Nope, Napster hasn’t lost any of their legal battles as of May, 1 2000.
But that troglodyte Dr. Dre has decided to sue 5 Universities AND The students that use the system!
What a joke…and, the fool wants 100K for each work that is tossed around on Napster…LoL! As if!
Out of sheer coincedence, Dre was sued the same day by LucasFilm. Read here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/napster000426.html
http://gnutella.wego.com/go/wego.group.group?groupId=116705
…and the RIAA can suck my ass. If they’d charge a fair price for the stuff I wouldn’t fight it. But nooooo, they’ve got a yacht payment to make.
If you can:
a) show that you have any understanding whatsoever as to the costs to a record company for artist scouting and development, upfront recording costs, advances, promotion and touring, all in the hopes of moving enought units to be profitable; and
b) try to understand that by screwing the record company, you’re screwing tha artist, who has a contract structure (99% of the time) that keeps him or her from making any money at all absent moving a boatload of records (it’s really, really hrad to get rich in the music industry)
I promise I won’t think you’re a thieving schmuck.
Two main points:
First point:
OK, can someone who is coming down hard on the “you’re stealing” side (sdimbert or pldennison) please tell me if I am stealing under this very specific, narrowly-defined situation. And if so, why?
I own an LP and an 8-track of a very rare album. According to the best information I have, there is no CD available, even as an import. I’ve really wanted to listen to them for a while, but have no turntable or (shudder) 8-track player.
So three weeks ago I found, using Napster, that someone had ripped from what sounds like 8-track, but could be a CD or LP, all 10 songs on the album. So I downloaded them. By owning the LP and the 8-track, don’t I have a “legal right” to be able to download (and/or possess) an MP3 of the songs? Would it make a difference if, say, it was ripped from an LP (which I do have) or a CD (which I don’t have)?
Second point:
Before you all hate me too much - I don’t download MP3’s of songs I don’t have. I tried Napster out to see what the fuss was. After using it for 5 minutes, I develped an easy opinion.
My opinion of Napster: For right or for wrong, the recording industry is doomed. They had better figure out how to hijack this process and make money, because the ease and availability of Napster will destroy them and their way of doing business forever. They will not stop it. If they ban it, 50 different GNU products will now pop up, and they’ll be back to square one.
And the only way I can see that happening is for them to provide the MP3s themseleves, cheap enough that it is not worth the search time and the guilt of the average MP3 downloader to get a pirated copy.
Imagine: $1.00/song, in any quality you like, for a legal copy ($2.00 for current hits, maybe $0.25 for golden oldies). They should all offer to build custom CDs as well, like CDNow. They COULD make money off of this.
On a side note - this process may end up stifling creativity somewhat. I think most would agree that on most albums, there are really only 3-4 “pretty good” songs. The rest can be thought of as “filler”, but is often music that allows the artist to experiment with different styles and techniques. This experimentation may end if artists only worry about getting that hit out there, because no one will pay for a Rage Against the Machine/Limp Bizkit duet of “Muskrat Love” (OK, in this case we should be thankful).
We might return to the days when the Single rules, rather than the LP.
And I just laugh every time I hear NPR (which must be the most technologically ignorant news on the air) get on their bit about how “MP3 is dead, because the Secure Digital Music Initiative will save the industry”. Oh yeah, no one will be able to crack that - NPR said so! I give it 6 weeks.
Knowing the media industries, they will fight the battle in court, losing ground steadily, until they win against a program which will probably not even technically exist anymore, and at that time they will no longer sell more than 100,000 CDs/year.
I’ll get to the other question later, because I have to look some things up at home, but as far as this goes, don’t be too sure here. The fee structure you postulate here would result in artists getting even less money than they do under record company contracts. Why on earth would they supply material for something like this, if its a money-losing proposition?
I fully agree with you - it would result in less money under the current way of business. Perhaps my actual monetary values are wrong, or perhaps the fee structure will change. I believe the system may have to change to one of smaller/lower-margin Net Music Publishers, or artists administrating themseleves - along the lines of what MP3.com was trying to (but didn’t) accomplish.
It reminds me of the recent interviews with Steven King, where he raved about how much more money he made from his e-book than if he had published it in a conventional way. True, a sample size of one like this is never good for making a point, but it does makes one think.
