NAPSTER!!

The BBQ Pit
41

Before I launch into an analysis, you should keep in mind two things. (1) It would be very silly for a record company to come after you. Unless there were very special circumstances, I can’t see the record company spending $250K to litigate the matter, and (2) I will be presenting general observations on the law and you should not consider this legal advice.

Assuming the copyright is valid (works created prior to 1978 may not have a copyright unless certain formalities were follwed), then we must apply the 4 factor fair use test to the facts:

(1) What is the character of the use?
– commercial is bad, educational is good. A personal use that was merely “transformative” (8 track to MP3) tends to lean heavily towards fair use.

(2) What is the nature of the work to be used?
– published facts generally have less protection and unpublished imaginative works have more. An album is most likely a published imaginative work. This really doesn’t lean towards one side or the other

(3) How much of the work will you use?
– anything more than a small amount tends to lean against fair use.

(4) If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?
– This factor is difficult because, if applied incorrectly, it forces an assumption of a conclusion before reaching a result. Even though it is illogical, courts have made the mistake of trying to figure out how much royalties were being “lost” even though the whole point of the test is to determine whether royalties are due at all. That being said, in the right circumstances (an out-of print record where the owner of the copyright is unavailable) widespread “illegal” copying would probably become “legal” because there is no existing market for either the original or for permissions.

You should note that the above analysis does NOT take into account
(1) the fact that you already own a copy
(2) whether the person who originally put the music on the 'net did so legally.

42

You seem to be missing a major point here. When you buy a song on CD in a store, you are not buying “the whole song”, but the song fixed in the physical medium of the CD. There are two groups of rights here, the physical property, which you own, and the intellectual property, which you do not.

Now with intellectual property, there is a concept called fair use. In other words, when you buy the song fixed in the physical medium, you have right to use it in a fair manner. Archival copies for use of the owner of the physical medium have been held to be fair use. The question of whether you could make an “archival” copy from another source of a song that you own in a different physical medium has not, to my knowledge, been answered in the courts. But the fact that one situation on the edge of copyright law is unresolved, does not mean that all of copyright law is invalid.

The making of copies of a song from a physical medium for sale to the public is clearly illegal (something that most Napster advocates seem to agree upon). However, trading those songs (divorced from the physical medium) is equally illegal. Barter is a form of sale. Exchanging an copy of intellectual property that you do not have the rights to for other property of value (whether that property is physicial property or other improperly obtained intellectual property) is exactly the same under the law as exchanging that intellectual property for dollars.

Or, put another way, if you went to a junkyard, put together parts to make a working car, and traded it for another car, it would be theft if you did not own the parts you took from the junkyard.

43

I believe I can shed some light on this.

Is it considered stealing…

Legally? Yes.
Morally? Well, that depends on who you ask.

Regardless of what you’re opinion on that second issue is, I hope we can all agree that Metallica’s actions towards its fans trading MP3’s over the weekend is going too far. After all, they were fans. People who buy the tickets and albums and $45 T-shirts. I’m not a fan, never was, and certainly wouldn’t be after their recent behavior. I haven’t caused them any losses. I have, however, used Napster quite a bit. I think the Recording Industry should embrace MP3, though not necessarily Napster. Two Reasons:

  1. Sometimes, there are only 2 or 3 good songs on the album, and albums are quite expensive if you are only buying them for about 8 minutes of enjoyment.
  2. As America becomes more mobile, with our PDA’s and web-browsing cell phones, we have to carry more stuff, and MP3’s would greatly ease this. We get to leave one more thing at home and yet still enjoy music.
44

I’m assuming you’re talking about Metallica’s actions in suing Napster and asking Napster to remove from its system the more than 335,000 likely copyright violators the band’s investigators found.

I cannot agree that Metallica’s actions were inappropriate. In fact I applaud the band’s efforts. More than a third of a million people appear to have illegally copied Metallica’s copyrighted property and posted it for anyone else to take. I think it is perfectly appropriate for the band to defend its property from people who, even if they think they are fans, are really ripping off the band’s property.

You may recall that a few weeks ago one of our temporarily resident trolls put up on his website WallyM7’s hilarious post on cybersex. The board was rightly outraged that this troll could appropriate Wally’s work from this board (which has a copyright notice on the bottom of each page) and post it as his own. The offending post was promptly removed after the troll’s ISP was notified. How is posting a band’s copyrighted work on Napster any different?

