want's his team to make the state championship and doesn't see a dime for it (OK, before you say it, some of these kids get athletic scholarships). I know loads of guys who get up early Sunday morning to go out and PLAY ball. They do it for fun. They don't get paid for it. If you like playing ball, it is fun. There is nothing wrong with a person enjoying what he/she does for a living. Its great if someone actually loves what they do. But most people, even if they love it, are under a great deal of pressure and have a great deal of responsibility. What responsibility does a rock star have?? I love rock and have loved it for more years than I care to mention. I've been in bands when I was young. But if they stopped making rock tomorrow (or any other kind of music for that matter); if they stopped having ball games tomorrow etc., would it really make that much difference? Now if all of those poor slobs stopped taking away your garbage, in about 2 weeks you'd start considering paying them obscene amounts of money to get rid of it for you. By the time the rats as big as lions started taking over your neighborhood, you be willing to pay millions to get rid of the rats and the garbage. To me music is something you do because you have a passion for it. If people are willing to pay you money to make music that's fine. But the minute it is no longer about the music, but about the money instead, you are no longer an artist and your passion has turned to lust. Now I have to figure a way to tie this in with MD?? OK that poor slob garbage man wears a set of headphones and a MD walkman while he is picking up the garbage. You can't play ball and do that!! Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To me music is something you do because you have a passion for it. If people are willing to pay you money to make music that's fine. But the minute it is no longer about the music, but about the money instead, you are no longer an artist and your passion has turned to lust. Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable professions not being paid what they're actually worth. However, the problem with the above statement is that if we don't pay artists, there will be no art. You have to pay the rent, and no matter how much people love to write, sing, play, paint, sculpt, etc., if they can't do it while putting a roof over their head, they won't do it. Sure, there will be a few homeless artists who do it for the love of the art, but I'll sure miss the variety of music... [I won't even try to emulate Larry's attempt to keep it on-topic grin] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster article
Larry, I completely agree with most of what you wrote about valuable professions not being paid what they're actually worth. Dan, if I gave the impression that artists should not be paid for their work, that is not what I meant to say. But do artists deserve the payments that they receive while our children are getting inferior education's because we will pay Metalash!t millions of dollars a year and pay a great teacher $30 thousand if they are lucky? As far as sports go, I have no interest in sports at all and do not think that these people deserve to be paid very much for "playing". Most athletes do not have to work that hard to accomplish what they do. They are simply using God given gifts that come naturally to them. I feel much differently about artists of any kind. Like everything else, you have to have the God given skills to be an artist. But being an artist, is much harder. Requires much more effort, time and work to accomplish what they did. My nephew was a video major. One day we were talking about something and somehow he mentioned how he felt that "Shidler's List" was the best movie he ever saw. I'm don't know it is # one, but it would be hard to argue that it was brilliant. Not just Spielberg, but Neeson and many other people. You don't get results like that without, in addition to the talents God gave you, really feeling and working at what you are doing. Can we really call the Spice girls "Artists"??? I won't waste an MD on them. Maybe if they wanted to some of their other talents.never mind. One last thing. I chose the term "God Given", as a generic term. I'm not a some kind of religious fanatic that goes around mentioning God in every sentence. Perhaps nature's given gifts. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
* las [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 | Could someone please explain to me how Napster makes any money?? They do not | charge anything for using their service and do not advertise. They don't make money. | So how can they afford to fight the record industry and appeal decisions | on top of that? Donations from organizations like the EFF, for example. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === On 22 Aug 2000, Stainless Steel Rat wrote: * las [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 | Could someone please explain to me how Napster makes any money?? They do not | charge anything for using their service and do not advertise. They don't make money. | So how can they afford to fight the record industry and appeal decisions | on top of that? Donations from organizations like the EFF, for example. They originally raised money through investors and potential advertisors. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
* Mike Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 22 Aug 2000 | === | = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = | = be more selective when quoting text = | === That means you should trim your citations, Mike. Thank you. | They originally raised money through investors and potential advertisors. VC is not "making money". And right now there is no VC being funneled into Napster. What funds they receive now are donations. -- Rat [EMAIL PROTECTED]\ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
Yes and Napster is great for MD !!! You can download all the song you want for FREE and put them on your MD... Isn't it Great ?? Regards, Peter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dodge Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2000 11:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: Napster Will y'all stop with the Napster stuff ??? Thought this was an MD list ;-) Greetz, D = - A wise man once said : - Being in a relationship is talking soft and LYING HARD ! (Dodge, 1999) What do you think ? You can e-mail me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] - __ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
"Tony Antoniou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Under U.S. law, music is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's put onto a medium. However, copyright is not in force for an indefinite period of time. A long time, yes, but not indefinite. Therefore, a lot of really old (and we're talking as far back as ancient phonograph-era classics) musical productions are no longer bound by international copyright. True, but those aren't the majority of songs being transferred via Napster. Yes, there are MP3s put out by bands purposely to increase exposure, but those files are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the wholesale copying of copyrighted materials without permission. But you can't hold Napster responsible. That is the crux of the argument here. You were specifically talking about how it's "OK" to download stuff that's hard to find. Then there was discussion of how most of it's not really hard to find. You replied that "the hard to find stuff comes from bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves." To which I replied as above. No where in that exchange was there any talk about holding Napster responsible. In fact, nowhere did I contend that they should be. The issue was whether or not it was "right" or "wrong" to download MP3s, even if they were "hard to find." LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web. So you would lead yourself to believe. Again, as I mentioned to someone else a couple days ago, there's no reason to be nasty. We can have civil discussions without that. As for the content, do you really think IRC is as easy to use as Napster? It's hard to believe that a tool where you have to type "#join..." etc. and various other not-too-intuitive commands in a CLI is considered as easy as one where you point and click "Find" and then "download." But hey, we all have our opinions about what's easy and difficult in computer interfaces. If everyone thought like me, we'd all be using Macs ;-) And our MD recorders encourage the piracy of music too. Do you find it realistic to take action against those things as well? But that's the wrong analogy. MiniDisc is analogous to the MP3 *format,* not Napster. Napster is analogous to MiniDisc "trading" forums used by people looking to do the same thing as Napster users -- copy music they don't own. That is the correct analogy. Let's not forget the RIAA's earlier intentions to clamp down on mp3 technology itself. Just like they tried to clamp down on cassettes, MiniDiscs, reel-to-reel, etc. The correct analogy remains: MP3 technology == other recording media. Indeed, but that is not to suggest that Napster actively encourages the act of music piracy. I got a distinctly different impression when Napster was in its infancy. *Now* they don't actively encourage it, because of legal worries, but I remember when it first started. That was precisely what they offered -- a way to get stuff you don't already have. Hell, as a musician, I should feel more passionate about it than anyone else here, but what I am justifying is the wrongful beating down of someone who is acting merely as an interface, rather than a key player in the contravention of copyright law. I'm closer to you on that point than on the other issue (copying of music). The challenge here has been to keep the two topics separate. I think the retort you seek to my original statement would be along the lines of 'That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely to break the speed limit" '. Remember, I said that prove to me that Napster was designed to break copyright law, intentionally. It was created for the exchange of music, but not *specifically* copyrighted music. Good point about the analogy. But I still believe that the main reason for the invention of Napster (and even the creator has said as much) was to copy stuff you don't own. But that is not to suggest that the motor vehicle invented for you was to be used for breaking the speed limit as often as you can either. Motor vehicle manufacturers don't design their cars with the mindset that they will be used to break the speed limit, but they know their vehicles will be capable of that. Fortunately, the vast majority of automobile use is within the speed limit. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Napster use is to circumvent buying albums ;-) So just as cars can be abused, and contravene laws, so can Napster. If police chase the driver in charge of the vehicle, it should only stand to reason that the RIAA should be chasing after the users of Napster, and not Napster themselves. It's analogous. The RIAA are just taking the easy way out of the whole thing, and taking the illogical approach. What is it that makes it so hard for you to understand this? There is nothing about it that makes it "hard for me to understand." If you've read all my posts on the topic, you'll see that in theory I agree with you -- the real violators are those who
RE: MD: Napster
Now I'll finish up. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Sunday, 30 July 2000 9:23 To: MDList Subject:RE: MD: Napster But what else are we expected to do if we can't source them from anywhere else? Let's not forget that the hard to find stuff is usually not copyrighted to begin with anyway. Under U.S. law, music is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's put onto a medium. However, copyright is not in force for an indefinite period of time. A long time, yes, but not indefinite. Therefore, a lot of really old (and we're talking as far back as ancient phonograph-era classics) musical productions are no longer bound by international copyright. In fact, the hard to find stuff comes from bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves. Yes, there are MP3s put out by bands purposely to increase exposure, but those files are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the wholesale copying of copyrighted materials without permission. But you can't hold Napster responsible. That is the crux of the argument here. LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web. So you would lead yourself to believe. And our MD recorders encourage the piracy of music too. Do you find it realistic to take action against those things as well? But that's the wrong analogy. MiniDisc is analogous to the MP3 *format,* not Napster. Napster is analogous to MiniDisc "trading" forums used by people looking to do the same thing as Napster users -- copy music they don't own. That is the correct analogy. Let's not forget the RIAA's earlier intentions to clamp down on mp3 technology itself. Anything with a record button is capable of contravening copyright laws, and irrespective of the transport used in conjunction with the media, it's the people using the media who are responsible, not the couriers of the media. That's like me giving a box of cocaine to be delivered by a major courier to the recipient only to find that the couriers were busted for trafficking the drugs when it was clearly me who is to be blamed for the whole situation. It just doesn't make sense, and neither does the case against Napster. Look, I should make this clear. Legally, I think the action taken against Napster is a bit questionable under U.S. law. They aren't actually *doing* the illegal actions. However, my problem is the self-serving "rationales" people continually use to justify the stealing of music. People who have this Mary Poppins-like ideal of how Napster is this wonderful thing that lets new bands get noticed and where no one really steals anything. We all know that's not true. Napster itself knows that's not true. Indeed, but that is not to suggest that Napster actively encourages the act of music piracy. Therefore, Napster should not be held responsible just as Sony weren't later held responsible for the video piracy that flourished with the advent of home video recorders. I'm not justifying the consistent contravention of copyright law. Hell, as a musician, I should feel more passionate about it than anyone else here, but what I am justifying is the wrongful beating down of someone who is acting merely as an interface, rather than a key player in the contravention of copyright law. LOL. That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely as a form of transportation ;-) Even the guy who invented Napster has said that's what it was created for. The entire system is set up to do one thing: find music you want and copy it. And the overwhelming majority of music transferred is stuff people don't already own. You know it, I know it, people freely admit it. I think the retort you seek to my original statement would be along the lines of 'That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely to break the speed limit" '. Remember, I said that prove to me that Napster was designed to break copyright law, intentionally. It was created for the exchange of music, but not *specifically* copyrighted music. But that is not to suggest that the motor vehicle invented for you was to be used for breaking the speed limit as often as you can either. Motor vehicle manufacturers don't design their cars with the mindset that they will be used to break the speed limit, but they know their vehicles will be capable of that. Do you see the police chasing the motor vehicle manufacturers, or the drivers of the vehicles? So just as cars can be abused, and contravene laws, so can Napster. If police chase the driver in charge of the vehicle, it should only stand to reason that the RIAA should be chasing after the users of Napster, and not Napster themselves. It's analogous. The RIAA are just taking the easy way out of the whole thing, and taking the illogical approach. What is it that makes it so hard for you to understand thi
Re: MD: Napster is Great !
