Napster, I don't get it.

[Darqangelle]

*Originally posted by MGibson *
So you’re grabbing the files from someone else. They’re distributing the song illegal and your accepting them illegally.

Yep.

**
But does this mean that, because people use the device for purposes other than intended, that it should be banned?

**
If the primary purpose is to do something illegal, then yes.

What if it ISN’T the primary purpose?

**
I’m arguing (albeit in a roundabout way) that the tool DOES have positive uses.

**
I agree that the tool does have positive uses. But the positives are being outweighed by the negatives.

Reasonable answer. But it doesn’t discount the fact that the positives are being ignored. That was the original question of this thread, that was the original intent of my answer.

**
Then they need to take steps to ensure that their system isn’t being abused. Right now they take no such steps.

**

I’m going to go the the car analogy again (bear with me):
Most cars have a top speed of well over 120mph. With all the technology going into cars nowadays (just look under the hood), they have rev limiters, electronic speedometers, fuel injection systems, passive braking, active suspension (barkbarkbark)… yet the speed limits in America haven’t changed. Car manufacturers can easily set a limiter on the car so that it’s top speed can be artificially made 110 mph.

…But they don’t. Why? “Because”, they argue, “it should be up to the individual to make the decision not to speed.”

In other words, they’re putting in the premise that it should be the freedom of the people to make the “right choice”.

**
Napster isn’t making a profit.

**
Which doesn’t matter. They’re a forum where the intellectual property of other people is distributed without permission.

So why haven’t Sony, Pioneer, Nakamichi, and other manufacturers of audio-recording equipment been put up on the block?

**
You’re suggesting that the spreading of copyrighted material was the purpose of Napster. I ask you to prove it. Has Napster confessed that this was their intent in creating the program?

**
Not difficult to prove at all. Check out how much copyrighted material is “shared” on Napster vs. the amount of non copyrighted material.

I refer you to the following link:

Napster - Unlimited Music Anywhere

-Gosh, it got Darq all of a sudden…

[Darqangelle]

Ted:
You’ve missed my point completely.
No, Napster isn’t a car (???). That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. And I honestly have no idea where the heck you were going with your “driving on the sidewalk at 100” analogy comes from…

Also, your view on banning Supersoakers seems to me to be as intelligent as the decision to ban trenchcoats in schools after the Columbine incident.

Courier services have documentation to protect themselves. They have to. Every time you send somethign by courier, there is a signature required which states that you have not packed in anything illegal, and if you have, then the local law can come after YOU, not them.

Napster has done the same.
The link you provided shows Napster’s argument with respect to one aspect of the case, they did not admit that trading copyrighted materials was the purpose of the program.

You want proof of my argument? Go here:

Napster - Unlimited Music Anywhere

In the meantime, Ted, your responses are becoming more emotional and you’re willing to bend your own rules of discussion:
When I make a point, you don’t listen to the point and state that the financial aspect is not the issue, yet you argue it yourself.

Riiight.

Now, onto Marc (refer above)

[Ted]

*Originally posted by Darqangelle *
**Ted:
You’ve missed my point completely.
No, Napster isn’t a car (???). That wasn’t the point I was trying to make. And I honestly have no idea where the heck you were going with your “driving on the sidewalk at 100” analogy comes from…
**

I was saying the anology comparing people using napster to steal and people using a car to speed wasn’t really accurate. It would be more like people using napster to steal and people using a car to drive on the sidewalk 100miles an hour. The abuse of napster is much greater than what the mere, “everybody speeds” anlogy portrays.

Also, your view on banning Supersoakers seems to me to be as intelligent as the decision to ban trenchcoats in schools after the Columbine incident.

Bullshit. And you know it. If the vast majority of a people are using a product in a method it wasn’t intended to be used, and are using it in an illegal method, there is valid reason to ban it.

I said that ** if ** the vast majority of kids are using supersoakers filled with bleach, then to ban the jsupersoakers themselves is a reasonalbe solution.

Courier services have documentation to protect themselves. They have to. Every time you send somethign by courier, there is a signature required which states that you have not packed in anything illegal, and if you have, then the local law can come after YOU, not them.

Not really. Read some case histories in the law. If a company ignores the obvious crimes of its customers then that company can be held liabel.

Napster has done the same.
The link you provided shows Napster’s argument with respect to one aspect of the case, they did not admit that trading copyrighted materials was the purpose of the program.
You want proof of my argument? Go here:
http://www.napster.com/terms/

=]

Thank you for pointing that out. It saves me the trouble of looking for it.
Now go read this zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2587837,00.htmlhell

Napster themselves are saying it’s ok to break the TOS.

In the meantime, Ted, your responses are becoming more emotional and you’re willing to bend your own rules of discussion:

Yes. I know. I’ve been trying to argue at your level.

When I make a point, you don’t listen to the point and state that the financial aspect is not the issue, yet you argue it yourself.

