I really want to know you guys opinions on this one...specifically: 1. Do you use Napster? 2. Do you use it to burn CDs of songs you download? 3. Do you think Napster is a useful tool or does it rob recording artists of royalties? 4. Do you agree with Dr. Dre's & Metallica's (Specifically their drummer's) efforts to put Napster away? I use it at work, and I don't burn CDs of the songs. Instead, since I began using it (3 months ago), I've discovered new bands/singers that I like and I've purchased roughly 10-15 CDs of artists I discovered by searching for them on Napster. I can totally see some artists point of view that it takes royalties away from them, and there needs to be some kind of solution to this. However, I do not believe that Metallica (and Dr. Dre) are going about fighting it the right way. The way they are going about it makes them sound (to me) like a bunch of spoiled millionaires, and if it continues, it may even turn some of their fans off. I know lots of you guys like Dr. Dre & Metallica, but I have never been a fan of either. And now I DEFINITELY won't buy their stuff nor respect their opinions on any subject! Tell me what you think..... ------------------ Bring It!!
I don't use napster, when I want to listen to a group I'll buy their cd. I don't think it's right to screw a band by listening to their music for free. ------------------ please venture to atheistalliance and rocketsonline I AM SPARTACUS
1. Yes I use it alot 2. Sometimes I do, If i ever want to get someones full album, I look for it and If i cant find it then I buy it. 3. Its a Useful tool 4. NO ------------------ "I talked about what degenerates they [Mets fans] were, and they proved me right. Just by saying something, I could make them mad enough to go home and slap their moms." John Rocker
1. I use it from time to time. 2. I have burned CD's before, but nothing brand new. 3. Both. I think it is a very useful tool for people that want to try before buying or that only want specific songs. It also does rob some artists, mainly those that release new albums only to have people download and burn the album. 4. No I do not. Sorry, but I feel no pain for a multi-platinum artist that loses out on a few sales. When they can't feed their families, then we'll talk. I like both Dre and Metallica, but they are acting like spoiled brats. ------------------ We need some meat in the post and I don't mean Brian Grant!
It should be simple. If the artist gives his/her/their consent, their songs should be available on Napster. If they don't, the songs shouldn't be available. ------------------ Just because you're white and play basketball doesn't mean you're a Matt Bullard clone, despite idiotic accusations to the contrary. visit www.swirve.com
I use it often. I don't burn CD's. It is a very useful tool that will only get better with a little tinkering. Like you said, they are going about it the wrong way. They sound like babies that had their bottles taken away. I can't wait till someone starts a site where you can watch entire concerts for free. ------------------ "When your dead, anything's funny."-John Lennon
I'm with Metallica on this one. Napster is okay for downloading bootleg material but when it comes to studio-produced music they spent months and hundreds of thousands of dollars to record so they could sell, Napster has no right to distribute such material freely without permission. Maybe Lars went overboard providing users to Napster so they could be banned. But, I think Metallica is handling it correctly besides that...especially by voicing their concerns at the congressional hearing and through the media. Lars made a good speech at the hearings. How rich they are is besides the freaking point!! Maybe a few users do actually download a few songs and buy the CD retail but they are the exception...not the norm. Your a fool if you think otherwise. I'm sure a fair amount get all the songs via Napster and burn their own CDs. Their probably floating freely around high schools and college campuses. I would be pissed off to hell if that was my album. Who the **** does Napster think they are? I hope they are sued into oblivion. If all the music is free via Napster, then where is the incentive to make music only to get it ripped off? Most artists are not on the caliber of Metallica and it's not fair to them. I think the Napster CEO belongs in jail. Like Lar's says, downloading songs via Napster is equivalent to stealing CDs from a music store. Information is not free...it is intellectual property just like a movie on DVD or VHS. Let's see Napster try and distribute a movie...they would be screwed faster than they could blink. Just like Napster doesn't want you re-using or distributing their copyrighted web page material(graphics, code, etc.), Metallica doesn't want you distributing their copyrighted songs. There is no difference but Napster has turned a blind eye and needs to be punished. Surf ------------------
Surf, you got it all wrong. Napster doesn't have the songs that are downloaded, the people who use napster are the ones who have the songs. As far as other bands not being the same caliber as Meatloafica, you are right, they get little or no radio airplay. They make music no one ever hears. Napster offers an outlet for these little known bands/artists. Are you saying music is made for the sole purpose of making money? ------------------ "When your dead, anything's funny."-John Lennon
I don't agree that people who use Napster to determine whether or not to buy a CD are rare. I know a lot of people that do that. I personally have done with at least a dozen CD's in the last six months. ------------------
1. Yep. 2. Nope. 3. I think Napster is a very useful tool. Now be honest, how many of you buy all of your CD's for every song on them? There aren't a lot of albums that consist of only great/wanted tracks. So if you look at it this way, is it practical to buy one or two songs for $18? I know that that's why singles exist, but some songs are impossible to find and some aren't even available to purchase separately. Is someone who downloads songs that can't be purchased by themselves a thief? Maybe so, but you could make a case that bands that make crappy overall CDs and charge $18 for them are too. 4. That's a toughie, but I'm leaning towards no. Before Napster(and after Napster if it's shut down), people could just wait for a song to come on the radio and record it, or make copies of albums that their friends owned. So you're always going to have people find ways to get music for free. Besides, what's twenty bucks to a multi-millionaire? ------------------ WE WILL WATCH THEM FALL... next year, at least. [This message has been edited by AntiSonic (edited July 12, 2000).]