Peter Forest wrote: I'm maybe a Minidisc Seller, but I'm before and above all, a minidisc FAN !!! I love music since I'm young... Before the minidisc, I was recording on cassette because it was the only way to have exactly the music I want... I was doing mix after mix on METAL cassette... It was great, but as you know cassette is boring... You have to rewind, fast, play and tape get weak and sound is poor... What a mess ! Not only that, but metal tapes were very damaging to tape heads and while they improved sound quality in some areas, they had their own unique problems in others. When CDR was release, I've try it to make music mix, but it was really complicated, I scrap a lot of CDR, it was a pain in the a. To this day, with improvements in both hardware and software, I still find myself throwing out CDRs because something went wrong. You know that something is wrong when HP replaces (after originally replacing the 7200e with another 7200e) their 7200e CD writer for a 7500. Actually they originally sent me an 8100i, but I contacted them and told them that they made a mistake, the tech realized what he had done and replaced it with the 7500e. I don't think that the 8100 was available in an external version. They did this over the phone without ever making me show a proof of purchase date. But their Tech support is not an 800 number and the call cost me about $30.00 (he spend a real long time trying to "walk me through", hoping it was a software problem. No go. But it has gotten better then it was and at least a CDR is only fifty cents now. I even got some 80 minute CDRs for fifty cents each (in over priced Sears of all places), but I think it was a one shot deal. .. And I discover the Minidisc It was wonderful... It was really expensive but it was great for my mix !!! Hey, I paid $10 by minidisc at first... That was cheap. You smut have come in a little later in the game. MDs were only made by Sony in the beginning. they listed for about $17 each (and were on back order form Sony for months) I managed to get 10 from a friend who manages a retail store for $140.00 and I thought I get a great deal. And my first Minidisc Recorder Deck cost me $800 !!! I paid (again from the same friend who special ordered all of the stuff) $540.00 for the MZ-1 portable recorder. It was awful !!! (at least there was a portable minidisc player included with the bundle and 2 blanks Sony MD... WOW !!! What a deal !). Now, this deck is left in my studio and I never used it except for party with friend... The MZ-l came with one 60 minute MD. It turns out as most people on the list know, that it it doesn't cost any more to make a 74 minute MD even though they originally sold for a few dollars less). But Sony originally was having problems with the 74 minute format, so that 60s were born. At first, I use to do analog mixes with my CDs and Friends's CD... Sound was better than Metal Cassette, it was enough for me After, I discover when purchasing my MS-702 unit from Sharp that it was possible to record digitally !!! It was great... After I bought another portable unit the MS-722 and a Sony CD player with a MD Optical link... Let me tell you that I borrow all my Friends CDs and all the Library CD to make a lot of cool mixes on Minidiscs !!! I had an old high end Pioneer 6 disc changer (still have it, but it sucks). I bought it way before the MD came out, but it has both TOSlink and coaxial outputs. When I bout it, I thought, "there was a feature I'd never use". It cost me $40 for my first TOSlink to mini optical cable. It is real thin even though it is made by Sony. And yesterday, what a Discovery for me (not for you all but it was wonderful for me !). Before I used to browse the net to find some great MP3 songs... It was long, boring and really often all link was in realty broken links... So a lot of frustations... I have decided to give up... Until yesterday night !!! I've downloaded Napster and I have to admit : It's Great !!! All the song from the '70, '80 and '90 for FREE !!! It's INCREDIBLE !!! And with My Xitel Optical Soundcard, I can record directly digitally in my Sharp MS-722 unit !!! It's great !!! My dreams came true !!! I can now do all my mixes in nearly digital quality... Of course it's not like a CD optical recording but since it's free, I will never complain about it !!! Napster is great. I don't know if there really are hoards of people "stealing" complete brand new CDs. But I use it because I can't find the songs I'm looking for. Aside from rock, things like old Ray Charles. I don't think that it is fair to have to purchase 100 CD to get 100 songs!! That's 900 songs or so that you have thrown your money out on. Minidisc : what a great invention !!! No question about it the MD is great. But I'll bet that even thought they have been out much less time, there have been more CD writers sold then MD units. For one thing HP
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
On the subject of FM radio vs. Napster: one obvious difference between
recording from FM to MD and recording from Napster to MD is that you don't
usually get the opportunity to burn an entire CD from an FM broadcast. The
most important difference legally, as I think has been pointed out, is that
the owner of the copyright in the material has consented to the broadcast of
the material via FM radio (for $$$, that's how it works after all), but has
not consented to dissemination of their intellectual property via Napster.
BTW, as a bystander to this conversation, and as a lawyer, I think it's very
important not to mix up what's legal with what's moral - the two don't
necessarily coincide.
Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as I
can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't
already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently
going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may
well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or wrong
is up to you.
There seems to be a movement to blacken the recording industry or the
artists themselves (!) ("lower even than lawyers" I think somebody said!) or
appeal to the freedom of the internet as an absolute good in an attempt to
legitimise one's own brand of copyright infringement - to me the argument is
more about personal values.
Having said that, I can't help but think that the recording industry is
being reactive rather than pro-active. They can't sue every individual
consumer who's ever infringed copyright, and it's these people (us?) that
are the problem. The trend is towards more choice and convenience - I
wonder how long it will take for the recording industry will try to exploit
this trend, rather than fight it.
richard
Richard Lang
Solicitor
Duncan Cotterill
Christchurch, New Zealand
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel: (++64)-3-379-2430 fax: (++64)-3-379-7097
htttp://www.duncancotterill.com
-Original Message-
From: jgvp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2000 4:36 a.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD: Napster viewpoint
Will someone please explain to the recording industry the difference between
my being able to record the same artist's performance from an FM Tuner to MD
compared to recording it from Napster to MD ? Either way there is now no
additional cost to me after purchasing all the necessary not inexpensive
equipment, nor should there be.
-
To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word
"unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Richard Lang wrote: Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as I can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or wrong is up to you. Is it any different than having your friend make you a tape recorded copy of an album, or burning you a copy of the CD. Recently, on a BBS, someone posted what I believe to be probably the most relevant part of the US law (and after all, this case is being based on US law, in the US court system) governing this case. The quote is from the Audio Home Recording Act...Piracy is legally recognized as unauthorized distribution for commercial use (ie...money changes hands). Just be cause the record companies don't make money directly from the trading of MP3 files doesn't necessarily classify it as piracy, because it isn't being traded in commercial fashion: "US Code, Title 17 - Copyrights Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
No, you're correct, the Napster scenario is no different in principle (although very different in nature and scale) to making a copy of a CD on tape, CDR, CDRW, DAT or MD. Half of my own MD collection consists of copies of CDs borrowed off friends which to be honest I still keep and enjoy but have no intention of purchasing. In the same way, half my friends' respective tape/MD collections consist of copies of CDs borrowed from me! I daresay I'm not the only person on this list in this position. The thing is I don't claim that my MD copies of my pal's CDs are legal recordings, but morally speaking I'm comfortable enough with it (in the same way that I know speeding is illegal, but I still do it occasionally anyway). I'm no expert on US law, but the commentary I've heard on the AHRA suggests that there are sections protecting consumers from criminal prosecution, but not civil prosecution. Also I understood that "non-commercial" had acquired a legal meaning consistent with making copies of CDs etc you own yourself for your own use but not distributing them to others. I'll admit I'm not certain of this however. Certainly under NZ copyright law, which is consistent with the bulk of international copyright law, the fact that you don't make money from an illegal copy doesn't make it legal. The making of the copy is the prohibited act so you could still be sued for the infringement. Practically speaking of course, nobody bothers suing consumers. Of course the quantum of damages that you could be liable for decreases if you haven't made any money from the illegal copy. richard -Original Message- From: Mike Burger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 31 July 2000 3:20 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: MD: Napster viewpoint On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Richard Lang wrote: Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as I can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or wrong is up to you. Is it any different than having your friend make you a tape recorded copy of an album, or burning you a copy of the CD. Recently, on a BBS, someone posted what I believe to be probably the most relevant part of the US law (and after all, this case is being based on US law, in the US court system) governing this case. The quote is from the Audio Home Recording Act...Piracy is legally recognized as unauthorized distribution for commercial use (ie...money changes hands). Just be cause the record companies don't make money directly from the trading of MP3 files doesn't necessarily classify it as piracy, because it isn't being traded in commercial fashion: "US Code, Title 17 - Copyrights Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster viewpoint
Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as I can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or wrong is up to you. ok, being a lawyer like you said, this may be an interesting question for you. You say that they have a pretty good legal position. from where i stand napster the company should be in good shape and the person actually downloading stuff would be the bad person. they dont actually provide the music or transfer it, they just have a means of communicating with others. if this is the case and napster really is bad, then IMO every software company that makes and ftp/irc/newsreader/e-mail client/web browser should be afraid of legal action taken against them because they would be providing a conduit for illegal activity. so my question stands who actually is commiting the crime. napster who isn't transfering anything or the person actually downloading and transfering the copyrighted files? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
Mmmm, I didn't say the RIAA had a pretty good legal position, I said when you download music when you don't own the copyright in the original you're making an infringing copy. So yes I agree with you, Napster isn't making any illegal copies, it's the private consumer that logs on that makes the illegal copy. Unfortunately for the RIAA (and for Napster, probably...), the private consumers aren't worth suing (what do you apply for - an injunction to prevent 20,000,000 internet users from logging on? damages claims against 14 year old girls downloading backstreet boys hits?). However, I would imagine Napster's appeal will concentrate on this point. Interesting... richard -Original Message- From: Matthew Wall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 31 July 2000 3:39 p.m. To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: Napster viewpoint Dan Frakes is just stating the legal position, pretty accurately as far as I can see. Downloading stuff (old, new, available, unavailable) you don't already "own" [are licensed to use] legally is illegal. Even subsequently going out and buying the CD doesn't make it legal either,although it may well ease your conscience! Whether you personally think it's right or wrong is up to you. ok, being a lawyer like you said, this may be an interesting question for you. You say that they have a pretty good legal position. from where i stand napster the company should be in good shape and the person actually downloading stuff would be the bad person. they dont actually provide the music or transfer it, they just have a means of communicating with others. if this is the case and napster really is bad, then IMO every software company that makes and ftp/irc/newsreader/e-mail client/web browser should be afraid of legal action taken against them because they would be providing a conduit for illegal activity. so my question stands who actually is commiting the crime. napster who isn't transfering anything or the person actually downloading and transfering the copyrighted files? - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
Mike Burger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is it any different than having your friend make you a tape recorded copy of an album, or burning you a copy of the CD. We've been down this road before, many time, on this list ;-) Whether or not copying a friend's CD is a violation of copyright is clear: yes, it is. You didn't purchase the CD, you didn't purchase a license to that CD, you're violating copyright. Whether or not it's "against the law" is not so clear. Some say it is, some say it isn't. I have heard good arguments on both sides. Personally (and I'm not alone in this opinion, but some vehemently disagree, which is their right), I feel that copying a commercial product such as music or software, for the sole purpose of getting it without having to pay for it, can be considered "commercial." I'll be interested to see what the courts rule once someone makes that argument in a case. As for what you posted from a BBS, that is the most commonly quoted "justification" for copying friends' CDs (I use quotes because it's not clear whether or not it *really* allows you to do that). But the thing to remember is that copyright infringement is usually prosecuted as a *civil* crime. That is, any action to be taken won't be taken by the police or the FBI, but by the holder of the copyright. I don't believe the quoted section from the AHRA protects anyone in that arena. The fact that we haven't seen court cases against you and me and our neighbors isn't because we aren't liable for copying CDs we don't own. It's because a) it's too much trouble; b) the volume of stuff we copy is relatively small; and c) we had to buy tapes and MiniDiscs and CDs, etc. -- things that have a relatively high per-unit cost to them that provides a mild disincentive to copying large amounts of music, and things that have a "tax" buried in their cost to help "cover" loss of revenue to the music companies. But with MP3s and the like, it's still a lot of trouble, but the volume of copied material is HUGE -- people with GigaBytes and GigaBytes of music, hundreds or thousands of songs -- and there is no "tax" on the media for record companies and the like to recoup some of their losses. That's why we're seeing more legal action now. In addition, with tapes, etc., it was a one-to-one exchange. You come to my house, borrow a CD, take it home and copy it. Even if EMI sued us, they couldn't do much more than sue us $15 for each CD we copied. But with MP3s, the stuff has to be stored/transferred/etc., and there is huge volume there. That makes for more attractive lawsuits, as they can sue for hundreds or thousands or even millions of dollars. So we're seeing lawsuits where we didn't before. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster..off topic still!
