**
I believe you’d be more likely to just download the previous CD from Napster rather then purchase it.
Marc
MGibson:
Actually, no I wouldn’t. But that’s just me. However…
mattk:
…you’re right. I can’t speak for everyone.
I don’t have statistics to back up my claims, I’m just giving you my real-life approach to it. In a sense; common sense.
But I will confess one thing:
I live in an Eastern European country. I used to live in North America. Now there are bands that I was introduced to through friends and the internet (including Napster) that I couldn’t find even in NA music stores, so you can imagine the difficulties in searching for the stuff on THIS side of the world.
That being said… where do I get it from? And is this any different than asking a friend of yours to tape his record for you since there’s no way of getting your hands on an original copy?
Now, I can receive a CD quality copy of the music that I’m hard-pressed to find (sometimes even the internet can’t help), but people HAVE asked me about certain tunes I have played in earnest curiosity. I tell them. Now the popularity of this little band, unknown even in North America, has started blossoming on this side of the world.
So… the next time they release a CD, they might consider releasing it here.
I would certainly buy that. I have friends in small bands that deserve better recognition than they’re getting, so I have seen the struggle an artist has to endure to get released and recognized.
So, I toss the glove back to you with a new request:
Show me a band that’s not going to appreciate that kind of recognition.
I appreciate your honesty, Darqangelle, but I don’t think it’s common sense for everyone. Common sense to many people says “Why should I pay for this when I can get it for free?”
mattk:
I’ll give that to you… I mean this is AMERICA, right? Land of the “How much can I take without any personal cost to me?”
BUT, the point that I was trying to get at was… okay… I had a number of them 
- Napster is a program. A medium not unlike a recording cassette deck or MiniDisc burner. If you’re going to nail Napster for distributing media, fine. But you can’t nail into people for abusing the product.
We’ve all done that.
I mean c’mon… you remember that party where you had a few beers, a couple of shots of Black Jack, and a Dr. Pepper chaser, next thing you know, you’re sticking the cat in the microwave…
Okay, so maybe the mocrowave isn’t MEANT to be used that way, but all it takes is for a couple of bad apples to ruin it for the rest of us, right?
-
Small bands have little chance in the cutthroat world of “the biz”. Even seemingly successful bands in their own countries are rarely recognized in places with an appreciative audience. Napster at least gives them an opportunity to grow.
-
Medium-sized bands on their way up recognize that there are other means of making money off of the “lost revenue” of CD sales, namely, posters, T-Shirts (ever tried downloading one of those off the net?), and concert tickets.
…anyway. I’m not arguing with you. You have valid points, I’m just offering the other side, as Gomez was looking for in the first place.
-Tall Darq and Handsome
**
I don’t see why you wouldn’t. You didn’t pay for the first one so why would you pay for the second one? At the very least I think most people would opt for getting it at no charge rather then spending money on it. Especially those who have already downloaded entire albums.
**
Napster doesn’t deal primarily in hard to find music. Mostly what you see on Napster is music from fairly well known artist. And it doesn’t make any difference whether or not you can find something in NA stores or not. Nor does it matter whether or not these established artist are wealthy or not.
And incidently, in the United States you’re not allowed to copy a CD and give it to your friends. It doesn’t matter if the record is rare or costly for you to find in NA.
**
If the band doesn’t mind their music being on Napster I certainly don’t have a problem with it. However many artist and record companies do not appreciate their music being given out for free.
**
I don’t see what difference this makes. That doesn’t make it ok to take someone else’s music and do what you want with it.
Metallica apparantly.
Marc
MGibson:
I don’t see why you wouldn’t. You didn’t pay for the first one so why would you pay for the second one? At the very least I think most
people would opt for getting it at no charge rather then spending money on it.
I agree that quite a number wouldn’t. I’m not of that “quite a number”. But record sales haven’t been THAT hard hit, have they? Do you have the numbers?
Napster doesn’t deal primarily in hard to find music. Mostly what you see on Napster is music from fairly well known artist.
If that’s all you’re searching for, then that’s all you’re going to find. I don’t make a search for “Sting”, for instance, unless I’m looking for a particular hard-to-find track. If I want the latest Sting tunes, I can walk across the street to the local record store and buy the CD.
Napster doesn’t “deal” with anything in particular. It’s a device that let’s you search other people’s databases.
And incidently, in the United States you’re not allowed to copy a CD and give it to your friends.
I’m aware of that. I’m not arguing for it, I’m merely implying that it does happen.
It doesn’t matter if the record is rare or costly for you to find in NA.
It does (to me) if I can’t find it.
If the band doesn’t mind their music being on Napster I certainly don’t have a problem with it.
There! I knew we could agree…
However many artist and record companies do not appreciate their music being given out for free.
Have you noticed that these particular artists and record companies are already making more money than some country’s GNPs?
