posted 03-02- 05:42 PM            

The Labels think we are screwing them?

How about when you have to pay $10-$15 for a CD that only has one or two good songs on it, and the rest SUCK, which is common. The Record labels do that on purpose to make you buy more CDs to get the songs you want.

They have been screwing us for years!!

Why do people have to screw everything up?

Grrrrrrrrr!

posted 03-02- 07:48 PM               

Would that be OK to you? The plant owners lose money and the "little guy" gets his new car. Of course the worker (you and the recording artists) loses out too...but I guess that's OK to you....as long as the Republicans are unhappy.

posted 03-02- 08:14 PM            

Smokey, many many independent musicians (ie. not signed with a record label) opposed Napster and filed a class action suit. Sure, they may have been getting exposure but they also lost any sales revenue they may have been able to generate. My cousin falls into this group of people - his band played clubs in the LA area and would sell their own CD's at the same clubs... when Napster showed up they suddenly weren't able to sell very many CD's. They then noticed that all of their CD was available on Napster... coincidence? They don't think so... on the one hand they actually got more popular because of the Napster exposure...but their income actually dropped because they couldn't sell their cd's. Late last year they had to quite the full-time band gig and get regular jobs because their income dropped so low - as a result the band died (schedule problems for the members).

BTW - if anybody saw "Bring It On" (crap movie) you heard my cousin's music and voice. It was the scene where the girl is dancing on her bed to the tape the guy gave her... that's my cousin singing and it's his song. The band was Rufus King and the song was "Just What I Need".

posted 03-02- 08:39 PM            

I personally think Napster was doing something
illegal. I am not a music lover though so
it really doesn't affect me. It just doesn't
seem right to be able to copy someone's work
and give it away.

posted 03-02- 08:57 PM            

tons of people used Napster and stole millions of songs...yet CD sales continued to rise...how odd

posted 03-02- 09:19 PM               

I am upset about this.. I support Napster 100%

Copyright law is 90% bogus. Some things just can not be "owned". If some one has a chat with you, and you learn something, does the other fellow own that knowledge?

Music used to be free... it can be free again. Maybe the production value will come down a bit, but great music has plenty of market even with the Napster.

People were this upset when the printing press was created - many people lost allot of power once books became available.

The record companies ARE A-Holes. They offer nothing much at all, and demand allot. They were here only to DISTRIBUTE music, not make it. Now with the internet we don't need them at all anymore, they are HISTORY.

BUT, I agree with the ruling, it is against the law. So what is the answer? Simple:

The Napster should make every atempt to get the copyrighted music off, maybe even make it impossible to put it on the Napster. Then the musicians who have a brain or need a break will publish directly to Napster and such - and gain following here.

Almost every CD I buy was music I found on Napster.. EVERY ONE! I just found that Jobim's grandson has a kick-ass Bossa band! Wow!!!

Face it, music sharing is the future... this means more audience for real musicians and more diverse music for music lovers.

The record companies will have a place, but they will have a much smaller space

I welcome this, and I plan to take advantage of it from both sides

(I won't miss the Michael Jackson / Madonna kind of pop star anyway)

posted 03-02- 10:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ArgonV:
Is copying a video tape and giving it to a friend, stealing? NO!

[This message has been edited by ArgonV (edited 03-02-2001).]

---

You sure about this one man?

All I'm saying, is that what Napster is doing is illegal. And the courts upheald the law. That is ALL that happened here.

"How about when you have to pay $10-$15 for a CD that only has one or two good songs on it, and the rest SUCK, which is common. The Record labels do that on purpose to make you buy more CDs to get the songs you want. "

Woah my friend. See, now we are mixing two totally different issues here.

1. Downlaoding songs off of Napster
2. Record companys making LOTS of money off of crappy records.

Lets not mix things up here. People use 2 as an excuse to use 1 which is illegal. Your sill breaking the law, no matter how good your EXCUSE is.