las wrote: I guess the best way to put it is that the majority of people who use Napster aren't doing so solley for the purpose of getting totally free music. They would be will to pay a modest fee. Don't forget that these downloads are going to be of varied quality: CD quality since they are compresssed. So I don't think that they are worth paying an excessive amount for. As an occasional Napster user whose friends are also Napster users, I disagree. We do it soley for the purpose of getting totally free music. I would not be willing to pay a modest fee. My girlfriend has stated that she wouldn't either. I can't vouch for my friends, but I doubt they would be willing to pay a modest fee either. I agree with Dan, Napster is primarily for "stealing" music. That's what I and everyone I know uses it for. I know that's probably what 99.9% of all Napster users used it for as well. I don't feel bad about it, because it doesn't really FEEL like stealing. When I get an MP3, I DUPLICATED it. I didn't actually TAKE it. The original is still there, right where I left it. Only now I have a duplicate of it on my machine. I know in the official definition, the duplication of an intellectual medium is equal to stealing, but it's difficult for me to associate the words "stealing" and "theft" with something as intangible like recordable sound. Another reason I don't feel bad? Obviously I didn't like the rest of the band's music well enough to buy the CD... perhaps they are a "one hit wonder", or perhaps they only have one song that is a hit with ME. I'm not going to waste my money on a $13-15 CD if I only like 4 minutes of it, so I download it for free. How can I do this guilt-free? Because I was NOT going to purchase the CD no matter what. I had no intention of ever purchasing it. Even if MP3's didn't exist, I was not going to buy the CD anyway. I would have either a) recorded it off the radio, b) recorded it off a friend's CD, or c) lived without it. So my downloading one of the band's MP3's doesn't mean they lost ANY potential profit. Another reason - Digital Audio Tax. I record my MP3's to MD, and with every blank MD I buy, I've paid a percentage to the Digital Audio Tax. This tax supposedly goes to the recording industry, so in a way, I feel like I've ALREADY paid for the right to fill my 74-minute MD full of any tunes I choose, to the very last minute. Lastly, my number one reason I can download MP3's guilt-free - most people are downloading MP3's that are from popular bands (or once popular bands). At least that's the case with my friends and myself. Most of the time, I'm downloading Top 40 stuff. When these people can drive around in $645,000 turbo Bentley's, live in multi-million dollar luxury mansions, and blow money like it grows on trees, I really don't feel like I'm taking food out of their mouths when I download the one or two hits that I actually like. IMO, the entertainment industry is big and bloated as it is. People who save lives don't make as much money in their lifetime compared to some of the most popular "artists" and big shots in the music industry. Take a look at some of the music bigshots today... Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys, N-sync... do you see any of them starving because of Napster? Hell no! They're making more money than ever. I'll bet they make more money individually than what goes into heart disease and cancer research... and which would be more beneficial to mankind? H. Chances are, the music bigshots make more money in a day than any one of the Napster users will make in his/her lifetime. These popular groups are obviously doing well despite the fact that millions of computer users have downloaded their songs and probably will till Napster shuts down for good. Actually, I hardly ever use Napster as I don't really care for a lot of the Top 40 stuff out there. However, my friends use Napster religously, and I have absolutely no problem with it. Everyone is putting in their 2 cents, so this was just my honest opinion. Feel free to flame away! -- Shawn Lin http://www2.cybercities.com/g/gmwbodycars/ 1stUp.com - Free the Web Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
This is about all I'm going to say about it because sometimes, you just get tired of punching the information into someone more than once if you get my drift 3#-) Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2000 4:36 To: MDList Subject:RE: MD: Napster And that stuff fits in the 1% of stuff that you can't get at most stores. The fact remains that in terms of content, the vast, vast, vast majority of stuff available through Napster is easily available commercially. And that fact is completely logical -- *everything* available through Napster is stuff that someone bought at some point, and then allows other people to download. You do get a few files here and there that are out of print, or that are only available overseas, but most files are easily available because that's how they made their way onto Napster. P.S. Just because they are out of print doesn't give you the right to have them... ;-) But what else are we expected to do if we can't source them from anywhere else? Let's not forget that the hard to find stuff is usually not copyrighted to begin with anyway. In fact, the hard to find stuff comes from bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves. You're absolutely correct. The difference is a) It's the RIAA, not the SPA ;-) and b) the volume of content transferred via Napster is enormous. With IRC, you basically get the hardcore warez traffickers. Napster is easily used by anyone. I have newbie friends who can barely use their computer who have used Napster. a) It's still the same argument from the 2 parties - piracy b) And there are plenty of users who are new to PC's yet have found IRC just as easy to use as well. Granted, they can't perform a search like you can with Napster, but you can still find what you need, with a little patience, and get it down. It's still the same principle, only in different packaging. But the *service* is encouraging pirating of music. And logistically, there is absolutely no way at this point in time to only bar certain users, or even to identify who those users are/were, as they can simply sign back on with another ID. And our MD recorders encourage the piracy of music too. Do you find it realistic to take action against those things as well? It's a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Anything with a record or copy button encourages piracy. So as I once said before, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. There are many technologies released out there, with legitimate intentions, and all of which are used with the most illegal intentions, but they're the side effects. Sony were taken to court by Universal many years ago when they released Betamax, because it too encouraged the infringement of copyright. You didn't see them ban that now, did you? Think logically dude, just try. Hell, while we're at it, let's shut down the entire telecommunications system for also providing people with an interface to exchange stuff that they shouldn't be. When an obscene phone caller starts to misappropriate the use of the telephone system for his own illegal doings, do you see the police demanding that the telephone exchanges be shutdown and removed? No! So when someone "misappropriates" the use of Napster, it shouldn't be shut down either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telecommuncation lines are used for a myriad of things. Napster is used for one thing -- exchange of copyrighted music. The fact that a tiny minority of those exchanges is legal is simply a facade for the company to hide behind. It was designed, and is primarily used, as a way for people to get copies of music they don't own. Prove it. If a fair justice system is based on being innocent until proven guilty, prove to me that it was designed purely for piracy. Never mind the primary use, because that's the sole responsibility of the people who use and abuse the service. But prove to me that it was designed purely for piracy. Because some lawyer allegedly found emails from Napster's executives allegedly stating that they expected piracy to be rampant and that even they had illegal MP3's on their PC's in their offices, that constitutes evidence? Who is to say that those emails weren't concocted by an outsider who had nothing to do with Napster? Whether such legitimate exchanges are set up for a façade or not is not the issue at all, and you damn well know it. Because if that's the case, why not spare a thought for the millions of people copying that Metallica CD to CD (or MD) for a friend? Or for those who are making copies of their favourite video, Bambi? Anything with a record or copy button can be abused, and to single out one technology when all are just as susceptible, and all are available to the masses, and all can be afforded by the masses,
Re: MD: Napster..off topic still!
You raise some good points Shawn. Here's another angle on why I also don't see that I am 'stealing' by using Napster. I don't download any of the recent/popular stuff as IMHO most of it is not worth listening to and I certainly wouldn't be buying it. My main use of Napster is to source old long lost 45's and other vinyl that in some cases has never been released on CD and probably never will... Some of it is available on compilation CD's but again I wouldn't buy the CD just for one or two tracks that I like. Also the record companies constantly re-release this sort of stuff and don't often vary the mix or content, just change the cover and hope that the suckers will buy So many tracks never get released whilst many of them are re-released to death... depending on the whim of the record execs and on their opinion on if it will make a buck or not. IMHO, the record companies do not cater to the customer or their clients, just to themselves. Napster has changed all that - here is a source of thousands of long lost tracks that the record companies are not even interested in releasing. Just a minor point of disagreement - if I had to pay (someone, preferably the artist) a *small fee* to copy the master tape recording (rather than a poor quality free version) I would be happy to do so If only the music distributors would get behind this new distribution technology, they could offer a service at a reasonable fee that might keep everybody happy - IMHO it would be worth paying for access to the complete catalogue of EMI or the BBC record library. GB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster..off topic still!