45

pldennison:

[ 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. ]

Right, and IRL I’m actually Meatloaf. Sit down, grab a coldie, and feast your peepers. This may take awhile:
[Begin references]
http://www.dacapo.mb.ca/album.html

Example 1: Very Large Project (eg. Sarah McLachlan type album)
Studio Time $18,050.00
Musicians $2,400.00
Storage $800.00
Producer Fee $8,000.00
Mastering Fee $500.00
MIDI $2,100.00

TOTAL ALBUM $31,850

http://www.wixy.com/faq.shtml#three

TRACKING 55,250 OVERDUBBING 35,750
MIXING 31,800 MISC. COSTS 18,600

TOTAL PRODUCTION COSTS $141,400

Not included in our example are advanced paid by the record company to the artist and producer. These advances against their respective royalty earnings typically range from $20,000 to $40,000 for producers and from $20,000 to $100,000 for the artists. (To reiterate, these costs are for recording an album only, not producing the actual CD that ends up in the retail store – editor.)

http://stripe.colorado.edu/~jheath/faq1b.html

Margin for retailers: 30%
Margin for production company: 70%
Artist royalties … are actually based on 80% of factory shipped units, rather than actual units sold.

The record companies themselves, who’ve had a history of spending ridiculous amounts on production costs, designers fees, and promotion, might do well to reduce these factors if they intend to compete in the future.

http://www.weeklywire.com/ww/08-24-98/memphis_cvr.html

Consumers and music-industry critics have complained for years about the high price of CDs. They note that, despite forecasts made when the technology debuted in the '80s, the price of new CDs has not dropped but has instead increased. But an examination of the budget involved in producing, manufacturing, and delivering a CD to music stores does not reveal much fat. And if blame is to be levied, it certainly doesn’t belong on the artists, who, ironically make the least on a major-label release.

For a typical $15 CD with national distribution, the store usually takes $5. The record distributor, who is responsible for getting the disc in stores and for some of the promotional duties, takes another $3. That leaves $7 for the record label and the band. The label takes its share first, recouping its expenses for production and promotion. Finally, once all the other expenses and shares are paid, the artist gets paid.

Usually a band ends up with about 12 to 13 percent or about 88 cents of that $7, which must then be split among group members and management. At 13 percent, if their record goes platinum (1,000,000 copies sold), the Flyers’ cut could reach $910,000. Divided among five band members, that comes out to $182,000, minus the agent’s cut, lawyers’ fees, etc.

http://www.richardnorton.com/musicians.htm

The highly demanded recording format is presently compact discs over cassettes and vinyl. Compact discs retail in stores anywhere from $12.99-$19.99.

Grand total of the packaged CD costing $1.22 per unit… for small orders of 2000 units or less (big orders are cheaper).

Major labels then sell their CDs (in quantity) to distributors at wholesale prices ranging from $6 - $10. The distributors then go ahead and sell to music stores, and so forth, charging $13 - $20 CD.

Most artists receive between 6 to 13 percent of the retail sale price after the record company recoups all money loaned to the artist. Royalties are only calculated after packaging costs and taxes are deducted from the sales price and are payable only on the amount of records sold (about 85 percent of the total number of records sold as CDs and 70 percent of records sold as singles.)

…the royalty rate which translates anywhere from 70 to 98 cents per album

Record companies usually deduct a certain amount of money income coming from sales for the cost of packaging records and CDs. They deduct up to 25 percent of the price on CDs for packaging, up to 20 percent for packaging on cassettes, and up to 15 percent on vinyl LPs. Artists/producers will not receive royalties on the money that is deducted for these costs. If the price of a CD retails for $15.00, 25 percent of that would be $3.75, which would be the packaging deduction. (Kashif 219)

Record companies exaggerate the wholesale price of records by 15 percent and pass along to wholesalers 15 free records for every 85 records the wholesaler buys. The wholesaler is still paying the exact same price for the same amount of records, but since record companies pay no royalties on free goods the artists does not receive royalties on 15 free records the wholesaler is supposedly “getting for free.” (Kashif 216)

The average deductions for free goods are 15 percent for CDs and 23 percent for singles. This means that for every 85 CDs or cassettes sold to record stores, an additional 15 are received as free goods. Of course, the artist gets no royalties on these records.

