There have been some good points here. Since Napster has been in the news so much, I've learned alot about the people who use the service. Many of them are people who go looking for songs that can't be found elsewhere. Such as this guy who wanted songs from a specific culture which was not supported locally, he turned to Napster and found it.
I disagree with Adam somewhat, when you download 20 songs from Napster you probably aren't hurting the artist, but moreso the RIAA.
I agree with a post I saw on another board. The RIAA has a chance to regulate an organized and structured way of exchanging MP3's. If they loose this chance, they may never get it back. Exchanging MP3's won't stop simply because Napster is shut down, it just won't be as obvious or as organised.
I believe there's alot more to it then, these songs are copyright lets get rid of it. It's combatting traditional law with the latest technology. Maybe the Court of Appeals realised this, which is why they got a temporary reprieve. It'll be good to see the final outcome of this case.
PS - I've never used Napster so I don't actually know much about the service.
------------------ Lyricsh.com Lyrics to over 10,000 songs!
[This message has been edited by RaviJP (edited July 30, 2000).]
This somehow reminds me of the time that in the USA alcohol was prohibited: it just didn't work, everything just went underground, the government lost its grip on the distribution of alcohol and gangsters ruled the country.
With this example I want to make clear that if there wouldn't be any legal programs to exchange mp3s, video and that kind of stuff, the exchange would go underground and it would become uncontrollable.
The RIAA would better think twice before they ban all exchange programs.
They cannot ban all exchange programs...it just will not happen. Or, as Quinn so eloquently put it: "never never never never never!"
adam: Yes, it is illegal...is it wrong. *Perhaps*...it's at least very close, but quite frankly if I were the leader of a band I would absolutely support Napster; the RIAA didn't like the idea of VCRs either, but now they make tons from it. These naive people just DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM!
Sure, they have ever legal right to sue, they're just being dumb in my opinion...
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
The RIAA didn't like the idea of VCRs either, but now they make tons from it.
The RIAA doesn't make any money from the sells of VCR's. Their "Products" are the laws and regulations lobbied for that support the recording labels and independant artists that join the association.
The RIAA doesn't sell anything. They are a lobbying group used by the recording industry to backup their wants and needs. The RIAA operates just like AARP, Unions and any other lobbying group in the United States.
People want inexpensive access to Music and Entertainment. CD's were supposed to make music cheaper and they didn't. New CD's run from $10 and $20 dollars a piece in the U.S., on average cheaper than 10 years ago after adjusting for inflation. Unfortunately wages, allowances and other sources of income haven't kept up with inflation making the CD's seem more expensive.
Now if MP3.COM, which has 80,000 albums online can regulate the download to legal uses, then so can Napster, just takes some re-working in the architecture. Allowing mass copying of copyrighted works does not fall under fair use whether you do it explicitly (users) or implicitly (Napster). The users can legally copy songs from the Internet for their own use if they purchased a license to listen to that song (such as a CD, cassette, or even a Music Video Tape) and they don't use both mediums at the same time. This has been established by the Supreme Court of the United States back in the 1970's when Cassette tapes where invented and the RIAA tried to ban the manufacture of blank tapes.
What has to be discussed is a settlement for a common middle ground with both Artists and Users prevailing over the RIAA and Napster.
I am not saying that there aren't artists whose status improves after there music gets on napster. BUT it is unethical, to say the least. 90% of the people that I know, who use napster, simply download full albums. I have no doubt that there are MANY people who use napster to find rare songs etc. However, both Metallica and the RIAA are right. It IS harming them, in a small way or a big way. It IS illegal. It IS unethical. and it IS unstoppable. My solution? here goes
The record companies need to get together, and convert loads and loads of songs into MP3 format etc. Then, they need to charge users say 15$ a month to D/L, wiht a browsable by genre and artist, searchable, and basically easily accessible database. I can ASSURE you that heaps of the people that use napster will begin to use this service.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by adam: please remember that DOWNLOADING FROM NAPSTER IS ILLEGAL and WRONG. Now, I'm not saying I don't use it (I do), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think it's wrong for you to say what you do and then turn around and use Napster. By doing that you're saying that you don't actually believe in what you're saying or you are purposely taking from the artist. Personally, I don't use Napster (or any other exchange program) and I may never, but I do support it because Napster is just a service that allows the user to exchange MP3's.
------------------ Lyricsh.com Lyrics to over 10,000 songs!
[This message has been edited by RaviJP (edited July 31, 2000).]