Tell you what. Why don’t you make a point that’s not shrouded in half backed analogies and that isn’t a red herring. Just list your points. From what I understand they’ve been this so far:

1. Everybody breaks the law.

2. A company or product isn’t responsible for the damage it does, the people who missuse it are.

3. Napster is against people using it to break the law.
   Why don’t you respond to what I keep bringing up in response.

4. Is that a valid reason to break a law? If not, what’s the point of brining it up?

5. The company or product IS responsible to a certian degree. Look at the tabaco industry. But I won’t argue the point if continue to believe this point. It’s a reasonable belief held by many resonable people.

You don’t happen to belong to the NRA do you?

3. Check the Zdnet artical. Napster says it’s ok to break the law.

[Darqangelle]

Whoops… forgot about this thread. I HATE leaving things unfinished.

*Originally posted by Ted *
Why don’t you respond to what I keep bringing up in response.

Because they’re not based on the OP. You seem to be taking a passionate position on this, as if you yourself were the victim.

1. Is that a valid reason to break a law? If not, what’s the point of brining it up?

There are valid and invalid reasons for using Napster. We have both agreed on both it’s positive and negative aspects. You, however seem to be concentrating solely on the negative aspects, stating that they outweigh the positive. I disagree. I say the negative aspects are being touted and promoted more often because of the media hype surrounding the legal issues.

**2. The company or product IS responsible to a certian degree. Look at the tabaco industry. But I won’t argue the point if continue to believe this point. It’s a reasonable belief held by many resonable people. **

To a certain degree, yes. But they cannot be held responsible for how their product is being mistreated. You actually faltered a little on the tobacco industry. Anybody with an IQ larger than their shoesize KNOWS smoking is bad for you, addictive, etc., but they just refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.-this is not about theft/piracy.

Napster is a tool with a good number of positive uses that could have been taken advantage of by the recording industry. Many users (perhaps most) have taken advantage of the system instead. The recording industry’s decision to sue Napster, however, comes across as a blatant, power-hungry move. -but now I’m getting political.

You don’t happen to belong to the NRA do you?

Heh, no. And I have no interest/intention of owning a gun.
And yes, I think the American system on guns and gun control are ridiculous.

**3. Check the Zdnet artical. Napster says it’s ok to break the law. **

I tried clicking that link many times, including when you first posted it a few weeks ago, and it never worked. I found other sites that show the article or legal stance that they mention, and I still hold that this is based on one aspect of their case, not their entire case (as it does state)

[Darqangelle]

Here are my points:

1. RIAA states that Napster is a tool for theft and it affects recording sales.

-Recording sales have hit their highest since the introduction of Napster.

I Surmise > Napster has made new music from little-known bands more available to the general public. It has been successfully used as a new medium to “share” music. As a result, more users become increasingly aware of more bands and different kinds of music. These users, interested in buying these bands, end up buying the entire CD from their local record store.

2. Napster has made hard-to-find and rare recordings easier for the collector to find.

-positive aspect. 'nuff said. RIAA still wants to call it theft, yet they don’t make these pieces of music available to the public because it’s not in their best interest. EVEN THOUGH they could USE the technology to supply this music and make a profit from it. (kinda silly, huh?) In the meantime, little-known bands find it harder and harder to “break into” the scene because radio stations are essentially the pawns of the recording industry, who picks and chooses their own “next big thing”. apster, at least, gives little- to medium-known bands the chance.

3. If a company provides a service, it usually does take steps to protect itself or prevent the service from being used illegally. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

-But this would open up a string for a different argument. Courier companies can still be used as drug trafficers, if that’s what customers use them for. But who are you going to nail? The guy who stuck the coke in the box, or the company of the guy who delivers the box? As for the tobacco industry… Sure, make them pay damages for keeping secrets. But I honestly don’t have a bleeding heart for anybody who started smoking and then says, “I didn’t know, it’s not my fault!” But I digress. Like I said, that’s another argument. I hope this answers your question.

[JoeyBlades]

Gomez:

The problem I’m having is that I cannot understand the difference between downloading a song from Napster and stealing a CD from a shop.

All I can say is that I’ve only used Napster on three occasions. All of them to download music that I already own… Why would I do that, you ask?

It’s music from LPs that are long out of print. I have the LPs, but it would be too much trouble for me to try and record them, clean up the pops, and convert them to MP3. I could do this, I have all the hardware and software, but why go to all that trouble if someone has already done it?

Since, I used Napster in a totally ethical way to make my own semi-rare music more accessible to me, I think it’s great. Can the tool be misused? Absolutely. But don’t blame the tool - blame the mis-users.

[Pyrex]

How is Napster different from a lending library?

[Sterra]

the library is old… however napster is new

"If a company ignores the obvious crimes of its customers then that company can be held liabel. "

Napster was banning people who downloaded songs that artists requested.