Also, most artists misunderstand the 15 percent free goods issue with the free goods that record companies give to record stores, radio stations and TV stations. There is a difference with the free goods that labels give to record stores for promotion, product attraction, and in-store air-play (a further deduction of 5 - 10 percent from artist, producer, publishing royalties!) (Kashif 216)

Artists wanting to purchase their own music recordings for selling at live performances, as well as for giving to friends and family members, are only permitted to buy back the recordings from their own label at a special wholesale rate. The labels charge the regular wholesale rate $6-$8 per CD to the artists for their own music. (Keeping in mind, CD manufacturing at most costs $1.22 to make.)

A survey of the US soundcarrier market found that in 1995 the biggest six music distributors issued only one-third (5,850) of the 17,124 current titles selling more than 100 copies although the large companies were responsible for more than 80% of all recorded music sales (10). The importance of the many hundreds of smaller “independent” companies is their commitment to maintaining diversity in the music market by issuing recordings that would be uneconomic for the large companies to handle.

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~sjournal/articles_00/Streaming_Technologies.htm

The Music Industry

… an album costs at minimum $250,000 to bring to market.

Royalty agreements in the music industry, like those in the film industry, are largely the function of relative bargaining power. Typically, the royalty base for an artist starts at around 10 percent of gross retail sales, adjusted for such items as breakage fees (damaged records in shipment), packaging fees (record artwork), promotional records (“freebies”) and record-club discounts. The royalty rate is then often based on a tiering structure such that the more records sold, the higher the royalty rate. This amounts to anywhere from $1.00 to $1.40 per CD, the proceeds of which the artist does not recoup until the album breaks even.12

In addition, the cost structure outlined confines an artist to releasing material in a certain format, at certain intervals. Finally, it is the label, and not the artist, that typically owns most of the copyrights to the product, most notably the sound recordings. Thus, while an artist enjoys the many benefits of being aligned with a label, there is a hefty price to be paid.

With the acquisition of Polygram and Universal by Seagram, over 80 percent of the global music industry is controlled by five major record companies which either wholly own or have controlling interests in the majority of record labels. According to 1997 figures, EMI Group Plc (EMI-Capitol) had $6.5 billion in sales, Sony Music Entertainment – $5.3 billion, TimeWarner, Inc. (Warner Music Group) – $3.7 billion, Bertelsmann AG (BMG) – $2.2 billion and Seagram (Polygram/Universal) – $6.2 billion.10 As of 1999, Seagram has the greatest market share. The Big Five’s hammerlock on the supply chain including talent, retailers, distributors, mass marketers and radio is undeniable.

In thinking about the concept of digital distribution, one must ask how consumers actually purchase and interact with music. Is there a model of distribution that is particularly compelling? Perhaps the best starting point is looking at what happened when the Video Cassette Recorder (VCR) was introduced in the early 1980s. During this period, the film companies claimed that the VCR spelled the death knell for the industry. The Chicken Little argument used was that if people could now make copies of films that were made available through broadcast or on tape, then most people would forego paying for them. Yet, this clearly is not what happened. Despite the fact that movies are essentially streamed to us via network television, pay per view and premium cable, few viewers bother videotaping them. Today, the film industry is as strong as ever.
[End references]
To summarize:

An album costs anywhere from $30 K to $250 K, up to a couple million for a big budget superstar.
The CDs cost about a buck and a half to make, delivered to the point of sale.
The CDs sell for around $15 to $20.
The store gets around $5.
The distributor gets around $3.
The label takes around $6.
The band gets less than a buck, and out of that comes the agent, and the lawyers.
The label cooks the books to the tune of 15% off the top by using legal loopholes.
The label charges the artist about 4 times actual costs for CDs of their own music to sell at concerts.
The big five labels control 80% of the market yet only release 30% of the new music each year.

Remember a couple years ago when burnable CDs first came out? Wasn’t it the RIAA that was right there with the RottLawyers on a leash, forcing the manufacturers to charge an extra $4 per disk just in case you recorded some of their music on it? And how for nearly a year they tried to get that same surcharge applied to data CDs?

So let’s see; the big labels dork the artists, choke the industry, dork the fans, shaft the public, and use waves of attack lawyers to try and keep their big thumbs on the gold mine. I gotta hand it to them, it’s a refreshing break from the usual method of showing just a trace of respect for the custumor. They are breaking new ground in the ‘bend over boy’ method of marketing. My actual quote from my last post was:

[… The RIAA can suck my ass]

Notice I said the RIAA, not the artists. That’s why I buy my music legally even though it feeds the shitbags. If I find some toe tapping tunes on the Web and I really like it, I go buy the CD. I’m not broke and I’m not a theif. But I can’t wait for the day when my music dollar goes mostly to the artist instead of a bunch of arrogant sphincter boys in pinstripe suits.

