Hey Soul!
So, is Gnutella, Napigator, Metallicster
the same kind of thing as Napster?
Haven’t heard of them.
I’m taking home songs all day here,
if they should close it.
I really would miss it if they close it.
I use it so much.
Well, I like to think of myself as an average kind of person. I downloaded Sting’s new song. I played it for my daughter. She liked it so much she wanted the words printed out so she could know clearly what he was saying. I did that. I know very well that the next step is going out and buying the CD.
Come on, when I was a kid, we would record songs off of the radio. If we still liked it after playing the shit out of it, then we’d go buy the cassette (because I grew up when CD’s were only for old, rich people with jobs and stuff). And even then we tried to get it on LP because it was cheaper, and record it on our own cassette. But then the record companies started putting extra songs on the cassettes. If you couldn’t come up with the extra money for the cassette you were SOL.
Anyway, I say it’s a phase. They might shut down Napster, but the young folks that can’t afford to buy all the music without testing it out for longevity of appeal will find another way around it. Why don’t they just work WITH it for their benefit? Geez, it’s not like the stuff you get off of their is usually high quality. That copy of Desert Rose I downloaded has a little flaw in it, it reminds me of an LP scratch. 
PLD:
Not scientific studies you dimwit. Anecdotal. As you seem to say yourself:
Quote
“Every possible study”? What, both of them?
(And by the way, if, as all the Napster users complain, CDs are “too expensive,” why are music sales increasing?)
Maybe there increasing because people like SoMoMom have a listen through Napster or the like and then go out and buy the album.
Oh, anecdotal. Well, sure, that’s really reliable and can be extrapolated to the entire population. Most valuable tool in the statistician’s toolbox.
Anyway, the Battle Cry of the Music Thief is, “CDs are too expensive! The RIAA keeps music prices artificially high!” So why are you buying it at all? Seems to me people are playing both sides of the fence, here.
Again, what’s wrong with the artist deciding whether or not he wants his music given away for free?
[/Rant] It’s all a bunch of crap anyway. The artists typically don’t care because they don’t make much money off of CD sales anyway. The record companies are bitching about lost sales. That’s the basis of all of this. The record companies are saying they’re losing all this revenue through MP3’s even though CD sales are up something like 8%. The numbers don’t fit their claims. Plus, I don’t know about you, but if I like an album I’ll buy it anyway. I admint that I do have a couple songs I don’t own the album to, but I can tell you for a fact that if these particular songs weren’t available anywhere else but CD, I wouldn’t have them at all. They’re sure not losing any money over me. [/End Rant]
Enough of that. Continue on, people.
PLD: There’s nothing wrong with the artist stating that: “the artist deciding whether or not he wants his music given away for free (is O.K. or not) ‘sic’”.
But it’s not the artists that are suing (Well, metallica maybe, but who gives a shit about this has been band anyways).
Fred Durst for one wants his music given away. He finds that it fuels sales of his albums.
The issue here, or the one I took up, is the greedy ass no-thinking record labels that are trying to shut down Napster.
In their process of trying to control Napster, they’ve run the copyright infringement act into the ground. Abused the fuck out of it, as I see it.
The ramifications are far reaching, even if you don’t use Napster.
*The above has been copyrighted. Use it and I will sue. Put it on your computer and I will sue you even more. Hell, your looking at it? See ya in court!
Moderator’s Notes:
Or maybe you should exercise some restraint. I suggest you do in this forum. If you want to vent, or call people names, as I see you’ve done to pldennison, start a new thread in the Pit.
End of Moderator’s Notes:
Now, that I’ve taken care of the administrative stuff, I, for one am glad Napster is being shut down. For a couple reasons.
If artists want to give their music away, they can get their own website and you can download it from there. Maybe they can form some kind of association that would serve as a clearinghouse for their music and put up a front page to link to their official sites. The bands that do not condone Napster, which I see as simple piracy, can choose to not participate.
Additionally, and on a more personal level, I’m getting a bit tired of my subordinates here at work complaining about full hard drives when I can find several gigs of MP3’s on them.
