When I copy and pasted it, I did not think about word wrap. I would think it was automatic...anyways, its fixed. if you told me 5 years ago about the melissa virus, and I would have thought you were crazy. I still didn't believe you could get infected by merely in the preview pane, but I guess im wrong. When you open your ports to another computer to share a file, it could be very possible for a virus/worm be specifically written to spread this way. As someone said, the better they make mouse traps, the better they make mice. Thats whats hacking/virus are all about ...exploiting the insecurities/weakness of a system and a person. If you must know, i was searching for some games and I came across this. ANd I know you get crap, you get lots of crap. But if you name your file which catches someones eye, they might download it to try it. Also, i never said I infected my computer. ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
I have no problem with downloading music and burning it to CD. For years these record labels have been ripping us off- forcing us to buy full CD's when we only like one or two songs. Artists and record labels DO NOT make most of their money from record sales- most is from concert tours and promotions. It is pure greed that Dre and Metallica sued Napster. As if they don't have enough money already... ------------------ "Oh No..." -Bill Walton in 97 just before Stockton's buzzer beater
Oh please. Just say it's a way to get songs you like for free and with a small likelihood of being caught. I'm sure car manufacturers are screwing us over, too. As are retail prices. I bet everybody goes out daily and takes what they need from stores without paying for those, as well. Gas prices are too high, they're artificially adjusting prices when they don't need to be. Let's go rob a gas station; that'll show 'em. ------------------ My company declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then agreed to merge with another company, which also declared for Chapter 11 bankruptcy... should I be worried?
Live Wire gives me about 90% success using DSL and connecting to DSL or greater. Songs take about 2 minutes or so. I'm up to about 900 songs already and have moved them onto a Creative player walkman. I'm very happy with it, but I have heard people complain about success rates and stuff. I've had no trouble whatsoever and consider the software much smarter than Napster. I've had a much easier time getting the music I want. Sorry Jeff. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
You are missing my point. Suppose for this discussion that you like Metallica and would like the song Enter Sandman on a download. You get the song for free and think Metallica is great. When Metallica said, Show us some money, you think they are bad. But you still will go download more of their music if available even after they asked you for money and to stop the free downloads. Either you like Metallica completely and do as they asked (pay them for their music), or you can't stand them as people and anything that is associated with them, including their music. There is a disconnect between things if you are down on the music industry for controlling their interests, yet you will scramble to get their work (read: music) through napster or any other non-paying means. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated.
Not to get too far off into this but Mango makes an interesting argument. If you like something (anything), you shouldn't have a problem paying for it. I won't fight the economic argument. CD's are expensive and they require a monetary commitment. However, you cannot fight a moral battle against the greed of an industry by being so greedy yourself that you will take their product without paying. You are on very shakey moral high ground if you complain about someone making too much money from music but download their stuff anyway. If you don't like the high price of gas, don't drive a car; ride a bike or walk, but not liking the price of gas doesn't give you the right to fill up without paying. By the way, record companies get ZERO percent of performance revenues from concerts. Every penny of profit goes to the artist, but most tours (minus the top 10 HUGE tours each year) break even or lose money. They are more about helping the artist sell merchandise. Record companies make all their money off of record sales and publishing. Of course, they have an interest in an artist touring because the promotion sells CD's, but to say that they make most of their money from touring and promotion is blatently false. Promotion and artist development are their two biggest sources of EXPENSE, not income. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
"However, you cannot fight a moral battle against the greed of an industry by being so greedy yourself that you will take their product without paying." Wrong. The Napster controversy forced the "record industry" to reconsider the way they distribute music. Bertlesmann, eg, signed a deal with Napster. If everyone had said "I just won't buy CDs", that wouldn't have happened. A moral war was waged against the record industry via Napster, and forced the record industry to reconsider their position. Stealing CDs isn't as moral as abstaining, but abstaining wouldn't have worked. "By the way, record companies get ZERO percent of performance revenues from concerts. Every penny of profit goes to the artist, but most tours (minus the top 10 HUGE tours each year) break even or lose money. " What about venues? What about concert promoters? The biggest radio station conglomerate, Clear Channel, recently acquired SFX, the biggest concert promoter in the country. Aren't they taking some of the profit from concerts? SFX and Clear Channel aren't record companies, so that's off-topic, I guess.