I have friends in small bands that deserve better recognition than they’re getting, so
I have seen the struggle an artist has to endure to get released and recognized.
I don’t see what difference this makes. That doesn’t make it ok to take someone else’s music and do what you want with it.
??? I’m not making money off their music. I enjoy music and I enjoy sharing this music by playing it for other people. I do nothing more than any other person does when they say “Hey, you gotta listen to THIS!”
Word-of.mouth advertising has always been recognized as the best kind. What I’m doing is introducing more people to new music.
Show me a band that’s not going to appreciate that kind of recognition.
Metallica apparantly.
L Indeed. But they’re scared of losing money (puh-leez). Small and medium-sized bands gain from this technology. I’m talking about small bands that go on the road in their own van trying to make their “big break”.
-Turn on a light, it’s too Darq
Well, because it’s so much easier to go to the store and pick it up (or even easier order on-line). When you are downloading files you get cut off, the person with the file needs to go, stuff like that. Plus, you never know what quality of music you have until it’s dowloaded, I’ve gotten many with hiccups in them or the beginning or end of the song is cut off. I spent all of my free time one entire week trying to get one particular song. It’s not available for purchase in the US or obviously it would have been much easier to go to the store. (I’m trying to find out if it will be released in the US, because then I won’t bother copying it to a CD)
I guess if nothing else this law suit has brought to the attention of honest people that they need to remember to purchase music to support their favorite artists.
On the other hand, the people that aren’t going to buy the CD’s wouldn’t have anyway. They either wouldn’t have heard it or they would have made a copy of their buddy’s copy, that kind of thing. That’s the way that people have been since the invention of the audio cassette (and probably before, I don’t remember before that).
**
The amount of money they have makes no difference. They’re suppose to have exclusive rights to their products until the copyright runs out.
**
You’re not “sharing” music by playing it you’re distributing it. The fact that you’re not making a dollar off it doesn’t make it ok to distrubute the songs. In the United States at least the holders of copyrights get exclusive use of their product. That means that you’re not allowed to distribute it without their permission.
**
Puh leez? I’m sure if your product was being stolen your attitude would be just as glib. Why not limit the music exchanged on Napster to those artist who consent? That’s right. Napster would come to an almost screeching halt and the creators would be unable to make a profit off it. Yes I know they don’t currently make a profit but eventually they’ll try. And with only the music of small and medium sized bands there’s little chance of them making a large profit.
Marc
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**
??? You’re saying that by playing it, I’m distributing it? How?
**
If I had just released an album, and that album soared up the charts in the US but not anywhere else. I’d be thankful, Napster or no.
IF, however, I found out that people in Europe are downloading my song like crazy, then I’d be even more thankful, because I’d realize that there’s a market that’s been untapped but growing across the pond. That’s a win-win situation for me.
My popularity starts soaring; the number of CDs sold will increase as well. Why? Because now we’re going to start distributing the CDs in Europe!
**
Now THAT is an excellent idea!
**
They wouldn’t come to a screeching halt. The program is hot. The easiest thing the record companies could’ve done is buy out Napster and then use it to their advantage by using it a sales & distribution medium.
**
But it’s a way of being able to promote small to medium bands or make some income off of rare tracks. Of course the profit is the main thing, isn’t it? So where’s the chance of a small but talented band making it big for themselves? What medium do you suggest? The entire music industry is, IMHO, completely f"#¤ed up and money hungry.
Not only do they overcharge on CD manufacturing, production, music video filming, take a huge cut on musicians’ incomes, take a huge cut from advertisers who sponsor the artists’ concerts, take money from radio stations and DJ companies for playing the songs, and (now) charging a fee and taking a cut from blank CD, MD and cassette sales (this has occurred in Canada, I don’t know about the U.S.)… but they complain that money is being taken from them from Napster users.
So nail the users, not the medium. That’s all the record companies have been doing anyway, what’s the difference? Either that or BUY the company (which is usually the desire of most dotcoms) and then when you OWN it, make your own rules!
I agree with SoMoMom, if people weren’t buying the CDs, then they probably wouldn’t have bought the CD in the first place.
**
I should have been more clear. When you exchange files you’re distributing. It is not the same as simply listening to music with some pals.
**
Fantastic. This isn’t about how you or I would feel if your music was distributed.
**
Napster doesn’t seem to be interested in trying this out.
**
I think that without popular musicians Napster would be unable to turn a large profit. Sure there are people like you who look for that hard to find music. But I don’t think you make up the bulk of Napster users.
**
Great. Like I said if a band wants their stuff on Napster then more power to 'em. I object to music being traded on Napster without permission.
**
Our feelings about the record companies don’t really matter.
**
But the primary use of Napster is to spread copyrighted material against the wishes of the artist. Why not shut it down?