Couldn't we then consider the mp3's as being part of that marketing machine? Giving people a taste of what's out there and to go out shopping? Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2000 1:21 To: MDList Subject:Re: MD: Napster..off topic still! But, that said, remember that the majority of bands that have "made it" did so not because their music has been so much better than other music that fans flocked to them, but because a good portion of record company profits went towards massive advertising, playlist stuffing, promotional efforts, etc. Without that extra money, we'd most likely see a levelling of the playing field on the one hand, but also a lot of good bands will get lost in the quagmire, IMHO. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster viewpoint
However, the device with which you are recording those time shifted programs is also capable of recording from any CD without permission, and without paying for it. The differences are indistinguishable because recording devices are just as prolific as is the effect of Napster on mp3 distribution. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Saturday, 29 July 2000 1:22 To: MDList Subject:Re: MD: Napster viewpoint Technically, the difference is that the record companies have granted a limited, exclusive license to certain radio stations to broadcast certain songs off of certain albums. You have the right to "time shift" those broadcasts -- that is, record them and listen to them when it is more convenient for you. The record companies often also get some degree of royalties and revenues from radio airplay. The basic purpose for such broadcasting is to get you to buy CDs. Napster, on the other hand, allows you to download any song from any CD without permission, and without paying for it. By using Napster, users are taking control of the broadcast and distribution medium and, in turn, the music itself. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster..off topic still!
"Tony Antoniou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Couldn't we then consider the mp3's as being part of that marketing machine? Giving people a taste of what's out there and to go out shopping? Yes, but *only* if it is by the record companies' initiation/permission. Without that permission, it's copyright violation. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
"Tony Antoniou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: P.S. Just because they are out of print doesn't give you the right to have them... ;-) But what else are we expected to do if we can't source them from anywhere else? Let's not forget that the hard to find stuff is usually not copyrighted to begin with anyway. Under U.S. law, music is automatically copyrighted as soon as it's put onto a medium. In fact, the hard to find stuff comes from bands who seek the recognition by releasing mp3's of themselves. Yes, there are MP3s put out by bands purposely to increase exposure, but those files are irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is the wholesale copying of copyrighted materials without permission. And there are plenty of users who are new to PC's yet have found IRC just as easy to use as well. LOL. IRC is still arcane compared to email, Napster, the web. But the *service* is encouraging pirating of music. And logistically, there is absolutely no way at this point in time to only bar certain users, or even to identify who those users are/were, as they can simply sign back on with another ID. And our MD recorders encourage the piracy of music too. Do you find it realistic to take action against those things as well? But that's the wrong analogy. MiniDisc is analogous to the MP3 *format,* not Napster. Napster is analogous to MiniDisc "trading" forums used by people looking to do the same thing as Napster users -- copy music they don't own. Look, I should make this clear. Legally, I think the action taken against Napster is a bit questionable under U.S. law. They aren't actually *doing* the illegal actions. However, my problem is the self-serving "rationales" people continually use to justify the stealing of music. People who have this Mary Poppins-like ideal of how Napster is this wonderful thing that lets new bands get noticed and where no one really steals anything. We all know that's not true. Napster itself knows that's not true. Telecommuncation lines are used for a myriad of things. Napster is used for one thing -- exchange of copyrighted music. The fact that a tiny minority of those exchanges is legal is simply a facade for the company to hide behind. It was designed, and is primarily used, as a way for people to get copies of music they don't own. Prove it. If a fair justice system is based on being innocent until proven guilty, prove to me that it was designed purely for piracy. LOL. That's like saying "prove that the car was designed purely as a form of transportation ;-) Even the guy who invented Napster has said that's what it was created for. The entire system is set up to do one thing: find music you want and copy it. And the overwhelming majority of music transferred is stuff people don't already own. You know it, I know it, people freely admit it. You, as the judge and all other legal professionals involved in the prosecution, are just simply not looking at the big picture. You've honed in on one point and just gone all out for it, when you know that there is far more to it than you would like to admit. Sorry, that's not the case. P.S. Rick, should we stop now, before people start killing each other? ;-) - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
"Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) If you're talking about the RIAA specifically, and downloaded music, I think you're wrong about the amount of downloaded copyrighted material. From the statistics I've seen about Napster usage, I bet more music has been downloaded via Napster this year alone than in newgroups in the past twenty. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and my venting
"Link :-7" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What has the recording industry done for me? They've saturated the Media with sh|t music... Brittany Spears, BackStreet Boys, Eminem, Limp Bizkit (I don't care how PRO-Napster they are, they still suck), oh, I forgot about the whole Latin Explosion too, nothing against it, but I guess Ska was two summers ago and last summer was Brian Setzer and Swing... Whatever they want to market. The only radio I listen to is oldies, and that's if I'm too lazy to hook up my minidisc to take a quick drive across town. Of course that's all your opinion, and has nothing to do with whether or not Napster is involved in copyright infringement... oh yeah, some entertainment: http://www.joecartoon.com/buddies/chaos/index.html Or goto: http://www.joecartoon.com Click Napster Bad! It's funny, and it is the truth about Metallica. For those that don't want to waste the bandwidth (and their time), the gist of the above cartoon is this: "Metallica fans who spend hundreds of dollars buying Metallica CDs, concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. are great unless they download Metallica MP3's, in which case the band wants them to go to jail." (That, and some really stupid caricatures of the band members.) Nice idea except for one fact: the people downloading the songs aren't the people who have been buying all the CDs, concert tickets, etc. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What is the matter with the record companies?? Half of the music that is on Napster can't even be found anywhere!! It's not like you can go to Tower records and buy the CD. I'd be willing to bet all the money to my name that 99% of the songs on Napster are available at Tower, Virgin, or an online CD store. If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! Not true at all. The record industry has to realize that the whole world is changing. Hell, all someone has to do is make arrangements with someone in some country that does not honor US or international copyrights and charge 5 cents a download. I don't see how you can stop someone from doing something like this when they are not bound by US law. There are international copyright laws. If the person who started the internet had licensed the Web, he would be richer then Gates today. But I'm glad that he didn't. The internet is the last true democracy. All we need if the government sticking it's 2 cents into it and blanking the whole thing up. Well, now that you mention it, some British company is now claiming that they own the patent for hypertext links, and so everyone using links on their web site now owes them a royalty ;-) All that said, I think your idea about charging a modest fee for MP3 downloads is a good one, and one we'll see before too long. Maybe when Metallash!t has to keep canceling concerts because they can't sell enough tickets, they'll have a change of heart too!! They are got to be lower then pond scum. Even lower then lawyers!!! (if you can get that low!!). They are suing their fans This has got to be a first. I don't get this. A band is upset that people are stealing their music, they try to shut down the company making such theft possible, and that makes them "lower than pond scum?" They *aren't* suing their fans. They are going after Napster. As for the *real* issues behind the Napster case, I don't buy the "I'm just downloading music I already have" argument, since on most computers nowadays, with anything slower than a T1, it's faster to rip the songs off your own CDs than it is to download a 4-6 MB MP3. The major use for Napster is to download songs that people don't have. The other argument made frequently is that downloading songs lets you "try them out" and that if you like them you'll go buy the CD. 1) Even if that were true, that doesn't make it legal, and it's still up to the record companies and artists as to whether they want to allow it. 2) The single study that claims that this *is* true was severely methodologically flawed, so there is still no evidence that this theory is accurate. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and my venting
For those that don't want to waste the bandwidth (and their time), the gist of the above cartoon is this: "Metallica fans who spend hundreds of dollars buying Metallica CDs, concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. are great unless they download Metallica MP3's, in which case the band wants them to go to jail." (That, and some really stupid caricatures of the band members.) Nice idea except for one fact: the people downloading the songs aren't the people who have been buying all the CDs, concert tickets, etc. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I cut everything except this last part. I disagree 110% with your statement that people who use napster dont purchase cd's. Personally i do use napster for sampling only. Since i started using it, my cd purchases have increased big time. most of the reason is i can not stand how sh*tty mp3's sound, but dont mind them for simple sampling of songs. The Jimmy Page / Black Crows "live at the greek" is a great example of this. I listened to 2 songs in MP3 format and about 5 minutes later purchased the CD online (this is when it was only available online) so saying that all people who use napster are just evil leeches that are sucking both the riaa and the artists dry is just crazy. and also saying that Joe Bob that actually has 30k mp3's on his DLT tapes is hurting the industry is crazy too. if the avg song is 3 minutes long that would be a total of 1500 hours of music, which if listened to straight through you would be listening to songs for over 62 days straight. and personally i dont care who you are if you have that many mp3's you aren't going to ever listen to them all. heck you probably dont even know what 90% of them are. ok that was my venting. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
Actually i can almost guarantee that newsgroups over thier entire lifetime have had more copyrighted material downloaded from them than napster ever has. they were going very very strong when i was in college, and this was in '92, and i know they were around a long long time before i noticed them. so over both thier life span's i seriously doubt that the amount of audio only transfered by napster comes close to news services. - Original Message - From: Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: MDList [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 1:26 AM Subject: Re: MD: Napster "Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) If you're talking about the RIAA specifically, and downloaded music, I think you're wrong about the amount of downloaded copyrighted material. From the statistics I've seen about Napster usage, I bet more music has been downloaded via Napster this year alone than in newgroups in the past twenty. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
Boycotts have worked in the past. When I was a little boy (a million years ago) living in NYC they started a boycott against s company called Judy Bond Clothes. They had shopping bags that said "Don't buy Judy Bond Clothes". There's no Judy Bond clothes anymore is there?? heehee.. the shopping bag thing wouldn't work now... people would just think it was a publicity exercise, and then there would be a phase where all the labels clothes had "..don't buy these clothes.." phrase written on them, and then after a short while everyone would move onto the next fashion phase, and the company would go out of businesss.. er.. okay, so it would work.. seanB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster stuff again...