Bob, I knew that...words just came out wrong. They facilitate the illegal distribution and exchange of these files. You might as well be downloading the song's instead of the tool from Napster's servers. I also agree that if the band is small AND they CONSENT, then fine....distribute their music all you want. And I'm sure they wouldn't mind because it's advertising at it's finest. If the consent was there, there would be no issue but it's not. For the band, music is a whole helluva lot about money. It's their job and they are earning a living. Sure, they love to play but it doesn't pay the bills. Bob...don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry . That's right...I turn green and hulkish. Huh? Right. Doh. Surf. ------------------
I don't think this is an easy call it all. It is fine for consumers to make there own cassett tapes of CD's and hand to their friends, right? But now it isn't OK to send a computer file copy of a CD to your friends (if you use a loosely defined cyber friendship)?? If Napster was charging for copies, or this company itself was distributing the files to consumers, it would be an easy call. But I don't think that is how it works. What I think is different from the Napster way and the old way of sharing music (CD to cassette, handed to a fried) is the mass of distribution by the new technology. But you have to make an arument stronger than that (it is more than the mass scale, it must be a fundamentally different activty) to prove what Napster is doing is illegal. Someone would have to prove this point to me (could happen, but hasn't yet) before I side with the record companies. ------------------ "The Rockets were ahead of the Suns by 20 late in game 2 of the series, but when the going got tough, we just Pippened . We would not be done in the series though."
1) Yes 2) Never 3) Very useful to find rare songs and remixes 4) There are other programs besides Napster that work in the same way. Shutting down Napster isn't going to do anything but make people use another program. CD sales have skyrocketed since Napster came out. Metallica and Dre should realize that true fans will buy their CD's. I don't know if anyone has heard of the MP3 DiscMan. It's like a portable computer CD-ROM with headphones. Instead of burning 74 minutes of WAV's, people can burn 650MB of MP3's on a CD and play them on the go. This should really upset Metallica and Dre. ------------------ It's all good!
Didn't a similar thing happen approx. 25 years ago with the advent of the VCR and video cassete? Hollywood was crying and whining that videos were going to decrease their revenue and sales. But in fact, the opposite happened. Azim da Dream ------------------ We don't live for the destination. We live for the journey.
The amount of money they make, or have should be inconsequential. The fact that they sell a product, and with technology people steal it, is wrong. Its not a hard eqation. Next time you go to work try doing for free. As one artist put it. "As soon as farmers give out free milk, and bankers give out free money, Ill be ok with giving my services for free."
1. Only when at school 2. occasionally 3. Napster hurts artists and helps artists. There are many valid arguments to this multifaceted issue. The only thing I'm sure of is the freedom of Napster is currently at it's peak. Get as much as you can as quickly as possible, that is if it's morally ok with you. 4. If I was Dre, I'd be doing the same thing. It's interesting though that Limp Bizkit is doing a Napster promoted tour. Extra Points: I did a report in high school about IBM's rise to power and Apple's free fall in correlation with IBM's acceptance of cloning and piracy and Apple's mission to stop it. If anyone's interested I'll be happy to explain it, but it isn't the best analogy to the Napster situation of today. Also, there is gnutella.com, which is an unowned program floating free on the internet. It's not a company so cannot be sued. Independent programmers work on gnutella for free. It's much more comprehensive than napster and has tons or various computer files.
Napster distributes nothing. The distribution is done between people. Napster software is just the medium. It's like saying "Hey, TDK, Maxell, and Sony make audio tapes, and people use audio tapes to make illegal copies of tapes, so the tape manufacturers are at fault". Napster should not be shut down. Music has always been available via the Internet. WAV files have been around for years, but no one said they were illegal (why would they be?). The reason the RIAA has its panties in a wad now are 2-fold. MPEG compression allows people to download songs that are 1/10 the size they used to be and people are getting near-T1 or faster connections to the Internet now. This just means the music is more readily available. For those of you that defend Dre and Metallica (and I'm not saying I necessarily don't), what is the difference between copying an album using tape or a CD burner and doing the same using Napster? Answer keeping in mind that the audio isn't stored on Napster's site. Also, what is the difference between Napster and let's say a search engine like Altavista or HotBot in that I can find copyrighted/illegal software to download using the search engines? Do I now say that Altavista is at fault or do I go after the people that store the actual files? ------------------ Just shut up and post
If your ISP has banned Napster, go to napigator.com and download the program which finds other Napster servers. My college banned Napster and I still get on using this program. There are ways to get on Napster if you have been banned. There's a program to download for that but I don't know where it is. ------------------ It's all good!
My Chat b*stard brother, I must disagree. Simply because people use a medium for illegal purposes doesn't make the medium wrong or at fault. See my reference to Web-based search engines. The RIAA is scared sh*tless and that's why we're hearing a backlash now when we didn't hear one before. I'm pulling for Napster simply because I don't believe the company has done anything wrong. Simply because you can't control the people that use the software doesn't mean that you go after the company that wrote the software. Another example : You can write viruses using Turbo Assembler... do you go after Inprise/Borland because they made a compiler that allows you to write viruses or do you go after the people that write the viruses? ------------------ Just shut up and post