46

A very interesting post, speak. I think the figures you present add more weight to my earlier, related argument, which was that Napster may be the application that dooms the recording industry, unless they adapt.

A fine poster replied to me earlier that:

It’s true that people claimed that at that time, and that it wasn’t so. But look at what Napster provides:

  1. Near-instant location of the desired songs via search engines.

  2. Songs may be downloaded from/uploaded to almost anywhere on the globe.

  3. Ability to get out-of-print, rare, or impossible-to-buy imports.

  4. Near-perfect quality relative to the original.

  5. Free software, and free or almost free medium of access.

  6. Ability to get the song NOW. Over my DSL connection, songs can take less time to transfer than their respective recorded time length.

  7. End “product” is in a flexible media, which can be burned to CD as is, converted to .wav and burned, loaded into a Rio, a laptop, etc.

I believe therefore that there are several differences between copying of tapes or video tapes and using Napster, with respect to the danger posed to the industry. I repeat my previous assertion: the industry should focus on how to make money 3 years from now, because even though it’s wrong that they should have to, they won’t be able stop this. And perhaps most importantly, the artists themselves need to re-evaluate their way of doing business with the record companies.

OK, forget my previous example of artists/companies providing MP3’s for instant downloads for profit. Imagine instead a scenario where artists farm out most of their production to specialized firms, who record, mix, etc. their music for them, after which the artists make the digital version available to as many as 1000 different web distributors. These distributors d’load the digital copies through secure links, and then compete against each other by providing CD’s (or MP3s) for sale to the public, either in complete albums, on a per-song basis, or in user-defined custom compilations.

In this case the band, instead of getting less than a buck as speakeasy demonstrated, instead gets $2-3. Shoot, if they get $0.25 per song on average they may break even relative to today. I think it could work.

Remember though - the record companies are a large, entrenched organizations whos primary goal seems to be providing funds to Democratic politicians and their causes (sorry, couldn’t resist). I do not believe they will change, so it will take a breakthrough by several popular, independent/new artists to start the “new wave”.

This debate has caused me to look at Napster much more seriously than before. Searching now, I found two songs on an out-of-print import album that I have been trying to legitimately purchase for YEARS. I’ve tried every retail outlet to see if I could order it, every online store, and even wrote to the distributor. Nope, no one will sell me this damn album. So do I download the MP3? I haven’t yet, as guilt is preventing me. But I may not be able to hold out forever, especially when I went to every length possible to pay for the song. An interesting moral dillema?

47

speak:
youv’e done well, i’m convinced. very clear, you backed yourself up and i am in total agreement with you except for just one thing in regards to ripping off bands…

anthracite:
you said,

that part about it being wrong, that you believe it’s wrong that they should have to adjust to technology, well, that’s a point i so disgruntedly tried to point out before, that i don’t believe it’s wrong, that these are the times when technology is advancing, and we have to advance with it. I believe it’s thier job to focus on 3 years from now to make what we have now work for everyone. The same as when vcr’s came out, or when the cd was introduced.

my regard to ripping off bands: i don’t like it. i find music i can’t get otherwise, i download. i am undoubtedly a tech junkie, and can’t bring myself to listen to anything not off my comp while at home. all my cd’s are recorded on one hard drive alone, 7-8g of space so far. thats about 180 cd’s. not done recording my old tapes yet.
If i can’t find the music somewhere, i have no problem downloading it from Napster if someone else has it. For example. Bjork songs from Iceland not recorded here in the states, imports are very rare, and so i have them now through napster. (Yes, i like Bjork, and boy is she adorable.)

all in all, i’d say i understand now where you are coming from about how much the bands get ripped off, least of all by us, most of all by their agents and managers… i’ve worked in the industry, i’ve seen it happen. i convinced the bands i worked with to record things themselves, i designed album covers and did some merchandising for them, they were able to find a distributor on their own, and they are doing quite well, without getting ripped off.
i also believe if more artists try to push themselves without the agents which seem to cost them more than they are making, they can do better. The availability of equipment to record and produce has become very convenient. Distribution is found with ease nowadays. Look at bands like Primus, Limp Bizkit, Beck. They did it on their own, and they did extremely well. Those are examples of which i could look to and say that they are really working for their money. Hiring and agent, getting a manager, thats for people who don’t feel like doing the work themselves. I’m not trashing bands that do that, but it seems that the choices are out there for these artists to either make it all the way themselves, or suffer through their agents and such. To me, thats like being lazy, and waiting for someone else to make you the money. Thats just asking for it.
Paying an agent and a manager to do the job of getting you work, is relying on someone else to do your job. Doing that work yourself and accepting who and what and where you are in life, is earning what you will later recieve.