Right on, lets all stop buying CDs and more importantly, tell all our friends to stop buying them and why. If you really need some music use a Napster alternative But surely this is still going to hurt the bands? I'm not defending the corporations here (although it sounds a bit like it), but this is how i understand it... : evil corporations 'create' acts, hoping to make buckets of money.. when/if they do, other corps think "hey, lets get ourselves a bit of that action", thus contributing to the excess of similar sounding sh|t. But sometimes, it's profits from the sales of these 'artists' (heh) which help fund (albeit in a limited way) a lot of the 'indie' labels that are affiliated to the majors. I think that if record sales continue to slump (apparently?) then it's all the small acts that will get dropped (i mean. it's already happening left right and centre..), and unless they can afford to record their own material and release it on the net themselves, i think we are going to miss out on a lot of music.. I don't mean that i disagree with boycotting, but is it likely that these companies will ever have a change of heart/brain where profits are concerned? I think it would be good if they got the idea, and started selling stuff on the net, but i cannot believe that we will ever see a song for sale for 25 cents! erm.. not one that you'ld want to own, anyway! (okay, i know music taste is subjective...!) When will media giants learn they can't control the internet? They have to live with it and accept things are a little different here. I spend money on the net (like my 30gig drive I installed tuesday) but bullying by large corporations seriously p!sses me off and they're not gonna get any income through that! I completely agree with that... i suppose that if a boycott eventually forced a change, then it could only be a good thing.. my own argument suggests that the majors aren't helping anyone but themselves, so maybe a boycott wouldn't do any more damage to small acts.. .. and i guess that if you want to make music THAT much, then you will find a way whatever. erm.. sorry, I'll shut up now. seanB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] end Sean Buckingham Media Services Brunel University, UK * (Ext)2209 * (Direct) 0208 891 8264 * (e-1)[EMAIL PROTECTED] * (e-2)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
Gotta work out a better quoting system in Word, but this will do. Read on. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Friday, 28 July 2000 4:39 To: MDList Subject:Re: MD: Napster I'd be willing to bet all the money to my name that 99% of the songs on Napster are available at Tower, Virgin, or an online CD store. Wrong bet. There's a lot of stuff out there that just can't be found at ANY CD store, and believe me, I have tried all over the world for some stuff that I've landed! If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! Not true at all. Granted. It's perfectly logical that it is not true. The record industry has to realize that the whole world is changing. Hell, all someone has to do is make arrangements with someone in some country that does not honor US or international copyrights and charge 5 cents a download. I don't see how you can stop someone from doing something like this when they are not bound by US law. There are international copyright laws. There are, but not all countries adhere to them. Then again, they're not necessarily developed countries either. If the person who started the internet had licensed the Web, he would be richer then Gates today. But I'm glad that he didn't. The internet is the last true democracy. All we need if the government sticking it's 2 cents into it and blanking the whole thing up. Well, now that you mention it, some British company is now claiming that they own the patent for hypertext links, and so everyone using links on their web site now owes them a royalty ;-) All that said, I think your idea about charging a modest fee for MP3 downloads is a good one, and one we'll see before too long. With any luck. It's the only thing that doesn't defy true logic. Maybe when Metallash!t has to keep canceling concerts because they can't sell enough tickets, they'll have a change of heart too!! They are got to be lower then pond scum. Even lower then lawyers!!! (if you can get that low!!). They are suing their fans This has got to be a first. I don't get this. A band is upset that people are stealing their music, they try to shut down the company making such theft possible, and that makes them "lower than pond scum?" They *aren't* suing their fans. They are going after Napster. But why should they? I recall listening to a night show once on 2MMM (a "rock" station) where the DJ made a comment about "Napster releasing Metallica's single "I Disappear" before it was even released. I felt it was my duty to correct the misinformed, for everyone's benefit, so I called the moron. Now the WHOLE misconception is that Napster is only providing an interface between people who have these files. Napster themselves do not rip CD's, do not store mp3's on their servers, and most certainly do not tell people to infringe copyright laws. They merely provide a simple interface for people to exchange their stuff ... like a network hub, on a major scale. After all, if Napster is at fault for the distribution of mp3's, then why don't we move on and wipe out IRC as well since a lot of pirated software gets exchanged via the DCC feature? It's the same thing, and don't you even dare try to tell me otherwise! That, to me, is the *real* issue, as it were. So yes, the bands involved in the lawsuits ARE scum, because they went about it all the wrong way by wanting to shut down Napster. To bar the users from their service was a "reasonable" countermeasure to the unwanted distribution of their music, but not to shut down the service itself. Hell, while we're at it, let's shut down the entire telecommunications system for also providing people with an interface to exchange stuff that they shouldn't be. When an obscene phone caller starts to misappropriate the use of the telephone system for his own illegal doings, do you see the police demanding that the telephone exchanges be shutdown and removed? No! So when someone "misappropriates" the use of Napster, it shouldn't be shut down either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. As for the *real* issues behind the Napster case, I don't buy the "I'm just downloading music I already have" argument, since on most computers nowadays, with anything slower than a T1, it's faster to rip the songs off your own CDs than it is to download a 4-6 MB MP3. The major use for Napster is to download songs that people don't have. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
You bet wrong yet again. Who makes these statistics? Do you seriously believe that someone impartial to the RIAA has actually come up with the figures? The distribution of MP3's never even multiplied with a puff of smoke, let alone explode to astronomical proportions as the "statisticians" would like to consider it. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Dan Frakes Sent: Friday, 28 July 2000 4:26 To: MDList Subject: Re: MD: Napster "Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) If you're talking about the RIAA specifically, and downloaded music, I think you're wrong about the amount of downloaded copyrighted material. From the statistics I've seen about Napster usage, I bet more music has been downloaded via Napster this year alone than in newgroups in the past twenty. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
okay... having read more messages in the topic, and now been to these sites, I'm more inclined to say that these companies can src3w themselves. sorry if any of my earlier comments annoyed anyone... g seanB PrinceGaz wrote I knew I would get some dubious info from thr RIAA site, but what I found at one point forced me to leave the computer in disgust. Most artists get bugger all of the cost of a disc, and for them to suggest otherwise is rubbish. They must think we have sh!t for brains. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] end Sean Buckingham Media Services Brunel University, UK * (Ext)2209 * (Direct) 0208 891 8264 * (e-1)[EMAIL PROTECTED] * (e-2)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and my venting
Da: Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] For those that don't want to waste the bandwidth (and their time), the gist of the above cartoon is this: "Metallica fans who spend hundreds of dollars buying Metallica CDs, concert tickets, t-shirts, etc. are great unless they download Metallica MP3's, in which case the band wants them to go to jail." (That, and some really stupid caricatures of the band members.) Nice idea except for one fact: the people downloading the songs aren't the people who have been buying all the CDs, concert tickets, etc. That's not true. At least, it's not necessarily true. Pick my case, for example: I have *all* the original Metallica CDs, but I was banned by Napster (under Metallica's request) because I downloaded a couple of rare Metallica live recordings (not official... they're bootlegs excerpts). I fully recognize myself in that cartoon... ;-) Luca Milano, Italy - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
Da: Dan Frakes [EMAIL PROTECTED] All that said, I think your idea about charging a modest fee for MP3 downloads is a good one, and one we'll see before too long. There's something even easier: if Napster showed commercial banners, it could still be free... something like "look at our commercials and we'll pay you in CDs"... er, MP3s actually... "The Britney Spears' MP3 you are now downloading is offered by... [put advertiser here]" Luca Milano, Italy - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster..off topic still!
re: I disagree 110% with your statement that people who use napster dont purchase cd's. well.. most of the mp3's i have are songs i already own, i just don't want to take my cd's to work. I have some rare stuff live/old that i don't think is for sale (legally, anyway). I have some that made me buy the CD's, and i have a few that didn't. Most of the time, if i really like a song, i want to own it. If i don't like an Mp3, i delete it re: I don't get this. A band is upset that people are stealing their music, they try to shut down the company making such theft possible, and that makes them "lower than pond scum?" They *aren't* suing their fans. They are going after Napster. totally. Having been in a sh|tty small time band, i know i wouldn't want people stealing music that i had worked hard to create. Essentially, it does boil down to theft, i'm not sure how you can argue it any other way really. i hate mettalica anyway, though! !P I'd be willing to bet all the money to my name that 99% of the songs on Napster are available at Tower, Virgin, or an online CD store. mmm... not sure about that..maybe it depends on your music taste, and the online CD store.. I havent seen 'ventolin (cylob mix)' for sale yet (although I'm sure it is available somewhere), but i WILL buy it when i do. there is a lot of live stuff available that i doubt you can buy. It may well be a high percentage, but surely not 99? I'd be willing to bet that you would lose your money! If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! Not true at all. TOTALLY agree... sorry las, but i don't think you can legitimately back up that arguement!. i'm not saying that i don't have mp3's of stuff that is hard to find.. but i wouldn't deny that technically i don't have any write to own the music.. I'd just rather be paying the artist instead of the label. that doesn't justify the artist getting *nothing* though. hehe.. my arguments are all two-faced, aren't they! seanB end Sean Buckingham Media Services Brunel University, UK * (Ext)2209 * (Direct) 0208 891 8264 * (e-1)[EMAIL PROTECTED] * (e-2)[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster stuff again...
