Now Napster is finished, the RIAA has only got to deal with Gnutella, Scour, CuteMX, iMesh and all of the other Napster clones... Why don't they just give up? It's hopeless for them, they just CAN'T win this fight... It's like trying to extinguish the whole breed of cockroaches: just when you think you're finished they've multiplied themselves behind your back...
I haven't used Napster, although I currently use a similar service, Scour Exchange, and like many Napster users I actually buy more CDs now that I use these services because it allows me to hear what else these bands can put out besides the one hit that's played on the radio over and over, and it reduces my skepticism over whether I am buying an entire CD to find out I only like that one hit song and the rest are crap.
I've heard countless hours of arguments about the Napster situation on the talk radio circuit, and arguments in Napster's favor have stood the strongest.
The recording industry has yet to understand that MP3s and services like Napster inadvertedly drive more customers to go out and purchase CDs. Yes there are exceptions... some people sit at home and download entire albums all day and don't give a single thought about purchasing a CD, but this is not the case for a lot of people.
If the record industry is serious about wanting to fix the problem, they have got to realize that the best solution would be to lower the prices of CDs. People wouldn't sit by their 56k connections waiting for a 3 minute song to download if they could go out to a store and purchase the entire CD for $8. At the current rate that the recording industry is going, stamping out CDs at a cost of 25 cents a pop, there is no excuse for $17 CDs.
Bands have to protect themselves in some way so that people can't simply download their album...however It *really* annoys me to see Metallica...a big tough heavy metal band, sounding like geeks whining about a copyright violation...this is the equivalent of Dr. Dre complaining that there's too much violence in the world when he sings about it all the time.
Bands ought to release a single or two for public distribution...let's face it, it seems fairly obvious that many people buy CDs anyway even if they can get them online...those who almost never buy CDs anyway (me) will still not buy anyway whether the songs are available in MP3 format anyway...I'd say very few people stop buying albums to use MP3 as an alternative...
Do we need to regulate Napster a bit? Yes, of course...but shutting it down is ridiculous.
Remeber the Grateful Dead? They ENCOURAGED people to make copies of their music and hand it to their friends, and as a result many fans were highly loyal and they sold a ton of music anyway...that decision was a fabulous marketing decision.
I also might add that the RIAA (or some similar organization) was terrified of the VCR, but their earnings would be miniscule without it. These people do not know whats good for them...use Napster to your advantage...
I use(d) napster and thought it was great. Napster did not stop me buying CDs. I would download songs that I think I might like and if I liked a few songs by that band I would buy the CD.
However great mp3 is it is not as high quality as cds are. I cannot for example play mp3s on my hi-fi because I can notice the difference between an mp3 recording and a cd recording (I am big into home cinema and hi-fi).
MP3 is great for getting songs that you can't get on CD or testing out songs before you buy the CD. Napster does *not* stop me buying CD's - it actually makes me buy more. I think that Metallica are hurting themselves as 20,000,000 potential fans are angry at them now and many are boycotting them.
Anyway there are several good napster clones out there and they can't stop them all so why stop napster. Do they really think that people won't just go somewhere else to get mp3s?
I always thought that bands (real ones not pop cr*p) made music because they got satisfaction out of people enjoying it. MP3 allows for a wider reach of their music.
Napster itself doesn't really do anything illegal (as far as i know) it just provides the infrastructure for file sharing. Why don't the RIAA just close down the Internet -after all it's ultimately the Internet that allows for MP3's to be distributed.
Their suit against Napster is about control, not copyright. The RIAA profits are steadily rising, so they are losing nothing because of file sharing. They just want to keep a hold on their monopoly of music distribution.
If Napster was smart, they'd get the government to launch an antitrust investigation.
I have been in the Silicon Valley all week. Napster has been on the front page of the newspapers because of this lawsuit. Some of the findings are interesting as well as the editorials presented. I have been saving the relavent stories on Napster and copyright violation and hope to compile an Internet Feature on the issues to put on my site along with a expanded view of Privacy. This should be up within the next week.