UncleBeer…
O.K. I called someone a dimwit.
Before it got worse I mentioned it might be moved somewhere else if it degraded. It didn’t.
I know better and would’ve taken it there had it gotten worse.
Apologizes if I’m in error.
Chris
Thank you Chris.
>>snicker<< If Fred Durst didn’t have a Big Bad Evil Terrible Corporate Record Label paying “independent promoters” to make sure his record is played once every 25 minutes on the radio, he wouldn’t be able to give it away. It sucks.
Funny, that’s not what I hear from Napster users. They don’t appear interested in whether the artists want to be compensated for their works or not. They just want their mp3s, now!
If you want to control the labels’ marketing strategies, perhaps you should start one. Barriers to entry are less than you would expect, depending on the scale and riches you hope to achieve.
Incidentally, in another thread, Arnold Winkelreid quotes a story which refers to an internal Napster document naming one of their goals as “the death of the CD,” and an RIAA study which shows that 22% of Napster users buy fewer CDs. Why buy something you can have for free?
I just posted this in another thread, but I’ll include it here again.
From a recent Time Magazine article:
If CD sales are up 8%, perhaps they would be up more without Napster?
I don’t have strong feelings about the subject, but I thought I would add some information to the debate.
pipped to the post by pldennison. :o
Lets keep this in perspective here guys. The article, while interesting, happens to be published by Time-Warner, owner of Warner Records, one of the original primary plantiffs in the trial.
No wonder the stats and quotes are so varied…
Links removed by UncleBeer
Those will have to do during Napster’s absence.
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, however, wish to stifle the discussion; we value the exchange of ideas and opinions.
[Edited by UncleBeer on 07-28-2000 at 07:38 AM]
Meaning that 68% of Napster users are buying as many or more CDs than they did previously.
So I should wait until the RIAA decides on their own to lower CD prices or a successfully Justice Dept. suit and all appeals have been exhausted before buying a CD? You’re funny.
Omni, usually companies that are parts of conglomerates like that will publish disclaimers noting that very fact. Arnold, does the article contain such a disclaimer?
In any case, I don’t think you should just casually accuse a 100-year-old publication with a respected journalist record of lying. They are quoting one of Napster’s own documents as part of the story.
I’m sure Napster’s numbers, on which an IPO and millions in potential investments probably hinge, are just as unbiased.
You don’t think that 22% number will continue to grow? I do.
Oh, no, you should definitely just steal the music without paying for it. That’s the right thing to do.
I can’t remember the last time I spent more than $13 on a CD, either buying in small record stores or buying online. And I can’t imagine what kind of cheapskate balks at thirteen lousy dollars. Oh, that’s right–why pay it at all if I can simply steal it?
I do not deny the possibility that Time Warner may be biased. But why do you say “the stats and quotes are so varied?” So far I haven’t seen any other studies mentioned in this thread. The only number I’ve seen is “CD sales are up 8%”. There was no source given for that statement, and I didn’t see any proof that this 8% was attributable to Napster.
Do you know of any problems with the methodology of this RIAA study?
Omniscient, pldennison, to answer your question, the Time magazine article linked to above contained the sentence
I think that mp3s are great and revolutionary and all that. I feel quite differently, however, about napster. The reason that napster is going to lose this case is that they took the popularity of some college dropout’s half-assed program that shares pirated music and tried to make a company out of it. Don’t get me wrong, napster is a useful and user freindly program, but the investors trying to exploit the program are ruining any chance that mp3s may have to become a legitimate media. You make a program that allows people everywhere to share mp3s, fine, but dont try to make your first million off of some shitty program you whipped up to increase your mp3 collection. why couldnt they just leave well enough alone and not become Napster, Inc ™, theres no way they’re gonna win this one. Napster and its followers can rant and rave about the greedy record labels til the cows come home, but the fact is that theres another group of people trying to get rich off of napster and they’re not going to get away with it. Programs like gnutella were actually developed for something other than the almighty dollar. Gnutella is not a company, they’re not trying to make money, their software is more professional, their approach is unique, and gnutella will never be shut down by anything besides lack of interest.