[Ms2001]

I expect those opposed to Napster to say “if you borrow a book from a library, you don’t get to keep it forever.”

This is true… however, look at how people use books. You can borrow a book for free, read it, take it back, and have no desire to read it again for quite a while. Any time you want to read it again, you can simply go back and borrow it again for free.

Music is different: you want to listen to a given CD much more often than you would want to read a given book. Both the library and Napster let you get all the use you want out of a book or song, for free. The only difference is that with Napster, you don’t have to go back each time you want to listen.

[Equipoise]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
**Napster was banning people who downloaded songs that artists requested. **

That’s very true. All any artist has to do is fill out a form on the Napster site to get people who are sharing the artist’s songs banned. I know because I got banned (using another nickname). Not by Metallica or Dr. Dre, but by an Iranian artist, Googoosh (I learned about Googoosh and her beautiful music through Napster and never would have heard of her otherwise).

However, very few artists are taking advantage of this option. I think it’s because they know they’re striking out at their fans and potential fans.

It’s also true that bans mean little in practical terms. I was back on within a short time. All it takes is to uninstall Napster, run a program called “Unban” and reinstall Napster. Sign up again with a new name and you’re in. I took all of Googoosh’s music off my Napster list and now only share her with those who listen to a Shoutcast broadcast I run 24 hours a day.

It’s also true that if Napster is shut down, there are dozens of other ways to share MP3s with others, ranging from continuing to use the Napster program with the many unofficial Napster servers out there, to programs like AudioGnome and Scour, 2 worthy contenders, to going back to ftp and/or irc and/or e-mail and/or message programs like MSN Messenger. The RIAA can sue to their heart’s content, but unless they shut down the entire internet (which is the only way they’re going to be able to shut down ftp, irc, e-mail and message programs) they’ve lost their cause. They really fumbled the ball years ago when they refused to take, first the Internet, and then MP3s, seriously.

This may get a laugh, but I use Napster as a way to keep music from being forgotten. I specialize in obscure artists and out-of-print albums that got little or no attention at the time of release. If I think the music is worthy (or at least rare enough to be worth sharing) I will add it to my Napster list to tell (or remind) others that it exists, and to help other fans who are looking for obscurities.

I list very few things that are newer than 2 years old, and I unshare artists who have publically spoken out against Napster. If I were to post a list of the artists I do share, the average WDUL101 music listener will not have heard of 98% of them. Do people still download from me? You bet!! Hundreds every day! Not everybody is looking for the latest Britney Spears.

The people who download most of the music I share do care about supporting the artists. They are thoughtful, intelligent people who buy a lot of music and have bought much more music since they’ve been on Napster. They’re not the stereotyped college kid who says they’ll never buy another CD and/or who stupidly claims that “music should be free.” I haven’t met one person on Napster who believes that. Not one. And I’ve met hundreds in the months I’ve been on Napster, ranging in age from 13 to 78, from all over the world.

Equipoise

“My ears are lucky to hear these glorious songs…”
Happy Rhodes

[TroubleAgain]

*Originally posted by mattk *
**Possibly lots of people buy CDs after listening to tracks via Napster; but it’s equally possible that they don’t, and just use it to grab the tracks they like without any intention of paying. **

None of the people I know who are using Napster are buying anything. They just grab the tracks and go.

[JoeyBlades]

None of the people I know who are using Napster are buying anything. They just grab the tracks and go.

I previewed MP3s for 8 of the last 11 CDs I purchased. None of these previews were through Napster; they were similar sites, but the point is - some people are using the technology in ethical ways. The technology is amoral.

Of course, you don’t know me, so your point still stands…

BTW, of those 8 CDs that I previewed, only 3 of them would I have purchased without a listen. Also, there was one CD I probably would have purchased without a listen, but the preview turned me off. So I spent more money on music and I spent it more wisely BECAUSE of services like Napster.

But hey, I’m the oddball. I even pay my shareware fees…

[Skelji]

I download lots of stuff from Napster. However, most of it can be found on my old album collection. I don’t even have a turntable hooked up anymore, so Napster provides a way for me to get copies of music that I already paid for.

I also have a large number of CDs that I purchased only to find out when I got home that most of the songs sucked. I wound up paying 15 bucks for maybe 2 songs. So, no, I won’t cry for the recording industry. They seriously over-inflate their prices. What’s a CD cost to make, a dollar? Factor in shipping, advertising, management fees, yadda yadda, and 15 bucks still leaves for plenty of profit.

As mentioned somewhere earlier in this post, the recording industry should put this technology to good use rather than fight it. Downloadable music is definitely the future. Oh, sure, some of it is available now. For $1.49 or more a tune! That factors out to full store price if you download the whole CD, and there’s no other associated costs! Make songs available for, say, .49 each, and I know I would pay to download a CD full of songs that I want to hear, not just the record company’s filler.

Anyone who’s interested in knowing how the recording industry screws the artists should check this out:
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html