But maybe the small bands could bypass the record corporations altogether if Napster was still around? They could market their own music, (as many small bands have done) and then any sales would go direct to the band, insted of 99% of it to the greedy suits in the greedy record corps... IMHO, these vultures have had it too good for too long - the sooner they become redundent to the whole distribution/marketing chain the better... GB But surely this is still going to hurt the bands? I'm not defending the corporations here (although it sounds a bit like it), but this is how i understand it... - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === If napster is bad for the music industry, then how come sales are up since Napster started?? My oldest son made a good point when I was talking to him on the phone last night. Aside from the things that I mentioned about half of the music on Napster not being available for sale, he felt that must people don't download to save the money on a CD. They do it to sample. He feels that no fan is going to download entire CDs. They want the liner notes, graphics etc. Larry PrinceGaz wrote: From: "Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) Cos the music industry sees Napster as a blatant music piracy tool-- you go online and download anything you fancy from anyone else while they do the same with your collection available. And the more anyone downloads, the more there is for everyone else next time. I got a bud who works for Trading Standards here in Britain, he's a good guy who is serious about his job and I think he'll have no regrets when Napster vanishes. I understand how he feels but Napster do not themselves do anything wrong, they merely provide the means to exchange information- if some of that info is material you have not paid for, napster are not to blame-- I'm certain that is in the Napster aggrement when you install it. Course the net is faster than these media moguls and I've already downloaded an altrnative prog thanks to someone who replied earlier, and if US bans Napster, wots the bet some European company wont do their equivalent. These servers don't really hold anything, just relay (vast amounts) of traffic, they could be set up anywhere. Just stick an advertising banner on it and politely ask peeps to click and Bob's your uncle :-) Hell, I heard Brunei does not even recognise copyright law and you can freely copy anything. Apologies for rambling, its 0445hrs in Britain. PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and my venting
" Nice idea except for one fact: the people downloading the songs aren't the people who have been buying all the CDs, concert tickets, etc." I don't know that is true. Who is going to download their music?? People who don't like them?? Come on! I'm sure that many, many of the people that have downloaded Metallash!t's music have jewel cases of their "legal" CDs around. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
"I don't get this. A band is upset that people are stealing their music, they try to shut down the company making such theft possible, and that makes them "lower than pond scum?" They *aren't* suing their fans. They are going after Napster." You don't know your fact. There are also several John and Jane Does listed in suits from Metallash!t, Napster fans Read the last issue of Yahoo magazine. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster viewpoint
Will someone please explain to the recording industry the difference between my being able to record the same artist's performance from an FM Tuner to MD compared to recording it from Napster to MD ? Either way there is now no additional cost to me after purchasing all the necessary not inexpensive equipment, nor should there be. It would appear that it's alright from the RIAA's stance that in the case of the FM Radio they have been able to extract their royalties from the broadcaster but in the case of Napster it's not alright since they haven't been able to do so so far ? They must really salivate when they ruminate on the "audience" numbers that could be gleaned from Napster's download figures. The discernible difference to me personally is that Napster permits me to have a choice to what I want to listen to right there and then, as opposed to having to listen to maybe an hour or two's worth of music ( to say nothing of the excruciating advertising ) in order to garner a pleasureable three minute cut. If I choose to retain those three minutes then that's OK if it's radio but not, according to the RIAA, if it's Napster. I do happen to have a sizeable 45,78,LP,CD,Cassette library nonetheless. The crux of the matter is that the RIAA wants the same pound of flesh from Napster as it gets from the radio broadcasters. Then let them sit down and agree to terms. RIAA, this is the 21st Century, and besides this being what contemporary "radio" should evolve to, a matter of programming CHOICE, don't stand in the way of progress with this dog-in-the-manger attitude and adopt the stance that if you can't make any money from it then throw out the baby with the bath water. As paying through-the-nose consumers we have had enough of TV and Radio so-called "programming" just being a vehicle for advertisers to annoyingly peddle their wares, and WE'RE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT ANY MORE - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster and my venting
"Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I cut everything except this last part. I disagree 110% with your statement that people who use napster dont purchase cd's. Personally i do use napster for sampling only. Since i started using it, my cd purchases have increased big time. most of the reason is i can not stand how sh*tty mp3's sound, but dont mind them for simple sampling of songs. I didn't say that those who use Napster don't purchase CDs. Only that there has only been a single study claiming that those who use Napster purchase more CDs, and that study was badly flawed, so there is no real proof that the statement is true. And let's all be honest -- many people downloading Metallica songs *aren't* the hardcore fans who own all their albums, t-shirts, etc. They are people who simply don't want to pay for CDs. I'm actually with you -- I have used Napster to sample stuff, but I hate the sound quality and if I like it I go out and buy the CD. But I'm realistic enough to know that people like you and I make up only a fraction of those who use the service. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
"Tony Antoniou" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd be willing to bet all the money to my name that 99% of the songs on Napster are available at Tower, Virgin, or an online CD store. Wrong bet. There's a lot of stuff out there that just can't be found at ANY CD store, and believe me, I have tried all over the world for some stuff that I've landed! And that stuff fits in the 1% of stuff that you can't get at most stores. The fact remains that in terms of content, the vast, vast, vast majority of stuff available through Napster is easily available commercially. And that fact is completely logical -- *everything* available through Napster is stuff that someone bought at some point, and then allows other people to download. You do get a few files here and there that are out of print, or that are only available overseas, but most files are easily available because that's how they made their way onto Napster. P.S. Just because they are out of print doesn't give you the right to have them... ;-) Now the WHOLE misconception is that Napster is only providing an interface between people who have these files. Napster themselves do not rip CD's, do not store mp3's on their servers, and most certainly do not tell people to infringe copyright laws. They merely provide a simple interface for people to exchange their stuff ... like a network hub, on a major scale. After all, if Napster is at fault for the distribution of mp3's, then why don't we move on and wipe out IRC as well since a lot of pirated software gets exchanged via the DCC feature? It's the same thing, and don't you even dare try to tell me otherwise! You're absolutely correct. The difference is a) It's the RIAA, not the SPA ;-) and b) the volume of content transferred via Napster is enormous. With IRC, you basically get the hardcore warez traffickers. Napster is easily used by anyone. I have newbie friends who can barely use their computer who have used Napster. That, to me, is the *real* issue, as it were. So yes, the bands involved in the lawsuits ARE scum, because they went about it all the wrong way by wanting to shut down Napster. To bar the users from their service was a "reasonable" countermeasure to the unwanted distribution of their music, but not to shut down the service itself. But the *service* is encouraging pirating of music. And logistically, there is absolutely no way at this point in time to only bar certain users, or even to identify who those users are/were, as they can simply sign back on with another ID. Hell, while we're at it, let's shut down the entire telecommunications system for also providing people with an interface to exchange stuff that they shouldn't be. When an obscene phone caller starts to misappropriate the use of the telephone system for his own illegal doings, do you see the police demanding that the telephone exchanges be shutdown and removed? No! So when someone "misappropriates" the use of Napster, it shouldn't be shut down either. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Telecommuncation lines are used for a myriad of things. Napster is used for one thing -- exchange of copyrighted music. The fact that a tiny minority of those exchanges is legal is simply a facade for the company to hide behind. It was designed, and is primarily used, as a way for people to get copies of music they don't own. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If napster is bad for the music industry, then how come sales are up since Napster started?? That doesn't mean that Napster is responsible for increased sales at all. The economy is way up since Napster was started. Maybe sales would be up even more if Napster didn't exist? We don't know. My oldest son made a good point when I was talking to him on the phone last night.[snip] he felt that must people don't download to save the money on a CD. They do it to sample. Again, "most" is *very* optimistic. *Some* people use Napster to "sample." But let's get real -- "most" do not. Most people just want a lot of cool songs on their computer, or they want to copy them onto MD or CD or tape. They like a single song, and don't want to buy the whole album. If everyone here asked everyone they know who has used Napster how many songs they have downloaded, and how many of those songs they have: 1) Downloaded and subsequently purchased the CD 2) Downloaded and didn't purchase the CD, but kept the song 3) Downloaded, didn't like at all, so immediately deleted ...your argument is that "most" people would have large numbers of 1 and 3, but no 2. I think reality is that the vast majority of numbers would fall into #2. He feels that no fan is going to download entire CDs. They want the liner notes, graphics etc. "Hardcore" fans, yes. But hardcore fans don't make up the bulk of revenue for bands or record companies. Every band has hardcore fans that will buy everything they release. But it's the non-hardcore fans, those who make up the bulk of record sales, that mean the difference between poor sales and good sales, or good sales and platinum sales. These fans buy the CD because it's the only way to get the album. Make it easy for these fans to get the music otherwise, and many won't buy the CD. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
"Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually i can almost guarantee that newsgroups over thier entire lifetime have had more copyrighted material downloaded from them than napster ever has. they were going very very strong when i was in college, and this was in '92, and i know they were around a long long time before i noticed them. so over both thier life span's i seriously doubt that the amount of audio only transfered by napster comes close to news services. I was referring to music, not copyrighted material in general. Just like IRC, the proportion of people using Napster is much greater than the proportion using Newsgroups, especially for music exchange. The media frenzy surrounding Napster over the past year has only increased the use of Napster. The transfer of audio content via newsgroups has never shut down university networks. It has never clogged the data lines at large companies... Napster use has, so badly that many universities and companies banned its use. The amount of music content transferred between users using Napster has simply been phenomenal. Napster has brought peer-to-peer data transfer to the masses, unlike IRC and newsgroups, which are largely used by more savvy computer users. Those users will always figure out a way to transfer content amongst them. The impact Napster has had is that it makes it easy for *anyone* who can click a button to tranfer copyrighted material. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster R.I.P.?
Napster lives (at least for now). http://www.nyt.com/ Peter Forest wrote: I just read this interesting article by Rob Walker at MSN.COM news... Napster R.I.P.? By Rob Walker Posted Thursday, July 27, 2000, at 12:05 p.m. PT Wednesday's ruling by a California judge that Napster must shut down its popular music-file-swapping feature has caused a lot of teeth-gnashing. Could this be the end, so soon, of the so-called "peer-to-peer" craze? snip-- == James S. Lee| Net: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Studies, CB# 6235 | Phn: 919-962-4963 University of North Carolina - CH | Fax: 919-962-3305 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-6235 | Web: www.unc.edu/~jimlee/ == - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster R.I.P.?
Oop, sent wrong page. Try this one http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/financial/27tsc-napster.html Jim Lee -- == James S. Lee| Net: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Communication Studies, CB# 6235 | Phn: 919-962-4963 University of North Carolina - CH | Fax: 919-962-3305 Chapel Hill, NC 27599-6235 | Web: www.unc.edu/~jimlee/ == - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster stuff again...
I don't mean that i disagree with boycotting, but is it likely that these companies will ever have a change of heart/brain where profits are concerned? Unfortunately you statement reminds me of something I learned a long time ago. We were learning about passive resistance and Ghandi. The teacher sad, now passive resistance would only work against people who had a conscience and morals and would not kill innocent people". "Passive resistance would not work again someone like Hitler. He would have ordered the trains to drive right over the people on the tracks instead of stopping". The comparison to Hitler is too strong. But I know that these people are only motivated by money and who could say the lengths that they would go to. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster..off topic still!
If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! Not true at all. TOTALLY agree... sorry las, but i don't think you can legitimately back up that arguement!. i'm not saying that i don't have mp3's of stuff that is hard to find.. but i wouldn't deny that technically i don't have any write to own the music.. I'd just rather be paying the artist instead of the label. that doesn't justify the artist getting *nothing* though. OK, I take that statement back. I'm entitled to one statemement made in the heat of the monent. But I don't totally take it back. The point that I am trying to make is that a) a person wants something. b) it is made available to them. c)they know that has value and that the persons who created it are entitled to some renumeration for it, but there is nothing in place to make a payment. I guess the best way to put it is that the majority of people who use Napster aren't doing so solley for the purpose of getting totally free music. They would be will to pay a modest fee. Don't forget that these downloads are going to be of varied quality: CD quality since they are compresssed. So I don't think that they are worth paying an excessive amount for. Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster R.I.P.?