Yeah it sucks that record companys cash in on 1 hit wonders. This is why bands like Hole and SP support "Song sharing". You can listen to what a certain band puts out before actually buying the CD. If the CD only has 1-2 good songs on it, it souldn't be bought. Bands like that don't deserve your support. But if a band has a great CD, then you'll wanna go out and buy it. 1) for better quality. 2) to support the band. This way record companys and bands will have to work harder to put out a better product.

It would be great if all music were free, and I'm sure bands don't like charging their fans all that money to listen to their music... But they gotta eat too you know? It's just VERY unfortunate that record companys have to grow fat off of other people's hard work.

Bottom line here.... The courts didn't rule on record companies ripping people off by outting out stale CDs and charging $15 for them. They ruled on a company that was providing an illegal service.

Everyone listen to what Stark is saying here..

"They then noticed that all of their CD was available on Napster... coincidence? They don't think so... on the one hand they actually got more popular because of the Napster exposure...but their income actually dropped because they couldn't sell their cd's. Late last year they had to quite the full-time band gig and get regular jobs because their income dropped so low - as a result the band died (schedule problems for the members)."

This is going to continue to happen, and pretty soon, we will hardly have any new bands out there. Simply 'cause they can't afford to make music. I'm facing this myself.

"The Napster should make every atempt to get the copyrighted music off, maybe even make it impossible to put it on the Napster.Then the musicians who have a brain or need a break will publish directly to Napster and such - and gain following here." I *TOTALLY* agree with you here SV. Unfortunately, It's pretty much impossible for Napster to prevent copytighted music from getting on Napster. There is always a hack/crack to get around stuff like that.

posted 03-03- 01:44 AM            

I see it as a background to life itself. It may sound flowerchildish to some of you who know my views on buisenss and money.

The thing is, music is a way of life to me. It's hard to put a price on that.

posted 03-03- 02:31 AM            

A company makes a computer program which creates every possible combination of notes and durations, and copywrites them. They are 'songs' and they are copywrited. Now they own all possible music (unless it was already copywrited).

posted 03-03- 03:33 AM               

hip63
a.k.a.
the mp3pirate
(BTW-I got about 2000, AARRGGHH!! !)
------------------
...remember always fly HIGH!!!
http://groovygalaxy.50megs.com/psychedelicsquadron.html

posted 03-03- 03:59 AM            

Your right... for any true musician it is the music first, but it's awfully hard to make music when you can't even afford Ramen noodles for food. Ask my cousin.

Napster really wasn't hurting the big labels irreperably but it did hurt some of the little guys (like my cousin and about 6 other bands he knows). Music is a work of art... but even the artist needs to live by the rules of the material world. I've also heard the argument that "you can be a part time musician and have a job too" - my cousins response to that was that yes you could do it... but your music would suffer. For him music is a passion... and to do it he must do it all the way, 24 hours a day 7 days a week... not when he's not at his other job. Before Napster he could do this... he wasn't rich, or even middle class.. but he had enough to keep him fed, clothed and healthy.. so he could live his music. After Napster he didn't. It's as simple as that. They had more people coming to their shows at the end for them than ever before but couldn't sell their cd's... that was the money that made it possible for them.

-Stark

posted 03-04- 12:22 AM            

I have an opinion on this issue, but I'm keeping it to myself, and please don't try to infer it based on what I've written above. I just see this Napster thing as the last thing we need to be arguing about. Those who believe Napster should be shut down will soon achieve their victory, and those who believe what Napster represents should not be shut down will soon discover the victory to be somewhat pyhrric. No need to fight over this, you both win. (imho, of course)

Werner

posted 03-04- 01:17 AM               

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/02/26/1812213&mode=nocomment.

In the digital formats which Napster can trade, they are making more money: $318,500,000 more revenue

posted 03-04- 05:51 AM               

Why would I want to when I can store far more files on a CD in mp3 format?

I agree with hip though. Napster is far from the only source of mp3's, albiet the most convenient.

All this ruling will accomplish is forcing mp3 distribution to other non-server based distribution methods that are much harder to track.

The paradigm is shifting and the record companies have failed to realize that. No more will people be willing to pay 15-20 dollars for a CD of one or two good songs and 10 other unremarkable ones.