I simply don't agree because the argument doesn't work if you don't have the means to acquire the product being price fixed for free. If gasoline increases and you consider the prices fixed higher, you can buy it or not, but you do not have the option to simply fill up and drive away without paying. Television and radio are completely different from Napster. Films are licenced and actors receive royalties from sales, rental and distribution via television or other mass media. Radio stations, stores, clubs, restaurants and other establishments that play music are required to pay dues to industry organizations that register the songs played and distribute what are called "performance royalties" to the artists. Napster refused to even pay dues and report the songs being downloaded. If Napster and other services would simply agree to report every download and pay dues based on downloads like any radio station, I would not have any problem with it at all. Many "net radio" stations like Live365 and others DO pay these royalties. In fact, if Napster would've agreed to do that, NO ONE would be complaining and I'd even be downloading right now. Even the artists, producers and record companies pay dues each year to have these fees collected by either ASCAP or BMI. The only exception to this rule is if the store or restaurant is playing the radio instead of pre-recorded music. Then, the dues would be redundant. It would be so easy for Napster to fix the problem but it doesn't want to absorb the cost of tracking downloads and paying fees. That is why I consider Napster more of a problem than the people doing the downloading. ------------------ And then, depression set in...
Come on Jeff! Napster tried to do whatever they could to get the labels off their backs and the labels would not have it. The labels are screwing artists more than Napster ever will. There is a section at Prince's <a href="http://www.npgonlineltd.com/freedom/news/fnews-front.html">website</a> that is all about the ongoing fight. Here is where you can learn all about how the labels don't want you to hear. (Go Courtney, I'm pulling for ya!) The labels will ultimately lose this battle. No one is asking for free music. What people are demanding is fairness. There is no reason on this Earth that we need to be paying close to $20 for a CD. And knowing how little the artist actually makes from this sale, I have no sympathy whatsoever about the current ordeal. Why should I pay for the development of the next boy-band when i go out and buy a CD of my favorite band. There will come a time when all of this levels off and business will go on as usual. Currently there is a revolution going on. The people are speaking and the labels better listen. In the meantime, I will continue to use Napster as a tool to discover new music. I'll buy what I like. I have no problem with that. Most of us spend plenty of money on music. I've been doing it solidly for over 20 years now. ------------------
ASCAP and BMI asked Napster to pay dues and voluntarily report all downloads to them so they could pay artists like a radio station does. Napster refused. I agree that the record companies screw artists. That really isn't the point. Maybe one less CD sold will make a difference, but what about 5000 or 50,000? If you want to protest the music industry, turn off the radio, stop buying CD's and stop downloading. Basically, stop listening. That will make an impact. But, don't kid yourself into believing that Napster is some kind of answer to the tyranny of the music industry. It isn't. The problem is that the argument falls apart in EVERY other industry but music. Make an argument for any consumer product or service and replace "buy" with "get it for free" and tell me where that is possible all of the time if you don't own the company producing the product or service. In every other instance, it completely falls apart. The chemical industry gouges us with higher gas prices. Can you get gas for free in protest? Nope. The price of food goes up. Can you just walk out of a grocery store with a loaf of bread without paying? Not a chance. There is no other product or service that is bought and sold that fits the Napster model because no other industry would allow it. I don't see how suddenly we all can argue that this industry has no right to protect its product. Are we suddenly no longer capitalists? ------------------ And then, depression set in...
Like i said, we (resonable people) are not asking for free music. People are asking for fairness. The recording industry will not listen any other way except when it hits them in their pockets. This is just a phase. Boycotting music will negatively affect artists more than MP3s ever will. That is not an realistic option, just like boycotting baseball or basketball a few years ago was never going to happen. And the recording industry knows that. So far, Napster (and clones) is the best way to get their attention. ------------------
OK fine but my point is and I said it in an earlier post is that MP3s CAN be of CD quality. Jeff said they're worse than radio and that's worse than CD so what he was essentially saying is that MP3s are worse than CDs in quality which is still untrue when you get a high bitrate. ------------------ Arkansas' Biggest Rocket Fan!
Life is terrible now with all this Napster breakdown. I searched for Black Sabbath-Sweatleaf and it isn't there. I settled for the OZZY version though. Damn what is this world coming to?! ------------------ Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
The record companies are mad because they didn't think of this technology FIRST and now they have somebody out that has worked hard and put this program together before them. The record companies are not mad because of losing money, they are simply mad because they aren't making MORE money when they already have millions if not billions of dollars. So why don't they get rid of audio tapes because I know of plenty of people that records songs off the radio, from other tapes, or CDs? It's because they know computers are the future and tapes are on they're way out and before it get's too big they want total control over it. I find it interesting that no one responded when I told of how records sales have increased the past several years. At the same time last year they were up 6% and finished 11% up. Right now they are 13% up. Like the lead guy from Foo Fighters said about Napster: "when you're making millions of dollars and b****ing about pennies it doesn't make much sense." ------------------ Arkansas' Biggest Rocket Fan!