48

and

<sigh>
This is why I really shouldn’t bother posting. Its obviously a waste of my time. I’ll say this slowly so you can understand:

The … law … does … not … exist … in … a … vacuum.

I love how these guys can make proclamations “I deem this to be LEGAL” and “I deem that to be ILLEGAL.” Its just not that simple.

I can hear them whine now: “I was making general statements as to the practices of [fill in the blank]” You see, this thread has been all over the place, so I don’t even know what [fill in the blank] is. Was Bildo and Breckinshire talking about Napster? People who load the music up to the servers? People who download the servers? People who were only using Napster for out-of-print music? Foreign music? What? Various posters mentioned all of these possible defendants.

Most people on this board are intelligent enough to apply the law for themselves. I don’t see how either post advances the discussion once we have gotten to the point where we are talking about a dozen scenarios and have laid out the legal test of fair use.

As to the morality question, I have not contributed to that side of this thread. So please don’t think this has anything to do with whether it is morally a good thing to let them continue.

49

In my defense, I was referring to the copying and distributing of a song that you do not personally own the rights to. I was actually just glazing over the subject at hand to jump into discussing Metallica’s actions and the merits of MP3s in general.

50

shamelessly ripped from http://www.ntk.net

“[it is] sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is.”
  - LARS ULRICH, Metallica drummer, announcing their suit against Napster …next: sue those philistines that sell it for hard cash

Mortimer

51

Hey pldennison…
Why don’t you shut the fuck up? You sure talk a lot of shit but you don’t present any backup for it.

You say this that and the other thing is illegal, and that this and that is how copyright works, but you don’t back it up with any facts.
Until you can backup your claims with a cite or two, just shut your ass and stop spewing your conjecture.

52

Tell ya what, Lexicon, why don’t you a) check out the links on copyright law and fair use others have provided, which support my “conjecture,” and b) cruise on over to the BMI page to look up the songs listed there for which I am songwriter and publisher, then c) go look up my registered copyrights both for songs and their physical media.

I speak from experience, stupid, not conjecture.

53

wow lex, take it easy, it’s a friggin message board.

pl: you got my respect. i still want to download bjork though. :slight_smile:

looks like bands like Metallica will need to speak out to their fans about the actual laws, and percentages/breakdowns in pay that occurs within the music industry rather than screaming foul play first and ripping a little over a quarter million names out to sue. I thought more on this last nite, and as a Practitioner of Falun Dafa, i meditated some more even. I do believe it is immoral when KNOWING what the full effects are. The numbers spewed out by speakeasy say it well.

On the other hand, the issue was not of morality, but of legality, the two don’t always go hand in hand in our world, and whether it should or shouldn’t be legal to have and use napster, and since so many do, what can we do to resolve the issue? as in, should the kid sell Napster to the record industry for mega bucks, letting them sell it to everyone else to download with, wherewith now the music industry is getting money for their music, albeit a small percentage will still go to the musicians (we hope any if at all), or something similar?

54

I fully recognize that downloading mp3’s with Napster is stealing, and thus illegal. I can’t say that I particularly blame Metallica and Dr. Dre for working to protect their interests, although I’d be curious as to exactly what their financial damage comes to. (I know–it’s the principle.) However, I have no hang-ups about using Napster, because I would like to see the major record labels close up shop.

People were making music long before record labels came along, and will continue to make it long after their demise. There are all kinds of fantastic bands playing in bars every single night who aren’t signed to a major and don’t ever expect to be. That’s exactly how bands will make money after the revolution–they will get out and bust their ass to build a fan base.

I also wholeheartedly believe that no one is going to give up buying CD’s. Wasn’t the Internet supposed to be the end of the physical newspaper? People like to hold CDs in their hands, see the artwork, read the liner notes. Without the parasitic middleman, the bands won’t sell as many CD’s, but they can make a hell of a lot more money per CD. I can think of two or three CD’s I’ve bought because of Napster–for instance, I downloaded a few tracks from the new Yo La Tengo album, liked them, and went out and bought it. (I recommend it highly, by the way.)