You all think the singers and groups bother? Mettalica does not have a record company. The record companies they shout out loud: Away with Napster. But what are they doing? Taking over 90% of record sales... In Belgium a female singer who is in the parlement (!!!) put her songs online to download and HER record company said she couldn't do that... This trial is to regain CONTROL over artists. Because they know they are no longer needed with the world wide web in the future. Singers just put their songs online to download for 2$/song and they will have less costs and more income without the record companies. mp3.com could sell those songs, therefore it was sued in my opinion.
Napster and everything else has to stay untill records get CHEAPER. Music has become almost not affordable.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by JeremyL:
You downloading copyrighted music using napster is the same thing as me going to your website and coping whatever content I wanted and using it on my site without asking your permision.
Downloading a MP3 using napster is definetely NOT the same thing as copying content and using it on your own website.
It would be the same if you download music and then reproduce it or sell it. Being a music industry professional for over 6 years now I fully support Napster and others like http://www.gnutellaworld.net since I really believe that it increases the overall cd sales and gives unknown bands and artists a way promoting their music.
The result will be that a wide variety of music will be available for everyone besides all the marketing concepts (like Britney a.o.) which we are forced to consume by the major record labels organised in the RIAA.
Copyright Record Company. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. They are ripping off the Singers, so it's now our turn to ripp them off. No just kidding. They do feel they will become useless with Internet. Napster is only a small piece of all that process.
Napster is just a tool but it has the same principal. All it is, is a new form of warez.
Have you heard of searchenginewatch.com? They have a free newsletter and a paid newsletter. One wich is generic and one which is very useful and detailed. Say you were the owner of searchenginewatch.com and youy made your living off this newsletter. Say someone came up with a program that would allow someone who bought your paid newsletter to share that info with millions of people without you getting paid for your hard work. Would you like it? If you don't care please let me know and I will copy every single piece of content from all your sites and send them via newsletter to every email address I ever encounter for as long as I am on the web for free and without paying you a dime or me making a dime off it. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
In the end napster like it's competitors is only a tool but it is a tool that is used 95% of the time for ILLEGAL activities.
In the end it is all about copyright laws. You are either for them or against them. If you are for them great but if you are against them I don't want to you hear you complain if someone copies all the content on your site.
I would just like to clear up a few things. The copying of these MP3 files is NOT illegal unless they are used for commercial or public purposes.
-with Napster you search for a song and download it to your computer for personal, private use.
-daily, you do a search on yahoo for a website, view it in your browser (it must be downloaded to do that) and unless you post that on your website or use it public purposes, you are perfectly within your rights EVEN WHEN THE CONTENT IS COPYRIGHTED
Courts have ruled that personal use of copyrighted material is acceptable, and Napster is merely and indexing service, they do not distribute copyrighted MP3s, they do not charge to search their index. They are violating copyright laws less than public libraries would appear to be since public libraries distribute copyrighted materials!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by JeremyL: Have you heard of searchenginewatch.com? They have a free newsletter and a paid newsletter. One wich is generic and one which is very useful and detailed. Say you were the owner of searchenginewatch.com and youy made your living off this newsletter. Say someone came up with a program that would allow someone who bought your paid newsletter to share that info with millions of people without you getting paid for your hard work. Would you like it? If you don't care please let me know and I will copy every single piece of content from all your sites and send them via newsletter to every email address I ever encounter for as long as I am on the web for free and without paying you a dime or me making a dime off it. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course there's a difference! The difference is that the RIAA has several other ways to go about all of this, AND that Napster is obviously making them money anyway...that's a huge difference that changes the entire situation.
Unless they're loaded with morons (highly likely IMHO), the RIAA will work out some sort of deal with Napster...perhaps banner ads on Napster or something, and a profit share; hell, like I said: they're making more money because of it anyway, this should all be gravy.
This thread cracks me up.....Copyright is copyright is copyright. It matters not one little bit if you agree with it or not. It matters not one little bit if you think the music industry is corrupt or charging too much. It's called captialism, a free market economy, and the rule of law. Why does a CD cost $18? Because people will pay $18. Why can we charge $1500 to build a website? Because people will pay $1500 for a website. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Some web design firms make huge bucks, do they not deserve the same copyright protection for their work?
Imagine the indignant cries when someone starts offering free website templates taken from other working sites. Just grab the code, insert your text here, and poof, you have a new website.
"But I only use it to find obscure music that is difficult to find." Sure, but if someone steals your website that only gets 20 hits a day, won't you still be just as annoyed?
People can be so bloody hypocritical when they want something for free. Justify it any way you want to.....if you steal from a rich guy, is it any less of a crime? This is where relativism has taken us.