That's fine and I along with millions of others would pay but Napster is aready out there and works perfectly. So why can they not implement a system where we users must pay for downloading and distribute money evenly between record companies? Napster offered them a billion dollars!!! to split and then they would implement a pay system and the record companies would receive even more money. The record companies of course said no which to an average person like myself makes them look very greedy and money driven. I mean a billion dollars plus more money, seems very fair to me but oh well I'm not a millionaire record exec who wants a lot more money so what do I know? ------------------ Arkansas' Biggest Rocket Fan!
Dawg gone it! We got into all these arguments the last Napster thread and it went on and on and on and on. And I see no new reasons in this thread TO or NOT TO use Napster. A matter of opinion. I would go to CD now, get the titles and tracks and look up the specific songs and artist on Napster and get the entire album in less than 20 minutes. In fact on a thread about the O' Brother soundtrack, someone joked, "Your right, I just downloaded it all off Napster" What a great idea, so I did! THATS RIGHT! YES, I was deliberatley taking it, I hate the price of music! Thats why I do it. Who can have any compassion for the greediest industry besides the oil industry?!Ok, so here we go again and come on with your same 'ol statistics. Both sides etc... WOW! I love this country! ------------------ Whatever you want to do, you have to do something else first.
In reality, MP3's ARE worse than both CD's and radio signals. I don't want to go into a dissertation on sound, but a bitrate of 128 isn't close to the standard bitrate of audio found on a CD. CD's, depending on the rate at which they were mastered, have bitrates running from as low as 32 to as high as 320. Most rock CD's run in the vicinity of 200 while classical, direct-to-digital and some very high end industrial offerings (like the audio for a nature soundtrack) run closer to 320. The 32 bitrate is never used in professional quality recordings. The resultant degredation caused by decreasing the bitrate of a CD to compress it into MP3 format is clearly audible. The compression caused by the MPEG format, dependant upon the type of compression used, shaves off transient highs, in particular. To add to this, the compression created when analog audio signals are turned into radio waves is not quite as severe. Most FM stations use industrial grade compression (some tube, some transistor and some digital) to squeeze the sound into a format that is not as effected by the transition to radio waves. The result is the compressed signal we hear when we turn on our radios. It doesn't have the depth of audio recordings and, because low end is the first thing to go in radio production, is usually devoid of most of the super low bass signal. In what is really the reverse of MP3's, transient highs are relatively well-preserved by the radio process, but because the lows are rolled off as part of the compression algorithm, it creates the perception of increased high end frequencies when we are actually just hearing less bass. Because radio stations are better able to control the compression of their signals than someone who is ripping and encoding an MP3 on their computer using a relatively simplistic program, the signal can be more clearly preserved for its trip through the air. The problem is MP3 software. It is still rather amateurish when it comes to reproduction of sound. There is plenty of very high quality audio production software on the market that allow fairly high digital I/O support, however, they aren't for burning MP3's because the MPEG format is more about preserving file size for transfer over the internet than it is in preserving audio quality. I am certain that, as MP3's become more popular, there will be dramatic advancements in bitrate and file size. MP4 is already on the horizon from what I have read. However, for now, we have what we have and it isn't in the same ballpark as CD-quality audio. Hope this helps sort it out. ------------------ And then, depression set in...
No offense or anything but there is a noticable lack of sound quality when playing a 128kbs MP3. You might not hear it if you're playing it on crappy computer speakers over the hum of the hard drives, fans, etc. but if you're playing over real speakers then 128 sucks. The highs are terrible. I rip a lot of my CD's so I can take CD's into my lab and be able to play on my home sytem and I never rip at less than 192 kbs. So yeah, 128 is fine if you're using very basic speakers but otherwise it is not CD quality. ------------------
AMEN!!! Thank you for pointing that out. I guarantee you that engineers, artists and producers don't spend hundreds of hours in studios so that there music can sound like the piece of crap it does as a 128 bit encoded MP3. ------------------ And then, depression set in...
