According to CNET, U.S. District court judge Marilyn Hall Pate has granted a temporary injunction barring the service from allowing copywrited music to be swapped. As of right now, this is pending a trial. The ban goes into effect on Friday July 28th at exactly 4PM.
Better download while you can Dopers ! Censorship is upon us !
This is fucked. That’s all I have to say.
Can you post a link?
They’ve fought this before and won. I find it hard to believe they will lose now.
Quote:
“I fought the law and the law won.”
It’s in the bag peoples. I have never been over there but you know the music companies are lobbying for protection.
If I am wrong, I am wrong, but knowing our government it will happen.
Cnote,
Actually I cannot post a link as I discovered it on “AllAccess” which is a members only radio industry site.
I can however confirm that it is now being reported on both “AP Wire” as well as “MetroSource Wire”. This is not a drill. It is legit. Of course at this point Napster reps are saying it is only temporary . . . but we shall see. Its too bad, I love the service.
Here’s the link to the news story for those that want to learn more: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20000727/ts/tech_napster_dc_8.html
On napster.com there is a smallish video clip available from the big guy (producer?) of Napster giving a statement on the court’s shutdown of the servers.
aww, crap, now I have to go find my list of “songs to download off napster”… sadness!
Unbelievable…
I read somewhere, I think on this board, the implications of what this ruling means to all of us. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patelhas essentially said that any form of music trade is illegal. Come on.
The foundation of Napsters’ argument is that they serve no role in holding the copyrighted material. The holders of the music are the people connected to Napster. They are simply a conduit.
What the judge is basically saying, as I paraphrase from the ariticle or post I remember reading, is that I cannot, whether I own the C.D., L.P., or not, share it with anyone who has not purchased rights to the song. Does that mean I can’t play any music or song at a party? Can I give a copy to my friend? No I can’t.
I can now be held liable for ‘passing’ that song on to others. Furthermore, if I hum a song walking down the street, Metalica et al, can sue me for sharing their songs with others that didn’t pay a fee to own it for themselves.
Music industry: Are you so lacking in forward thought that you have to go after Napster and the like to try and get money?
Instead of suing everyone in sight, maybe you could try and capitalize on Napsters’ success and profit from it.
I hope you burn you f*ckheads. The’re will always be a replacement you can’t come after…
Give me a friggin break.
I hope Napster destroys these f*ck for brains.
Man this gets me going.
I should have said, “Napster is a conduit for people to share music”. They never ‘hold’ the music. They simply put people in touch with others that may want a song.
Music industry leaders are screwed if they think they can squelch this kind of trade. It’s gonna happen. Be prepared numbnuts. Try to take the lead and capitalize on it. Do you actually know how to do that?
I didn’t think so. That’s why you sue everyone around you and screw Joe consumer in the process.
Up yours.
How much do you want to bet that Gnutella’s membership doubles on Friday? Hehe…
links removed - UncleBeer
Jman
Moderator’s Notes:
I have removed the links to all of the sources for MP3 download software. It is the view of the SDMB administration, and apparently the federal authorities, that this software may possibly facilitate copyright infringements. As such, we will not allow what we consider to be illegal activities to be promoted on this message board. While we recognize the possibility of any legal action against the Chicago Reader and the Straight Dope arising out of this is remote, we must take actions to limit our exposure.
We do not wish to stifle the discussion; we value the exchange of ideas and opinions.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 07-28-2000 at 07:37 AM]
It’s all fucked up. 'nuff said
This is fucked up. Napster has allowed me to preview an album to see if it was worthy of my dollars (yes preview, i dont have enough room on my HD to keep MP3’s around for long). I remember i bought a CD a while back where I liked a couple of the songs (heard on radio) but when i bought the CD, i hated the rest of it.
In fact, through using Napster, i bought two albums because I liked what I heard from downloading the songs. I’m going to buy another album when I can afford it (Lucy Pearl), and all because i’ve heard the album and like what i’ve heard (through downloading songs).
Lars Ulrich bites. So does the RIAA
Here’s a Reuters link about the issue.