OJ bludgened two people to death? Well, he's black, so it's payback....let him go.....
President is a lying cheater? Hey, the economy is good, let him go......
Violation of copyright? Hey, they are just greedy rich record company executives, let it go......
Mr. Speaker, I now yield the balance of my time. (Steps down from podium, wipes the froth from his mouth, and goes for a beer.)
Yes, it is wrong, yes it is illegal, and yes, there would be a huge outcry if this happened to anyone other than the morons that make up the RIAA...however they're definetly being idiots and stifling the growth of music by shutting down Napster and not working with them...
Should they be allowed to sue and shut them down? Perhaps...Napster does not support the illegal distribution of music, but obviuosly is misued 99% of the time...so I'm not sure how fair it is to shut them down, but either way it's definetly stopping growth.
I am Mister Capitalist in just about every way, and the RIAA has the right to do this; I just think they're insane for doing so, and are not thinking straight.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>Originally posted by TWTCommish: Napster does not support the illegal distribution of music, but obviuosly is misued 99% of the time...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it's misused 99% of the time, then obviously it IS supporting the violation. Napster was built to do one thing, share music. The fact that the majority of music available to the common man is copyrighted wasn't lost on the creators of Napster....they just thought they had found a loophole.
Now being a freedom loving American, I fully support Napsters right to exist. But let's not pretend that the first and best use for this tool isn't to break the law.
Kind of like radar detectors. People use all kinds of excuses to justify having one. But the fact is, it's made to get away with something. If I get caught speeding anyway, I lost, fair and square, and ought to pay the fine. Same holds true with Napster.
Problem being, when you are talking about Napster, how do you go after 50 zillion copyright abusing folks individually?
Hell if I know. Maybe they ought to go after a few users, fine em up the wazoo, and make an example out of them.
No rant, I was only reacting to some of the blatant double standards found within this thread. Best.
It would be good to refer to the fact that shutting down Napster and Gnutella and Scour and all of the other 'Napster clones' doesn't work against copying music. Before Napster it happened on the same way as Roms and warez: on FTP/HTTP servers...
Since the commercial internet exists, this kind of things happen and it won't stop after one trial, nor after two, three or four.
Point is that with just fighting against those practices the RIAA is bound to loose. The only way they can 'win' is to make a deal with Napster and/or the similar programs.
There have been some awful analogies made several posts up the list.
I could reply all day to the comments made on this thread if I really set my mind to it, but there's really no point.
If the RIAA was to make some sort of deal with Napster to charge a commission on every MP3 distributed, they have completely screwed themselves over with this bogus trial. There has been some talk about instituting a dollar fee per month to gain access to a database of MP3s on a system like Napster or Gnutella, and that is all fine if that's the way they want to do it.
For $15 or so a month, you bet that people will pay that to download their hearts out. However, I would think CD sales would drastically reduce if a deal like this was implemented, screwing up the RIAA's plan even more. And the other point is this: why would you pay for access to an MP3 database if you could get the same things for free elsewhere? Sure, there would be a lot of newbies and such who wouldn't think twice about pulling out the credit card and buying a monthly subscription to a theoretical "Napster Gold Club" type service for unlimited downloads, but most hardcore MP3 users, and much of the general public, would turn to underground means of getting their MP3s. Napster, Gnutella, the Scour Exchange, etc. are the most "legitimate" ways to get MP3s. Just think about all the other "not so legitimate" places out there where you can get them... IRC channels, warez/crack sites, etc... there are too many for the recording industry to ever dream of shutting down. If Napster, et al, is closed, MP3s will go underground. It's as simple as that.
In my opinion, Napster is illegaly allowing the distribution of copyrighted material. Not addressing the legal issues, but more the ethical issue--there was a pretty good take on this issue in the latest HTML Goodies newsletter (sorry, can't find a link to it).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote/font><HR>
. . . . They are violating copyright laws less than public libraries would appear to be since public libraries distribute copyrighted materials!
That is not a very good example. Libraries don't loan out photocopies of books or other items. They loan out the original items. The don't allow copying of their holdings (take a look at the photocopy machines at a library, they are plastered with the Federal Copyright Law). And it is quite illegal to photocopy a book, CD, video cassette, that one checks out of the library.
Some of the stuff available through Napster is perfectly legal to download, but Napster does not make any effort to inform users which is legal and which is illegal. As far as the RIAA making a deal with Napster, personally, I think it should be the other way around, Napster needs to make a deal with the RIAA. What Napster provides is a good idea, but they implemented it wrong.