Another arguement that doesn’t matter. They have exclusive right to distribute their material as they see fit. The fact that you wouldn’t pay for the CD doesn’t make it ok to get illegal copies.
Marc
Honestly Ted, speaking out of your behind is not very socially acceptable. I personally do not get any benefit from our favorite industry.
Admitadly, I listen to an obscure genre of punk rock (yay Mr. T Experience!) I dont think I have bought an album off a major label for years. I do, however, purchase a ton of reasonably priced CD's from the thriving mail-order scene that most smaller labels and independent bands have to use to get any distribution. I go to live shows of touring bands at least once a month and see local bands nearly bi-weekly. Usually I'll buy a tee-shirt or button or something while I am there to show my support. Yes, I do download a lot of MP3's mostly cos my music is fairly hard to find through mainstream channels. The bands I listen to embrace that. They even release their work on MP3's just so people will listen to them. Before MP3s, lots of small lables sold cheap five-buck CD's with songs from every album they released that year to expose people to new things. All things considered, there is life beyond labels.
Have you turned on the radio lately? It's the same freaking half-baked drivel they have been feeding us for years under the guise of "alternative". Any variation from angsty droneing is a fad that will last all of five minutes before it isnt "hip" anymore and the droneing continues. remember ska, anyone? It used to be a thriving underground scene until it was snatched up for five seconds of fame, sucked dry, and promply discarded? Yes we are reaping the "benefits" of the industry, except I'm not getting freaking rich by it!
So yes, by all means change is good! We have only forward to go. The great label experiment didn't work, so let's go back to music as a form of erxpression, not a commodity. Let's go back to when fans supported musicians and musicians loved their fans, not milked them for every cent they have with fifty dollar tee-shirts. Let's put local musicians back in the spotlight. Let's allow people to make music for the music's sake, not the market. Let's support innovation and experimentation! Let's have world peace, as well!
In this case the ends justify the means. Napster (an other file-sharing means) is the way to a bright future. Thank God they cant shut this dream down no matter how hard they try. Long live good music!I think the Industry had it coming. Price gougeing on Cd’s is ridculous. Weren’t they suppose to be cheaper for Tapes? And now that demand is down what do they do? Raise the prices. What logic is that?
I’m very tempted to come up with a witty remark like that, but I think I’ll “pass” just this once.
Good for you then.
Then I’m sure you won’t mind if Napster eliminates transfers of all the bands that request it. Or better yet, only authorizes those that do.
Most people, however, aren’t like you. They like the big bands. They love going to a concert and seeing an essential superstar. The name is as imporant as the music.
I stand by my point as it was intended. The good majority of people who are complaining now are going to regret it when they don’t have the industry to create the image for them anymore. I’m happy that you’ll be dancing about over joyed at the prospect of no such thing as a big band anymore.
Most people probably won’t. Hopefully they’ll get over it.
Do you have a chip on your shoulder, or am I just seeing things? Sure you’ll find people who agree with you. In fact a lot of people. But it doesn’t change the fact that people still buy this stuff they want it. If they didn’t they’d be listing to the same kind of music that you do, and those bands would be a lot more popular.
Three questions:
- When was this magical time?
- Where you around during it’s existance?
- If local musicians are so good (I’m not saying they aren’t), how come people still want to hear the big bands?
I speak in all seriousness and I’m not trying to patronize you in asking.
I still think you’re deluding yourself. And making the mistake of thinking that others want what you want.
And they don’t have to shut em down. They only have to create a bunch of cukoo eggs for you to spend hours on downloading only to find some damn bird chriping at you.
*Originally posted by MGibson *
**
**
Uh, I’m NOT distributing it. I don’t exchange files. I just grab the select few I look for. I said that I play these tunes in my sets sometimes, and tell people (who ask) who I just played.
No… I’m making a point.
Okay, here’s the problem, and we’re both guilty of it. The original question was “What are the good things about Napster?” Now, understandably, I’ve been throwing in my opinions in along with my statements on this. Don’t provoke me. But we are starting to lose sight of the point. You’re telling me that what I do is understandable and you agree that some of my points are valid.
Well, those are the points I’m trying to validate! I agree with you that “most” people are only going to take advantage of the new tool taht is placed before them.
But that is to be accepted (not form a legal standpoint, but let’s call it the reality standpoint.)
If I can just digress (once again) to another example by using the “speeding” argument:
You speed. I speed. Most of us speed.
If I gave you a Corvette to kick around in for a day, with a top speed ability of 170 mph, you’re going to find out how fast you can go in it, right? No, you’re not going to get up to 170, but tell me you’re not going to at least try for 100 either on the interstate or some deserted backroad, right?
Okay. So we can agree that what you’d do, in the book sense, is illegal.
Is it illegal to drive around in a Vette? No.
Is it illegal to speed in the Vette? Yes.