And I guarantee that people like me don't work hundreds of hours to spend their hard earned cash on a product that is inflated in cost by widespread price fixing. Sorry Jeff, couldn't resist - I generally support your arguments and I'm all for artists receiving due royalties, but that one is a bit wide of the mark. Maybe they should ban radio as well, because that sure is lower quality than CD. Maybe actors and movie producers should make it illegal to watch their product on a 13" TV. ------------------ ..as a man danced so the drums were beaten for him. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
Jeff, you're against Napster but how do you react to the fact that judging from statistics, it isn't hurting the music industry at all, and in fact is probably helping it? ------------------
Well I'm not Jeff (in fact that's probably an understatement) but I'll try to field this one. What statistics are you talking about when you mention that Napster isn't hurting CD sales? Are you talking about the ones where CD sales are going up? If so you are making a faulty assumption. Just because CD sales haven't gone done doesn't mean they have been hurt. Let's say that CD sales are up 12% with Napster on the scene. Now let's say that without Napster sales would be up 20%. If this were true then Napster would have pretty clearly hurt sales. Maybe the sales went up becuase mroe people had disposable income. Maybe more people just want to spend money on music this year. I'm not saying this is the case, and in fact I don't believe this is the case myself. Nevertheless I cannot say this is NOT the case. Neither I nor anyone else has enough data to say decisively one way or another. I am pro-Napster to a degree: I am pro-ethical use. I personally do not see anything wrong with downloading MP3's from artists that are dead or MP3's of songs I would never buy. In both of the above cases I hve not hurt the artist responsible for the music. In other cases where financial loss occurs then I think Napster use is unethical. Sorry for butting in here Jeff, feel free to reply with your own thoughts. ------------------
Jeff, You missed my point entirely. Like I said, I generally agree that free distribution of music is wrong. I merely introduced the price fixing angle because it irritates me so much - the Record companies rip off comsumers AND artists, and still cry like babies about Napster. My point is that your argument about quality is flawed. To insinuate that artists would be upset that their music is being ruined by being played in mp3 format is ludicrous. Copying of records/CDs has been ocurring for decades before Napster came along - usually onto magnetic tapes - and mp3 is a step up from this. And whether radio is better than mp3 or not, I don't know, but it is most definitely not the studio/cd quality that artists spend hundreds of hours tying to perfect. Its all moot anyway - mp3 quality will be at least as good as Cd within a couple of years, and despite the legal ruling against Napster, they will not die. Did you know that MSNBC was running a TV segment about Napster alternatives, in particular Gnutella , and the RIAA called them and asked them to stop! That's laughable! Jeff you would have to agree that the concept of online music distribution is at least going to cause rationalization of the industry, and it will only be for the better. Anything that can break the stranglehold of the big labels is a positive. ------------------ ..as a man danced so the drums were beaten for him. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
dylan: Thanks for saying that. You answered better than I could have. davo: You missed my point. I was not suggesting musicians are pissed about the audio quality of MP3's. I was simply pointing out that there is no denying that they are worse than CD's. Personally, I don't mind them in terms of quality, but I can tell you that many of my musician friends HATE them. That doesn't mean we won't use them. Everyone will eventually and I agree the medium will eventually expand rather than contract. It has very little to do with quality as it does with legal distribution. Believe me, there are few people who hate the record industry as much as I do. Every musician does. However, none of us support their actions in regard to Napster because we support THEM. We support their actions because it is the only way we have a voice in protecting our art. <a href="http://www.arancidamoeba.com/mrr/problemwithmusic.html">Read this</a> and you'll understand why I hate the RIAA. That doesn't mean I won't help them if they are trying to protect my interests even if they aren't doing it for me in the first place. ------------------ And then, depression set in...
dylan, How do you know cd sales woud have gone up more without Napster. How do you know that Napster didn't help boost cd sales. Just as you are trying to give the arguement that we don't really know that Napster is responsible for cd sales increases, you don't really know that it isn't. If you want to use that reasoning, then let it go both ways. You are right in the fact that we (the consumers) don't really know all of the facts because all of the stats are biased towards whoever had the research done. I bet the recording industry knows the truth. I'm betting that mp3s have indeed helped sales and that the recording industry is trying their best to hide that fact. Jeff, I read that article by Steve Albini severeal months ago and it's a fantastic insight to how the recording industry eats up all these bands and spits them out while ruining their lives in the process. That was the exact article that solidified my stance on this whole issue. The effect that Napster has on artists is nowhere near as dangerous or negative as that of the recording industry. Some artists are anti-Napster because they are fighting against what potentially could happen in the long run. They are not fighting over what's happening now. Because they are not losing anything now. Maybe pennies on the dollar. Artists should be siding with Courtney Love and Prince and others who are trying to expose the recording industry for their practices. They are allowed to get away with practices that simply are not tolerated or allowed in other entertainment fields. ------------------
The statistics I am talking about are the ones given by the RIAA themselves. They have given this information out. As a matter of fact trecord sales have risen 7 straight years and increased every year in that span and the only thing which has dropped in sales is cassette tapes. Now 7 years is way before the dawn of Napster so that is GOOD BUT NOT SOLID proof that it may have helped the recording industry. Oh and about the sound, if MP3s are so bad and they sound so terrible what's the big fuss over? Why don't artists try to shutdown all of these RealAudio sites (and there are thousands) that give away whole, free songs? RealAudio sounds 150% worse than MP3s and don't try to say that isn't true. ------------------ Arkansas' Biggest Rocket Fan!
Now 7 years is way before the dawn of Napster so that is GOOD BUT NOT SOLID proof that it may have helped the recording industry. Hmmm, this is interesting logic here. If record sales were rising BEFORE Napster *and* AFTER Napster at the same pace, that's a decent case that Napster has no effect on record sales -- in no way does that say Napster HELPS sales. Sales *should* rise because there are more people in the country each year, and over the last 7 years, the economy has been growing, so people have more money to spend. Did the GROWTH of record sales go up, down, or stay the same when Napster was out? That's a better indicator of a Napster effect. Regardless, all of that is irrelevent. Napster is being sued because it is a business that aims to profit primarily on the illegal distribution of privately-owned intellectual property rights on a massive scale. Whether the industry profits or not doesn't matter -- Napster aids in the commission of crimes, and they are / will be punished for it. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