The point is that there IS an alternate way. People didn't choose Napster as some sort of rebellion. They chose it because it was easy and free. When the argument about copyright infringement came up, everyone took the moral high ground and said, "Well, if CD's weren't so expensive, I wouldn't have to do this." That is bull****. Can anyone honestly say that they started downloading songs to force the music industry into submission, as if this will anyway? Not a chance. The "moral argument" was used in defense of an act that clearly wasn't defensible from the standpoint of taking music that doesn't belong to you. If a songwriter says you can, great. If they say you can't and you do, you are betraying their wishes. I don't know how much more clear it can get. If artists wanted you to have their music for free, they would give it to you. Until that time, it isn't for you to have for free. What about all of them? Promoters are certainly taking money from concerts. That's what they do. But, as you said, they aren't record companines. They could care less whether you are selling CD's as long as you are selling tickets. Those two entities (the record making industry and the record promoting industry) have long shared a very uneasy relationship. Promoters and radio stations do not care for record companies and vice versa and it has been that way since the days of the payola scandals. There are quite a few books out on this very subject. The fact is that record companies care less and less about touring as a means to promote a CD. In the past 10 years, record companies have divested themselves from various interests (like live sound reinforcement contracts, touring company sponsorships, etc) because they have found that it is cheaper to market through airplay, MTV and the internet. Promoters have had to increase (dramatically) the price of tickets because, as record company promotion of touring has decreased, so has interest in going to concerts. Promoters spend millions to advertise concert tours, but aren't even helped by the RIAA in the form of co-op advertising, a practice that was common for nearly 25 years but was dropped nearly entirely in the mid 90's. As a result, they advertise less and attendance drops. Radio stations, on the other hand, are growing larger and more powerful as groups like Clear Channel swallow up entire markets. They piss off the RIAA, however, by constantly re-defining market variables. Once, there were only a few categories of music. Now, because of the increased need for demographics to dig up advertising dollars, radio stations force the industry to compartmentalize music. What used to be easy listening, country, AOR, top 40 and soul/r&b is now adult contemporary, alternative, adult alternative, dance pop, teen pop, urban contemporary, urban, alternative country, country crossover, traditional country, oldies, classic rock and on and on. This pisses off the industry because they could care less about advertisers but are forced to sign artists that fit genres that have barely been defined. Add to that the confusion for retailers who hate pretty much all the other groups combined and you have a nasty mix. The fact is that the record industry cares about one thing and one thing only: record sales. That is their bottom line. If an artist sells, they get promoted. If he/she/they don't, they get dropped. It is that easy. I was the first person to b**** and moan about the increased cost of the CD. Personally, I liked the quality of sound and portability of a CD over vinyl. There are plenty who would argue about the sound quality, but that's another issue. However, when they dropped the long box in favor of just the jewel case in response to the complaints of many artists who didn't want to waste paper when selling their CD's, the cost of CD's actually increased by 25 cents. This was the first indication that something was up. I will admit that my purchasing of CD's is way down from where it used to be. This is partially because the quality of music in the industry has decreased IMO, but mainly because I can't afford them like I could before. This has forced me to change my listening habits. Understand that I buy everything from African and Latin music to pop, alternative, hard rock, jazz, fusion, r&b, hip hop, etc, etc. I like just about everything and it is my business to know what is popular and how things sound. When I sit down to record and mix music in my studio, I pop in CD's that have similar qualities as a measuring stick of comparison. It is one of the most common practices in recording studios and has been done since they were born. I've bought CD's that I didn't even like just because the production value was something I needed to hear. I hate the RIAA probably more than most of you. My partner and I (although I've thrown most of mine out) have amassed hundreds of rejection letters over the years from record labels. I've heard well-intentioned people try to say nice things when they were thinking otherwise. I've had people tell me that my music was fine but people really don't want to hear it, but they want to hear "peppy music like Jimmy Buffet." I've suffered about every disparraging remark, criticism and insult you could possibly imagine while I listen to musicians nearly half my age get airplay with songs I could write in a coma. Recently, a friend told me that these two kids I've known since they were in diapers just got signed by Sharon Osborne (Ozzy's wife and manager) and are getting ready to do the Oz Fest. The brothers are 15 and 17 and the eldest is dating a Playmate. These are kids who have middle-of-the-road talent but have novelty on their side. They've been pushed into music for various reasons I won't go into since they were old enough to hold an instrument. I'm happy they are successful, but for every one of them, there are