Do people do it anyway? Yes.
Is it illegal to use Napster for its intended purpose of sampling (listening to) songs? No.
Is it illegal to use Napster to copy and distribute songs without the permission of the artists or the record companies? Yes.
Do people do it anyway? Yes.
But does this mean that, because people use the device for purposes other than intended, that it should be banned?
People were trying to ban SuperSoakers because some kids in NYC were filling them with bleach.
I’m arguing (albeit in a roundabout way) that the tool DOES have positive uses. But the Vette shouldn’t be dismantled just because people are not doing what they should.
Was Napster a distributer? Or a tool. I’m focussing on the program, and the company that produced the program. If they are putting licenced music into their database and distributing it, then yes, they should be nailed for that. HOWEVER, they shouldn’t shut down the prgram because people are taking advantage of it.
**
Napster isn’t making a profit. If you can (rightfully) argue that how much money the record companies make is not the point (and you are correct, I was just sharing an opinion and using known information to get to my other point), then I don’t think you can use the argument that Napster is profiting from this. They are not. You also cannot assume that they were going to.
**
Are you a musician? (personal question…just curious)
I concur… but I was getting to a point–
The primary use of the Vette is to blow the doors off of anything else on the street.
You’re suggesting that the spreading of copyrighted material was the prupose of Napster. I ask you to prove it. Has Napster confessed that this was their intent in creating the program?
That’s not the point that SoM was trying to make. This was a statement against the argument that revenues were being lost as a result of Napster users.
Tom:
**
If you walked into a restaurant and the only thing they had on the menu was sourkraut soup and Roast Beef, would you order the chicken? It’s not on the menu. They have it in the kitchen, but unless you know it exists, how would you know to order it?
Radio stations around the country play the same stuff over and over. Things that are fed by the record industry themselves (funny… and the radio stations have to pay the record industry to play these tunes). It’s called going for the common denominator, and, unfortunately, it works. The masses are used to being spoon-fed and told, “you like this! You’re supposed to like this! It’s cool!” …and it’s the only thing they get.
This is an opinion, but it wouldn’t be funny if it didn’t have a shred of truth.
-Our Darqness
Minor quibble–radio pays the artists, not the record companies, and does so through the artists’ performing-rights associations. I have filled out enough BMI clearance forms and BMI logs to know the difference.
…unless the artists don’t own the rigths to the songs and the record company (or their distribution arm) does…
do you share any of your songs. Can people dl from you?
-
Napster’s intended purpose is not to sample songs. You are only allowed to sample songs that aren’t copyrighted. Read the Terms and conditions again.
-
Napster is not a car. Even if it was, your speeding analogy won’t be accurate until you change driving 100 miles on a backroad to going 200 miles on the sidewalk and always being able to get away with it.
The abuse of Napster is blatently obvious, it’s used far more for the illegal activities then any legit ones. If there was a magical car that let people do this shouldn’t the goverment take out the car, as they can’t stop the people?
If the majority of kids were doing that and there was no way to prevent them from doing it other than removing the supersoakers yes it should be banned.
Wrong. If you own a courrir service, and the vast majority of clients of that service use it to transfer drugs and other illegal products to each other, you are partly responsible. You can not claim imunity just because the drugs aren’t yours.
What are we to assume then? That investors gave Napster 15 million dollars out of the kindness of their heart? Many of these investors who happen to own the largest portion of the company?
Until you can give me a better reason that cut throat bussinees men invested so much money in this company, I can darn well assume that they were expecting to turn a profit.
Close enough. As a hobby. And I know a goodly number of minor bands as well.
**
www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2587837,00.htmlhell… even napster themselves say it’s OK to distribute copyright music.
Not to mention that Sean said the orginal reason he made it was to make an easier way to exchange mp3s(all mp3s) with his friends.
**
> radio pays the artists, not the record companies
I thought it was just the songwriter who got royalties from radio play. Is that wrong?
No, Tampa, you’re right, for the most part. I should have said, “Radio pays the songwriter and publisher.” The artists might, in fact, be neither.
**
So you’re grabbing the files from someone else. They’re distributing the song illegal and your accepting them illegally.
**
If the primary purpose is to do something illegal, then yes. If Napster doesn’t like that then they should make the effort to make sure copyrighted material isn’t traded.
**
I agree that the tool does have positive uses. But the positives are being outweighed by the negatives.
**
Then they need to take steps to ensure that their system isn’t being abused. Right now they take no such steps.
**
Which doesn’t matter. They’re a forum where the intellectual property of other people is distributed without permission.
**
I am not a professional musician nor do I write my own music.
**
Not difficult to prove at all. Check out how much copyrighted material is “shared” on Napster vs. the amount of non copyrighted material. Napster grew from local data bases in colleges where people recorded their CDs into MP3 format.
Marc