I would imagine they will work towards capitalizing on Napster eventually, but they can’t stop people from using Gnutella or Metallicster so far…
The last time I checked, the Napster server I connected to was running at 3.5 gigs of music. Highest I’ve ever seen it. It’s usually around 1.5 to 2.0.
It’s scaring the Hell out of a lot of people. And for good reason. Jerk-off record labels.
As is said before, move out Napster, move in everyone else. How do you run Gnutella again? How can the industry be this dense.
I’m old enough to remember when the movie industry got up in arms over the VCR. Same silly-ass argument, “We’ll go broke because of bootlegging. It’s not fair to the artist! The age of theatre movie is at risk! You people should feel guilty for taping anything that we don’t condone!”
Go to Hell. The last time I checked, the movie industry is doing just fine, thank you very much. The VCR helped you out more than you know.
Same with Napster. Every possible study has shown it adds to records sales, rather than hurt it.
Go to Hell.
Actually, Napster doesn’t fall under the same criteria as a VCR. You can record all you want, and you don’t have to keep buying new tapes or disks. Unless you have a really small hard drive. If you read the article I posted, it pretty much explains it there. Here’s a Yahoo News article on Napster that pretty much explains why it’s different.
Gnutella runs on all the users computers. There is no real central server, but you are connecting to other users computers, and using yours as a server as well. Can’t be shut down. There is a way to encode MP3’s so that they can’t be recorded onto disks. The files can be downloaded, but not copied twice. I don’t know the particulars of how that works, but I’ve encountered it happening to me. I recieved a sampler cd with MP3’s from MP3.com, and when I copied the music onto my drive, one of the songs I copied wont download to my portable giving me a message about how it’s encoded not to, and I can’t make copies of it either. So I don’t see how THIS differes from those little slots at the bottom of tapes that stops one from recording over the tape, though in this case, it’s a bit harder I imagine to override considering a piece of tape or paper won’t cut it.
My final rant on this silly-ass suit.
Taken from Reuters site mentioned above:
From the recording industry spokesman: “This is an important win for artists, too, because whether they distribute their music through big labels, small independent labels, or on their own, the Court has made clear that they have the right to protect their works,”
Who the FUCK do you think your kidding? You can’t even vail your greedy ass butt. The “artist can protect their work”? Give me a break. Tell it like it is asswipe: “This is important for the record industry because whether big or small we want our money”
I’m done for now.
Maybe this should move to the pit before it gets too heated.
Cnote, here’s a few helpful hints so as not to stress. Gnutella, Napigator, Metallicster…, They’re out there, and they’re doing the same job. No worries buddy.
“Every possible study”? What, both of them? :rolleyes:
(And by the way, if, as all the Napster users complain, CDs are “too expensive,” why are music sales increasing?)
Here’s a thought: How about if we let the artists and not the consumers, decide whether their songs should be given away for free or not? If some band thinks that allowing free copies of their CDs to be given away at will is a wise marketing strategy, more power to them. Knock yourself out. If another band (say, Metallica), decides that they’d rather not do so, more power to them.
That’s what this battle comes down to. Chuck D. wants his music to be given away for free; Lars Ulrich does not. Instead, everybody miscasts it as, “Metallica are a bunch of rich jerks who are so rich they should work for free now, and plus the CDs that I buy as a result of downloading are too expensive, so screw the RIAA, and I’m a rebel! A rebel! Haaaaaahahahahaaha!”
If Napster was more willing to work with artists who don’t want their music handed out for free, there might not be as big a problem. Instead, they make no attempt to compensate artists for the widespread dissemination of their work.
Also, as reported on the front page of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, Napster is all in favor of enforcing the copyright laws when it’s their intellectual property that’s in danger. Furthermore, Napster is run by a bunch of rich Wall Street and Silicon Valley bankers and investors, so either way, you’re just making a bunch of suits richer.
But go ahead and rebel away, you rebels.
**
Isn’t that the truth! Lars isn’t trying to protect his music, he just wants money. I think it’s bullshit. I understand that it’s his work, his “living”, whatever you want to call it but come on. All he’s doing is alienating a lot of his fans.