FYI GB -Original Message- From: Eric de Fontenay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 July 2000 00:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mi2N NEWS FLASH: NAPSTER WINS APPEAL ~ Mi2N~ MUSIC INDUSTRY NEWS NETWORK http://www.mi2n.com SPONSOR of THE INDIE MUSIC FORUM PHILADELPHIA August 13, 2000, The Trocadero, 1003 Arch Street http://www.IndieMusicForum.com ~ NAPSTER WINS ROUND III~~ Napster was granted a stay by the Ninth Circuit Court to the preliminary injunction issued by Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Patel on Wednesday. "Appellant having raised substantial questions of first impression going to both the merits and the form of the injunction, the emergency motions for stay and to expedite the appeal are GRANTED." The order set August 18 as the date by which Napster must submit its opening brief, with the RIAA's consolidated answering brief due on September 8th. Stay Tuned to Mi2N MusicDish for more of this breaking news. ~ REACTION TO NAPSTER INJUNCTION = R.I.A.A. STATEMENT ON NAPSTER RULING; Statement by Cary Sherman, RIAA Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10714 = MUSIC NEW MEDIA PROFESSIONALS SIDE WITH FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ON NAPSTER; Mi2N/MusicDish survey finds Napster boosts CD sales, but is still illegal http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10716 = ARTISTS AGAINST PIRACY ISSUES STATEMENT IN WAKE OF COURT DECISION TO IMPOSE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON NAPSTER "We believe that a company should not be able to co-opt other peoples' copyrights" http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10688 = MUSICDISH COMMENTS ON NAPSTER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RULING; "If the industry is to benefit from the new opportunities afforded by the Internet, they will need to take a hard look within at their own business strategies" http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10754 = NAPSTER INC. FILES APPEAL; Napster Inc. today asked U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10727 = NAPSTER, INC. STATEMENT ON COURT RULING; Statement of Hank Barry, CEO if Napster, Inc. http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10740 = STATEMENT BY HILARY ROSEN ON NAPSTER DECISION; "This decision helps to pave the way for the future of on-line music" http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10746 = AUSTRALIAN DIGITAL MUSIC PIONEER MP3.COM.AU WELCOMES NAPSTER RULING; ehyou.com comments on Napster ruling http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10734 = LISTEN.COM ON TEMPORARY NAPSTER INJUNCTION; Statement by Rob Reid, Founder CEO of Listen.com, on the Temporary Napster Injunction http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10728 = MOONSHINE MUSIC'S PRESIDENT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENTS; Moonshine Music on Napster ruling http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10721 ~ ~ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster R.I.P.?
That's great... Hope this will last... Hopefully the time I set up Napster and figure how it works exactly... Regards... Peter. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Graham Baker Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 10:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: Napster R.I.P.? FYI GB -Original Message- From: Eric de Fontenay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 July 2000 00:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Mi2N NEWS FLASH: NAPSTER WINS APPEAL ~ Mi2N~ MUSIC INDUSTRY NEWS NETWORK http://www.mi2n.com SPONSOR of THE INDIE MUSIC FORUM PHILADELPHIA August 13, 2000, The Trocadero, 1003 Arch Street http://www.IndieMusicForum.com ~ NAPSTER WINS ROUND III~~ Napster was granted a stay by the Ninth Circuit Court to the preliminary injunction issued by Federal District Court Judge Marilyn Patel on Wednesday. "Appellant having raised substantial questions of first impression going to both the merits and the form of the injunction, the emergency motions for stay and to expedite the appeal are GRANTED." The order set August 18 as the date by which Napster must submit its opening brief, with the RIAA's consolidated answering brief due on September 8th. Stay Tuned to Mi2N MusicDish for more of this breaking news. ~ REACTION TO NAPSTER INJUNCTION = R.I.A.A. STATEMENT ON NAPSTER RULING; Statement by Cary Sherman, RIAA Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10714 = MUSIC NEW MEDIA PROFESSIONALS SIDE WITH FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ON NAPSTER; Mi2N/MusicDish survey finds Napster boosts CD sales, but is still illegal http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10716 = ARTISTS AGAINST PIRACY ISSUES STATEMENT IN WAKE OF COURT DECISION TO IMPOSE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ON NAPSTER "We believe that a company should not be able to co-opt other peoples' copyrights" http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10688 = MUSICDISH COMMENTS ON NAPSTER PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RULING; "If the industry is to benefit from the new opportunities afforded by the Internet, they will need to take a hard look within at their own business strategies" http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10754 = NAPSTER INC. FILES APPEAL; Napster Inc. today asked U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for an emergency stay http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10727 = NAPSTER, INC. STATEMENT ON COURT RULING; Statement of Hank Barry, CEO if Napster, Inc. http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10740 = STATEMENT BY HILARY ROSEN ON NAPSTER DECISION; "This decision helps to pave the way for the future of on-line music" http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10746 = AUSTRALIAN DIGITAL MUSIC PIONEER MP3.COM.AU WELCOMES NAPSTER RULING; ehyou.com comments on Napster ruling http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10734 = LISTEN.COM ON TEMPORARY NAPSTER INJUNCTION; Statement by Rob Reid, Founder CEO of Listen.com, on the Temporary Napster Injunction http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10728 = MOONSHINE MUSIC'S PRESIDENT AVAILABLE FOR COMMENTS; Moonshine Music on Napster ruling http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=10721 ~ ~ - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster viewpoint
jgvp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The discernible difference to me personally is that Napster permits me to have a choice to what I want to listen to right there and then, as opposed to having to listen to maybe an hour or two's worth of music ( to say nothing of the excruciating advertising ) in order to garner a pleasureable three minute cut. If I choose to retain those three minutes then that's OK if it's radio but not, according to the RIAA, if it's Napster. I do happen to have a sizeable 45,78,LP,CD,Cassette library nonetheless. Without getting into the morals and legalities (and because I'm trying not to get flamed): Technically, the difference is that the record companies have granted a limited, exclusive license to certain radio stations to broadcast certain songs off of certain albums. You have the right to "time shift" those broadcasts -- that is, record them and listen to them when it is more convenient for you. The record companies often also get some degree of royalties and revenues from radio airplay. The basic purpose for such broadcasting is to get you to buy CDs. Napster, on the other hand, allows you to download any song from any CD without permission, and without paying for it. By using Napster, users are taking control of the broadcast and distribution medium and, in turn, the music itself. I'm not making any judgements here. Just stating matter-of-factly. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster..off topic still!
las [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess the best way to put it is that the majority of people who use Napster aren't doing so solley for the purpose of getting totally free music. They would be will to pay a modest fee. Don't forget that these downloads are going to be of varied quality: CD quality since they are compresssed. So I don't think that they are worth paying an excessive amount for. OK, now I think we're getting closer to some sort of common ground, Larry ;-) I'm willing to give the majority of Napster users the benefit of the doubt, and suspest that they would pay a small amount in order to download MP3s of songs that they want. At that point, assuming the bulk of that money goes to the artists, I'll be a big supporter of the concept because a) the artists will be getting paid; and b) the record companies won't be getting billions. But, that said, remember that the majority of bands that have "made it" did so not because their music has been so much better than other music that fans flocked to them, but because a good portion of record company profits went towards massive advertising, playlist stuffing, promotional efforts, etc. Without that extra money, we'd most likely see a levelling of the playing field on the one hand, but also a lot of good bands will get lost in the quagmire, IMHO. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
The music industry really should know better. IMHO MP3s are popular because a) music quality has been on a freefall for a while now (how many CDs will you confidently buy for the full price?) b) CDs are seriously overpriced (nowadays they don't even do enough marketing to make the price seem justified from their POV) c) the industry is unwilling to release everything everywhere (notice they could've made money), making people turn to MP3s instead of paying for imports. but hey, such is life... I guess? Another reason to make more money... :) Leon From: "PrinceGaz" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 12:22:55 +0100 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: Napster Hi guys, Bad news for all of use who find downloading mp3 files with Napster easier than converting to mp3 from our own legitimate CDs-- seem that from midnight Friday they may be shutdown apparently because the music industry believes it is used to steal copyrighted material. I very much doubt that ever happens- not by me anyway (ahem, cough, choke :-) So you'd best get online and steal all you ca... I mean get mp3s of your own discs quickly. Or something like that. I do not condone copyright infringement (said in a very unconvincing manner). - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster
My suggestion to you all is that you get your hands on a copy of Napster as well as Napigator (http://www.napigator.com). This program allows you to access servers which are not operated by Napster, and are, therefore, out of the clutches of the RIAA lawsuit, for the moment. Adios, LarZ --- TAMA - The Strongest Name in Drums --- -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of PrinceGaz Sent: Thursday, 27 July 2000 9:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:MD: Napster Hi guys, Bad news for all of use who find downloading mp3 files with Napster easier than converting to mp3 from our own legitimate CDs-- seem that from midnight Friday they may be shutdown apparently because the music industry believes it is used to steal copyrighted material. I very much doubt that ever happens- not by me anyway (ahem, cough, choke :-) So you'd best get online and steal all you ca... I mean get mp3s of your own discs quickly. Or something like that. I do not condone copyright infringement (said in a very unconvincing manner). Yours, ___ ___ | || | | o || o | | | Gareth Bell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | | o || o | | | _ _ | | | o | | __ \ _ _ _ / ___| _ | O | | | | |__| )| __)(_)| _ \| __)| _ \ | | _ ( \|__ / | | | o | | ___/ | / | || | | || | | |_| | | | \ |/ _ | / _/ | O | | | | | | | | || | | || |__ | / | |_| || |_| |/ /__ | | | o | |_| |_| |_||_| |_||)|_) \_/|_||| | O | | || | | o || o | | | ICQ: 36892193 http://website.lineone.net/~princegaz/| | | o || o | | |"An it harm none, do what thou wilt"| | | o || o | |___||___| - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
I think that I have a solution to the MP3 controversy. The reason that people are not paying for the songs is because THERE IS NO WAY TO PAY!! What is the matter with the record companies?? Half of the music that is on Napster can't even be found anywhere!! It's not like you can go to Tower records and buy the CD. They don't have the songs. If they do, you'd have to buy a hundred CDs to get the hundred songs you want. Why don't the record companies start their own servers?? Or license someone to do it. They could either have a fixed price for each song. Or it could depend upon whether it was a new song or something old. For an old song, a nickel seems fair. For a new song, I don't know, 25 cents or so?? If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! The record industry has to realize that the whole world is changing. Hell, all someone has to do is make arrangements with someone in some country that does not honor US or international copyrights and charge 5 cents a download. I don't see how you can stop someone from doing something like this when they are not bound by US law. The internet is international and as far as I understand, no one owns the internet. That was the same mistake that IBM made when they didn't buy DOS from Bill Gates. They couldn't stop people from making clones because the only thing in their PC that had a copyright or patent was the operating system and they didn't own it. If the person who started the internet had licensed the Web, he would be richer then Gates today. But I'm glad that he didn't. The internet is the last true democracy. All we need if the government sticking it's 2 cents into it and blanking the whole thing up. The internet is the just about the only thing that belongs to the people. People put Gates down all of the time. And I suppose that a lot of what he does is not very nice. But business is business. Stop paying the mortgage on your house and see how long you live there (or the taxes for that matter). No banks aren't nice either. They put people out into the streets and don't think twice about doing so. That's capitalism isn't it?? You build a better mouse trap and, well you know the rest. Regards, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