Napster is only one part of the puzzle. The reason that the RIAA went after them is because they are organized and physical. In a recent study it was proven that people who share music over Napster actually spend more money on CD's than those that don't. This seems to be contrary to what the RIAA states. Who is actually telling the truth remains to be seen.
Unfortunately the RIAA should be looking to Napster to help legitimize music download and provide greater profits for everyone. The case hasn't started yet and an agreement, switching of delivery methods may come about because of this. I will be keeping an eye out on this in particular.
Sure, 56k modem users won't wait. But a good number of people have high speed connections. I've got DSL. Almost every second I'm downloading songs. The way I do it is I search for the thing I want (all LIVE performances) and then I hit download all. One is likely to download.
I'll go ahead and paste a post I made at Slashdot last night about this. Here it is...
The RIAA will NEVER succeed in stopping online music trading. Never. They're getting themselves bad press while doing NOTHING to get rid of the trade.
Now I don't really think that what Napster doing was completely legit, nor do I believe the "It's for trading uncopyrighted music" because we all know what it's for. Pirating music, plain and simple.
But as it's been noted countless times before there are at least half a dozen alternatives to Napster, including Gnutella, CuteMX, Freenet, OpenNAP, IRC #mp3z and #mp3s, etc. The RIAA won't touch many of those. They're just getting bad press, that's all.
Why not make the people happy? They'd be accomplishing the exact same thing!! And they'd also gain the general public's trust and liking, too.
I may be the only one out of the 20 million that does this, but I do actually download music frequently (well around january i used to). I've stuffed more than half a gig of mp3's down my poor 26.4 connection - plus it's the family's phone line so i have to disconnect a lot.
I use Macster at work, using a T1 and Cable access (depending on the comp). Pretty fast.
Quinn (d3v): a little obsessive with your music there, aren't you? You and the thousands of people with DSL certainly have an advantage, but the majority of people still have a 56k or lower connection.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>But as it's been noted countless times before there are at least half a dozen alternatives to Napster, including Gnutella, CuteMX, Freenet, OpenNAP, IRC #mp3z and #mp3s, etc. The RIAA won't touch many of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Once the courts make a ruling like this, they can go after anyone and have a good chance of winning. Scour Exchange, Gnutella, CuteMX and whatever other major services are out there will become the next targets of the RIAA... they're not going to stop with Napster, that's for sure. On a side note, suspicious IRC channels are also being shut down every day, although this has more to do with individual IRC servers rather than the RIAA.
If the RIAA succeeds with shutting down Napster, and consequently other similar sites, the MP3 trade will simply go underground. And it will, no doubt, continue to flourish for a very long time. The RIAA will do nothing to stop the MP3 trade. If anything, they will simply turn MP3 away from the mainstream, but it will still be hot as ever.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by eradtke:
Scour Exchange, Gnutella, CuteMX and whatever other major services are out there will become the next targets of the RIAA... they're not going to stop with Napster, that's for sure. On a side note, suspicious IRC channels are also being shut down every day, although this has more to do with individual IRC servers rather than the RIAA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
First of all, CuteMX shut down yesterday. Apparently no one used it so no one cared. Sorry for listing that.
Scour Exchange: it will probably go down
But Gnutella, Freenet, OpenNAP, et al cannot be shut down. When there is no central point nothing can be easily shut down. Sure they could flood it by writing 500MB of 1s and name it "Adobe Photoshop w@r3z" but eventually there will be a trust model based on PGP. For example, say you trust "Jenny." Since I trust you, I also trust Jenny. Therefore whoever Jenny trusts I also trust. And you would only download from trusted people.
My point is that online warez, music sharing, etc., will NEVER stop. Never never never never. Even without Gnutella, CuteMX, Scour, Napster, Freenet, etc., music sharing can't be shut down. What's to stop me from coming out with "MP3 Killer App Z" and it becoming the next new thing?
On a side note, the court issued a stay for Napster. In other words Napster isn't being shut down. Yay!
Napster is wrong legally and ethically by allowing individuals to access protected copyright material, and now said...
Although a discussion about Napster, this is way above only the issue of Napster, this is a question of all copyright compliance on the internet - whether music, images, photographs, intellectual content, software, web design, etc, etc...