Rather than fighting change tooth and nail, bands like Metallica might be better off thinking about how they’re going to get their music out to the people when they don’t have the record label to lean on. Maybe they’re worried that if people start judging them by their music rather than their name and marketing, the secret will get out that they haven’t made a decent album since …And Justice For All.

Dr. J

55

“In my mind and in my car/
Internet killed the video star”

56

Dr. J said

Stick to putting Band-Aids on your patients, Doctor.

The problem with knee-jerk overreaching statements about the law is, if enough people believe (and fear) them, the law will change. Lots of congressmen wouldn’t even think twice about voting for an ill-informed, counter-productive and harful law if thier constituents thought it was a good idea.

I, for one, am happy with the law of fair use. It helps educators comment on works, it helps artists to create other works, it helps consumers protect and enjoy their copy of a work, and it helps consumers gain access to works that would not otherwise be available.

The current laws are very clear about what rights are available to copyright holders, and it does not help matters to have people incorrectly interpret the law.

(1) Napster is a browser. Napster itself does not perform any copying.
(2) Napster aids others to copy. IF others are copying illegally, THEN Napster MAY be liable for “Contributory infringement.” It depends upon what Napster knew or should have known.
(3) Whether others are copying illegally depends 100% on the facts and circumstances of each case. No broad generalizations can be made. Review my previous posts and apply the four factors of fair use to the particular cirumstances.

I can see it now. DrJ’s congressman introducing a bill to the house making it illegal to use MP3 format. Forget about the usefulness of the near-perfect compression, the format is inherently evil and must be stopped.

57

Let me just say that I don’t presently have the ability to burn any CD’s and do not use Napster at all or MP3s in general. However, if I had the ability to make my own CDs from a wealth of “free” songs on the internet, I probably would.

I agree with Doctor J. regarding the threat that this technology poses to the future existence of actual CDs. Specifically, not much. People like me DO want the original liner notes and the original artwork and the crappy tracks in between the “hits”, much in the same way I DO treasure the original box art in my movie collection and would not accept a pirated copy. (Then again, I can think of some people who wouldn’t give a shit either way.)

I also can’t help but draw the parallel to e-books. No matter how ubiquitous hand held technology becomes, I don’t believe that people are going to stop buying real books. You cannot substitute the heft of a hard cover book, the smell of the paper, the act itself of turning pages toward the end.

This notion could completely disappear in a generation or two, I suppose, as we evolve with our technology. But I am at that age (26) where I can both claim to have grown up with technology and yet still remember when none of it existed.

58

Napster is not stealing. It is not wrong. I swore by Napster for a glorious time, until Yale University snatched it away from anyone with a Yale server. If prices for CDs went down, i wouldn’t have to get my music “illegaly”. Once the musicans and “their People” get less greedy and lower those prices, Napster won’t be needed anymore.

59

Rosethorn, do you think it’s OK to just, say, take a car if you think it’s priced too high? How about, say, a hamburger? Is it OK to just take it if you could easily afford it but just think it costs too much?

The problem here seems to stem from the fact that, despite well-established, centuries-old legal precedent and law to the effect that artists have the exclusive right to control the distribution of their work and to profit from it for a specified period of time, consumers have this idea that creative works are “different,” that they can just take them without recompense to the artist. As soon as someone expresses a desire to make money from their creative works, they’re “greedy,” or they’ve “sold out.”

Shit, I spent time in struggling bands. I spend untold thousands of dollars of my hard-earned money on recording, equipment, promotion, travel, packaging, etc. I would have LOVED the opportunity to “sell out.” And if I found out there were people who were simply putting my music up there for anyone and their brother to download for free, I’d have sued their ass so fast their head would’ve spun.

60

Yes, but PLD, if you say stealing is against the law, it’s obviously just a “knee-jerk overreaching statement about the law.” :rolleyes:

I just don’t understand how people can continue to say that copying CDs and handing the copies out for free is NOT a violation of existing laws. Pretty much a no-brainer, folks. Now, whether it’s moral is another matter, as is whether or not the law will change or be reinterpreted. But as the law stands now, Napster facilitates illegal activities. (And, duh, that doesn’t necessarily make Mapster illegal. )