Before there was Napster or an internet, people duped cassettes and/or taped vinyl LPs for friends, and traded them at flea markets and koff “Record Collector Conventions”. At that time home taping was supposed to be the end of the recording industry. Didn’t happen, and MP3s aren’t going to do it either.
I have some MP3s. I don’t use Napster, because IMO it has some security issues, and I’m paranoid 
I get mine off of usenet. The vast majority of my MP3s are older songs that I already had on vinyl. (The vast majority of these are not available on CD, and are not likely ever to be, either.) If I wanted to, I could rip them myself, but it’s more convenient for me not to, and more convenient for me to play the MP3 when I want to hear the songs rather than dig out the LPs. I also d/l newer stuff to sample the content of the CD. I’ve been burned too many times paying for an entire CD on the strength of one song heard on the radio, only to find the rest of it is utter crap. With MP3s, I can listen to a larger sampling of the material, and if I like it, I’m off to amazon.com with credit card in hand. If I don’t, the files are deleted. I fail to see how this harms any recording artist. Sure, some people leech entire albums off of Napster with no intention of ever paying. Some people shoplift CDs or steal them out of unlocked cars too.
I think what Metallica, Dr. Dre, et al are doing is very short-sighted, and smacks of greed. Those 350,000 Napster usernames that Metallica’s laywers collected over the weekend? Hello, those are your fans. Those are the people who are buying the concert tickets and merchandise that is the source of most of the profit that recording artists see. (I say that, because the artists generally get a much bigger slice of the profits from touring and merchandise than they do from the recorded material) It’s not a smart career move to threaten your fanbase with litigation.
Vera
Just want to jump back in before I get a reputation :
I posted:
I was answering what (I thought) was the OP’s question - Is it right or wrong to do this.
Please note that I also posted:
VeraGemini was on the money by posting:
People don’t always do what’s right.
Is it right to trade music this way? No.
Is it right to pirate software? No.
Do people (myself included) do those things anyway? Yes
If you want to debate this morally and/or theoretically, then it is wrong. Period. End of discussion. It is wrong to steal the contents of a $14 CD, a $49 piece of software or a nickel.
But, if you want to talk real-world, you’re out of my league; that’s what we pay lawyers for.
why isn’t right to trade music? if i bought something, i own it. i can do what i want with it, it’s mine. If someone else wants to trade something they own, with me for something i own, where is the harm? the companies have already made their money selling the albums that were copied onto peoples drives that they are making accessible to everyone else. GREED is what twists these artists into thinking people shouldn’t be allowed to trade music. The music industry just has to find a way to keep up with the times. Just like the Government has to find a way to keep up, (in regards to their lack of “control” over the net).
… and i don’t quip :mad: 
soulsling wrote:
It’s not trading. You are keeping a copy of the song the other person gets, and he’s keeping a copy of the song you get. It’s not like a physical item that you have to give away.
Except you didn’t buy the song. You bought the album. The song belongs to the songwriter and/or publisher for a specified period of time and only they have the right to license copies of it. That’s what copyright means, fer cryin’ out loud.
From GaWd
How much is it OK to steal? If I follow you correctly, you’re arguing that it’s wrong to steal $15,000 software, but it’s OK for millions of people to steal 2 cents each from a musician. Hmmmmmmm.
Isn’t stealing, stealing?
I just think it’s a little hypocritical for someone to get all self-righteous about their intellectual property when they’re stealing someone else’s.
From GaWd
How much is it OK to steal? If I follow you correctly, you’re arguing that it’s wrong to steal $15,000 software, but it’s OK for millions of people to steal 2 cents each from a musician. Hmmmmmmm.
Isn’t stealing, stealing?
I just think it’s a little hypocritical for someone to get all self-righteous about their intellectual property when they’re stealing someone else’s.
no, i do own the songs that were on the album, thats what i paid for. copywrite just means i can’t use them to make a profit in any way without the permission of the author/artist. trading is trading whether its a copy of a file or a physical cd. if i don’t keep my copy, is it trading then by your standards?
like i said, the system works differently now, keep up with the times, things change. terms have to be redefined with the advent of new technology. we can do different things now, so we have to allow for them.
i trade a file with someone else. i allow them to copy it from me without me making anything off of it, and they let me make copies of their files.
if i threw a concert and charged cover for people to hear me play the songs that i didn’t write, just played them at a club even, where people had to pay to get in, is that stealing? if a DJ owns his albums, and plays the music to make money, but that money doesnt go any further then him, while all those people dancing and listening are enjoying the music, is that stealing?
please… give up on the moral issue. this isn’t a moral issue. the only morals lost are those of the artists being greedy. this is our times changing.