When are the fat-cat suits in the music industry going to realise that it's too late - the cat's out of the bag. Sooner or later they will have to stop fighting 'it' and start to use 'it' as a marketing tool... On "Why the music industry has nothing to celebrate" ... http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index.html GB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) I think that I have a solution to the MP3 controversy. The reason that people are not paying for the songs is because THERE IS NO WAY TO PAY!! What is the matter with the record companies?? Half of the music that is on Napster can't even be found anywhere!! It's not like you can go to Tower records and buy the CD. They don't have the songs. If they do, you'd have to buy a hundred CDs to get the hundred songs you want. Why don't the record companies start their own servers?? Or license someone to do it. They could either have a fixed price for each song. Or it could depend upon whether it was a new song or something old. For an old song, a nickel seems fair. For a new song, I don't know, 25 cents or so?? If you have no way of paying for something then how can it be stealing??? It's not stealing if there is no way to pay for it!! The record industry has to realize that the whole world is changing. Hell, all someone has to do is make arrangements with someone in some country that does not honor US or international copyrights and charge 5 cents a download. I don't see how you can stop someone from doing something like this when they are not bound by US law. The internet is international and as far as I understand, no one owns the internet. That was the same mistake that IBM made when they didn't buy DOS from Bill Gates. They couldn't stop people from making clones because the only thing in their PC that had a copyright or patent was the operating system and they didn't own it. If the person who started the internet had licensed the Web, he would be richer then Gates today. But I'm glad that he didn't. The internet is the last true democracy. All we need if the government sticking it's 2 cents into it and blanking the whole thing up. The internet is the just about the only thing that belongs to the people. People put Gates down all of the time. And I suppose that a lot of what he does is not very nice. But business is business. Stop paying the mortgage on your house and see how long you live there (or the taxes for that matter). No banks aren't nice either. They put people out into the streets and don't think twice about doing so. That's capitalism isn't it?? You build a better mouse trap and, well you know the rest. Regards, Larry - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
From: "Matthew Wall" [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, here is a question for you all then, if the RIAA is s against napster, why havn't they tried to ban news servers? they have been around a H*ll of a lot longer than napster and i am 110% positive more copyrighted material has been downloaded from news servers than napster can even think of. just my 2 cents :) Cos the music industry sees Napster as a blatant music piracy tool-- you go online and download anything you fancy from anyone else while they do the same with your collection available. And the more anyone downloads, the more there is for everyone else next time. I got a bud who works for Trading Standards here in Britain, he's a good guy who is serious about his job and I think he'll have no regrets when Napster vanishes. I understand how he feels but Napster do not themselves do anything wrong, they merely provide the means to exchange information- if some of that info is material you have not paid for, napster are not to blame-- I'm certain that is in the Napster aggrement when you install it. Course the net is faster than these media moguls and I've already downloaded an altrnative prog thanks to someone who replied earlier, and if US bans Napster, wots the bet some European company wont do their equivalent. These servers don't really hold anything, just relay (vast amounts) of traffic, they could be set up anywhere. Just stick an advertising banner on it and politely ask peeps to click and Bob's your uncle :-) Hell, I heard Brunei does not even recognise copyright law and you can freely copy anything. Apologies for rambling, its 0445hrs in Britain. PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
I think that there should be a national boycott on buying prerecorded CDs and tapes. If the record industry's sales dropped by 25% or more, I think that they would be forced to have a change of heart!! Or should I say brain. I think that shutting down Napster is going to backfire on the music industry. Maybe when Metallash!t has to keep canceling concerts because they can't sell enough tickets, they'll have a change of heart too!! They are got to be lower then pond scum. Even lower then lawyers!!! (if you can get that low!!). They are suing their fans This has got to be a first. I think that they should be glad they can give their music away, let alone actually get paid for that crap (IMHO). Boycotts have worked in the past. When I was a little boy (a million years ago) living in NYC they started a boycott against s company called Judy Bond Clothes. They had shopping bags that said "Don't buy Judy Bond Clothes". There's no Judy Bond clothes anymore is there?? Regards, Larry Graham Baker wrote: When are the fat-cat suits in the music industry going to realise that it's too late - the cat's out of the bag. Sooner or later they will have to stop fighting 'it' and start to use 'it' as a marketing tool... On "Why the music industry has nothing to celebrate" ... http://www.salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/07/27/napster_shutdown/index.html GB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
From: "las" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that there should be a national boycott on buying prerecorded CDs and tapes. If the record industry's sales dropped by 25% or more, I think that they would be forced to have a change of heart!! Or should I say brain. I think that shutting down Napster is going to backfire on the music industry. Maybe when Metallash!t has to keep canceling concerts because they can't sell enough tickets, they'll have a change of heart too!! They are got to be lower then pond scum. Even lower then lawyers!!! (if you can get that low!!). They are suing their fans This has got to be a first. I think that they should be glad they can give their music away, let alone actually get paid for that crap (IMHO). Boycotts have worked in the past. When I was a little boy (a million years ago) living in NYC they started a boycott against s company called Judy Bond Clothes. They had shopping bags that said "Don't buy Judy Bond Clothes". There's no Judy Bond clothes anymore is there?? Regards, Larry Right on, lets all stop buying CDs and more importantly, tell all our friends to stop buying them and why. If you really need some music use a Napster alternative (I bet in a matter of weeks the net will be flooded with napster type servers-- the music industry is playing a losing game thinking shutting down Napster will save them and if they haven't seen that they need their vision examined. Cmon, its happened with [my fave download type] classic arcade roms-- the giants shut down arguably *the* site for everything, now there is more than ever on numerous sites which sprang up in response to serve the demand-- all with everything the original main site had. By blowing one apart, the moguls created a dozen sites all doing the same. They may be a little harder to find but the extra bandwidth is helpful and when you find one, you've found them all cos they link to each other in true web culture. When will media giants learn they can't control the internet? They have to live with it and accept things are a little different here. I spend money on the net (like my 30gig drive I installed tuesday) but bullying by large corporations seriously p!sses me off and they're not gonna get any income through that! PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, PrinceGaz wrote: Trading Standards here in Britain, he's a good guy who is serious about his job and I think he'll have no regrets when Napster vanishes. I understand how he feels but Napster do not themselves do anything wrong, they merely The problem here, is that when Naspter (the company) vanishes, Napster (the protocol, the program) remains. When the courts closed down Napsters main server, what happened? the service still runs, you just tell your napster program to use a different server, use OpenNapster, or whatever. Closing Napster (the company) solves nothing. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster
From: "Mark Derricutt" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem here, is that when Naspter (the company) vanishes, Napster (the protocol, the program) remains. When the courts closed down Napsters main server, what happened? the service still runs, you just tell your napster program to use a different server, use OpenNapster, or whatever. Closing Napster (the company) solves nothing. So arguably, you could move from a napster server to someone else who is supporting the Napster software thus meaning you don't even have to switch to a third party program? I know there are morality issues involved but please lets leave them to one side for now. Yours, PrinceGaz. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ More info on how to help fuel the boycott on the RIAA. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster NATIONAL BOYCOTT
From: "Ryan Hutson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ More info on how to help fuel the boycott on the RIAA. I knew I would get some dubious info from thr RIAA site, but what I found at one point forced me to leave the computer in disgust. Most artists get bugger all of the cost of a disc, and for them to suggest otherwise is rubbish. They must think we have sh!t for brains. Sorry for getting angry but that RIAA website has seriously annoyed me. PrinceGaz - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster MP3 finder
Hey Jim, Yeah i'm familiar with Napster. Great prog... what do you want to know about it? -Jason -Original Message- From: J. Coon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2000 16:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: Napster MP3 finder Is anyone familiar with Napster MP3 finder, chat room? http://www.napster.com/ -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster MP3 finder
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Just curious if it is any good, and how it works. "Lynch, Jason JD" wrote: Hey Jim, Yeah i'm familiar with Napster. Great prog... what do you want to know about it? -Jason -Original Message- From: J. Coon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2000 16:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: Napster MP3 finder Is anyone familiar with Napster MP3 finder, chat room? http://www.napster.com/ -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster MP3 finder
OK Napster is basically a prog that you use to log into an 'MP3 network'. You set up a userid etc, and you then share MP* files with other users. You can do a search on artist name, song name etc; even on bitrate, line speed, ping time, freq etc. I use it quite frequently and find it wonderful. I say jump in and give it a go. Being a big Pearl Jam/Radiohead/Cardigans/silverchair + more collector, its helped me find a ton of rare tracks i would have found much harder to come across. Basically if you want a track it'll be in there somewhere. Prompted me to buy about 8 CD's I probably wouldn't have before in the last few weeks.. As many people like to say... i'm not associated in any way, just a happy user :) -jason -Original Message- From: J. Coon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2000 9:36 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: Napster MP3 finder === = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Just curious if it is any good, and how it works. "Lynch, Jason JD" wrote: Hey Jim, Yeah i'm familiar with Napster. Great prog... what do you want to know about it? -Jason -Original Message- From: J. Coon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2000 16:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: MD: Napster MP3 finder Is anyone familiar with Napster MP3 finder, chat room? http://www.napster.com/ -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: Napster MP3 finder
"Lynch, Jason JD" wrote: OK Napster is basically a prog that you use to log into an 'MP3 network'. You set up a userid etc, and you then share MP* files with other users. You can do a search on artist name, song name etc; even on bitrate, line speed, ping time, freq etc. I use it quite frequently and find it wonderful. I say jump in and give it a go. Being a big Pearl Jam/Radiohead/Cardigans/silverchair + more collector, its helped me find a ton of rare tracks i would have found much harder to come across. Basically if you want a track it'll be in there somewhere. Prompted me to buy about 8 CD's I probably wouldn't have before in the last few weeks.. Is there some way to get a list of the available MP3s? Or it is a guessing game of "you guess what I have and how I spelled it"? -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: MD: Napster MP3 finder
I don't think theres any way of getting a list of all the MP3's (you wouldn't want to - there's probably about 200 GB of MP3 online at any one time). You search for a phrase or title or whatever, and it returns all the users who have that track on their machine. Then you choose which one you'd like to download. For example, do a search for Radiohead - No Suprises... you'll get like over 100 matches. -Original Message- From: J. Coon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2000 13:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: MD: Napster MP3 finder "Lynch, Jason JD" wrote: OK Napster is basically a prog that you use to log into an 'MP3 network'. You set up a userid etc, and you then share MP* files with other users. You can do a search on artist name, song name etc; even on bitrate, line speed, ping time, freq etc. I use it quite frequently and find it wonderful. I say jump in and give it a go. Being a big Pearl Jam/Radiohead/Cardigans/silverchair + more collector, its helped me find a ton of rare tracks i would have found much harder to come across. Basically if you want a track it'll be in there somewhere. Prompted me to buy about 8 CD's I probably wouldn't have before in the last few weeks.. Is there some way to get a list of the available MP3s? Or it is a guessing game of "you guess what I have and how I spelled it"? -- Jim Coon mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If Gibson made cars, would they sound so sweet? My first web page http://www.tir.com/~liteways - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] EOM NOTICE - This message contains information intended only for the use of the addressee named above. It may also be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error please notify [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