One of the defenses by Napster was the music was to be used only for 'private, personal and non-commercial use', but we can say that about just everything that we access on the internet. In that case do we discard copyright protections?
Just imagine photographs - you download, print, frame and hang on your wall. You're only using it for personal use, what is the problem? Every photographer that I have worked with was concerned about having a website because they questioned whether or not their work could be used by another, irregardless of personal or commercial use - disclaimers, disabling right click, use of tracking software or watermarks will prove nothing if the right 'of use' overrides individual copyright.
Open up the use of free download and access of music and you open a Pandora's Box in regards to every other copyright on the web - but the door has already been opened. As the door can't be closed again or even attempted to be, companies are now being forced to adjust.
As an example, just launched in April 2000, Content Guard has combined with Microsoft, Xerox (this was a spin-off) and others to help protect digital rights and eContent - and this will only be one of many. If anyone wants to protect it's copyrights, it will certainly be MS! There will be many developments in this age of digital to protect the rights to safely distribute digital content...music is only the first area to be tested and Napster was in range!
Another thought...There was a day when you could go into a 'record' store and listen to whatever 'album' that you wanted to - it never stopped people buying music. Even Virgin Records has headphones to listen. The difference from Napster? Odds are the stores did pay the record companies for the rights to do this...
This is such a complex issue that one minute I can understand the case brought up by Napster and the next I have realized how legally wrong this is...I'm smack between the plaintiff and the defendent!
But no matter, whether or not the music companies or artists makes immense $$$ is not the issue and never should be...
Dlynn ~SitePoint Moderator~
PawPrint Designs by WebKat "Let's keep Ethics on the Web"
[This message has been edited by WebKat (edited July 30, 2000).]
REALITY CHECK PEOPLE: May I just remind everyone in the forum, that no matter WHAT you think of the RIAA, or Metallica or anyone else that is suing napster, or whether it is inevitable, or useful etc.etc that music will be distributed via something like napster, please remember that DOWNLOADING FROM NAPSTER IS ILLEGAL and WRONG. Now, I'm not saying I don't use it (I do), but you have to remember, that the RIAA is in the right here, legally and ethically. Whether you have increased your CD purchases or not, there are still HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of PEOPLE that download from napster, burn the music onto a CD and never support the artists, taking away bread from the artists table. Many artists struggle to make a living, and if just 20 people don't buy their cd, but d/l it from Napster, then it HURTS them.
Next time you d/l from Napster, remember: "You wouldn't go to Tower Records and take a CD off the shelf, would you?"
The music I download is not available on CDs in my country and besides: I don't have the money for it since I've to buy a lot of hardware and software for my PC and I've more expensive hobbies too, so it would get too expensive for me, else I'd think about buying CDs through Amazon.com, for example.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
Many artists struggle to make a living, and if just 20 people don't buy their cd, but d/l it from Napster, then it HURTS them.
Personally, I don't really think that this is a major point. There are good things and bad things to everything. Sure napstar may have stopped a few people from buying a few cds but on the whole I think it promotes the music industry and actually generates more revenue for the smaller artists out there.
Take for example a fictional band from Lithuania called Laughing Lumberjacks. For the sake of argument there are no major record companies in Lithuania. This band could be very, very good but will never get a record deal and will never make much money.
Then someone gets their hand on an mp3 of a couple of the band's songs and distibutes them through napstar. People like what they hear and anything could hapen from there.
I know that was not a very good analogy but what I am trying to say is that napstar can be good for the smaller artists out there. I would guess that some of the important people of the big record companies use napstar to find up and coming bands/musicians. They would be stupid not to.
Another point is that a lot of people, including myself, mainly use napstar to get live versions of songs. The only time I download a song that is available on CD is to see if I like it before I go out and shell out my hard earned dosh for a cd where an obscene percentage of it goes to the fat cats of the record industry and not the band that I want to support.
I have said this before, and I will say it again Napstar makes me buy more cds. If I hear a song on the radio that I like without napstar I could buy the album and hate the other 9 songs on the cd. Napstar helps me make better choices when it comes to buying cds.