No, you most certainly don’t. I suggest you learn a little something about copyright.
Which is the same as saying the artist owns the song. If you can’t use it without their permission, you don’t own it, do you?
OK–so “stealing” is now “trading.” Will you trade me your car for nothing?
Patently illegal.
That club most likely pays ASCAP and BMI fes. If they have a jukebox too, it’s almost 100% certain.
You really don’t know a thing about copyright and performance rights, do you?
Damn those damned greedy artists, wanting to be paid for their work instead of letting everyone steal it. How dare they?
Did you know a record can go gold and the artist can tour for several months in support of it and never make any money?
I have no idea why I’m wasting my time contributing to this thread. I find that most of my comments are subsequently ignored.
Some facts about the copyright laws:
(1) The owner of a copyright has the right to repoduce copies of a work. Generally, you cannot buy a magazine, zerox it a million times and then sell it to people.
(2) The above right is limited by something called fair use.
(3) Fair use is a very touchy-feely fact specific test, and generalized statements about fair use are usually wrong (check out this link if you are interested in the statute)
(4) some things that have been found to be fair use in the past include copying records onto cassette for personal use, copying something for scholarly comment, and copying for archival purposes.
(5) because fair use is such a broad exception to the general rule, the digital millenium copyright act did NOT make it illegal to hack security codes that prevented copying. It is still okay to make fair use copies, even if you need to break an encryption code or two to do it.
Make whatever conclusions you want. I was just trying to get everyone on the same page.
[HIJACK]
Hey, Morgan:
You need to put the web address in quotation marks now.
So,
{url="www.something.com"}something{/url}
becomes
something
(PS - I used {} instead of for illustrative purposes)
[/HIJACK]
OK, I won’t ignore your comments. Can you please tell me then if the example of mine I posted earlier (downloading an MP3 of a song I already own on both record and 8-track) is legal or not.
AND, is it legal if the MP3 was made from another media, such as CD? That is, if I own the album on LP, and I download an MP3 of the “same song” but made from CD, have I broken the law?
Looking at the examples I quoted from you, I am not certain if my situation is covered by them.
It wasn’t my intent to be a pirate.
I suspect Phil’s getting a headache by now . . .
I’m young, you’re old. I want what I want, when I want it. Which is now. I cannot be bothered with grammar. Owning nothing, I care nothing for the possessions of others. Creating nothing, I care nothing for the creations of others. What I want is paramount, so fuck the rest of you who actually bust your asses for a living to amuse me.
:snort: Choad.
wow, tore me a new hole huh?
yes, indeed, if i own the album, the songs on it are mine to listen to, play, and trade as i like.
if its in my hands, and i paid for it, its mine. that simple. the artist may own the rights to the lyrics and music itself, but they sold me the whole song, and now its mine to do as i please.
can’t change my mind on that one.
and no, i’m young, and yes, if one doesn’t keep up with the times, they are bound to become blind to anything but what they are used to, and not see whats in front of them, the future. you don’t have to like it, but fact is fact, we can trade digitally trasnferred files (as in .wav to mp3…etc.) it IS possible, we do trade them, we make copies of them, we listen to them, and so in what way can it possibly be immoral to do so, when no one is harmed, and no money is being stolen. If the young man asked for money for his software, (Napster) or for the songs, thats stealing. And no, all clubs dont pay those fees. I’ve been in the music industry, they all work around it. The artists making a fuss over this are greedy. NO one is going to stores, stealing cd’s and then selling them, people are buying them, and copying them onto their computers, and trading them. The artist would like to have an empire where permission need be granted every time someone wants to let others have a copy on a tape they paid for to copy with.
I still hold to my opinion that the artists are greedy. Yes, let them get paid for what they do, no one told them to become artists, they have to accept what they are, and how much they make, and what they do with their money.
NO you can’t have my car, but if you want to trade for another car, well, what type do you have
If i went to a junkyard and started putting old cars back together, and traded the finished working products for other cars, was i stealing?