thousands and thousands who struggle to earn a living doing something they love and many of them are far more gifted and deserving of success. There are musicians who've spent their entire lives dedicated to their art only to suffer in annonymity because they didn't look right or weren't "marketable". It's hard to fully grasp the concept of putting your heart and soul into something only to see it ripped up, insulted and stolen while you can do nothing about it but sit and watch. It's hard to understand it unless you've had it happen to you as I have and hundreds of my friends and acquaintences have. It may be mellowdramatic but it is the truth. You can believe what you want about me, the RIAA and every other musician, songwriter, singer and producer out there. But don't think the actions of Napster don't have consequences. I have no doubt the RIAA will survive and thrive on internet technologies. But, considering that the average number of artists signed to a record industry label has decreased by 50% since 1990 and the average number of albums released by an artist before being dropped by the label has now dropped below 1 (because most are dropped before their albums are released), I can only assume that whatever changes are in store for the industry, it will continue to make them millions while the artists suffer for it. This will be no different. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
To me this thread is exhibit "A" on how the suit against Napster is idiotic. Cut off the head and 8 others spring up in its place (or, at least, fill the void). And whoever it was that analogized the use of Napster and its clones to stealing gas was a little off: you have to go out to the gas station if you wanted to steal gas. People download songs from the privacy of their homes. If people could download gasoline right into gas can in your own home (or better yes, right into the car) heck yes they would do it. The industry's gotta implement a way to copy-block the MP3 itself if they want to prevent internet downloading of tunes. ------------------ I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.
That was me and yes, you just echoed what I sarcastically tried to state. People steal mp3's from home because "they can". They're not going to run out and steal gas because "they can't". Despite this, BOTH are illegal activities; they just do the former because they can get away with it. Then they hide under the "we're gonna stick it to those evil music companies" umbrella. Give me a break; you do it because it's music that's free to you. And it will fail just like practically all other copy protection schemes. DVD, DIVX, software, etc. ------------------ Somebody say something witty so I can put it here.
Doc, downloading an MP3 is not "stealing" it's merely "sharing." I assume you share things with others like milk,sugar,etc. If it's okay with the other person that you are downloading their song, then it's all good. Regarding the argument that record labels suffer from Napster, etc. The same argument was made back in the mid-80's for the movie industry, when people said that renting movies would cause the theaters to go under. Instead, the movie industry has skyrocketed since then, making more and more money everyday. What we are witnessing now is a music revolution. For years these record companies rode up the prices on CD's. Now it's time for them to rethink their strategy. No longer will people have to go to Blockbuster music or Tower Records and pay $14.99 for a CD that isn't even that good. The listeners are letting the record companies that know that they must come up with a different strategy if they want our business. By the way, Mango. I've always loved Dre and the Chronic and Chronic 2001 (burned) are some of my favorite CDs. Although I like his music, I have lost a great deal of respect for Dre as a person. ------------------ "Oh No..." -Bill Walton in 97 just before Stockton's buzzer beater
Will it? I didn't know there was no way of effectively protecting copying. That's too bad. I had read recently about some sort of copy protection scheme they were working out on CD tracks, but maybe its doomed to fail, too. I really would like to see a system set up for the artists to get paid, but as long as there is no way to prevent free download, and copying to new CDs (which to me is the greater sin) that's never going to happen. Sorry I missed your sarcasm - I'm not the best at catching it sometimes. Maybe if you use more smilies. Its not the same at all. When you share milk or sugar, you give up something. There is still just 1 pound of sugar or 1 quart of milk. When you "share" an MP3, you've duplicated the product. That is the theft. ------------------ I'm about to boldly go where many men have gone before.
And the reason it will fail is because there are technically competent people out there who just want to exercise their fair use rights. Under copyright law you as a consumer have a right to make a copy of a CD you own for archival purpose. Maybe you don't want your 3-year old to use it as a coaster. Maybe you want to be covered in case you lose it. hatever your reason you have that right. Record companies want to take away that right under the guise of portection from piracy. And people let the conglamerates trample these rights becuase they just don't care. The media companies biggest dream is of the future where you never buy anything at all. You only rent for certain periods. And I think the future is heading their way. People who are trying to stop this are the biggest reason why copy protection is almost invariably doomed to failure. dylan ------------------
Downloading copyrighted mp3's without paying for them, and without consent from their publisher is stealing. It's not for us to use analogies to make up our own laws as we see fit. We are not the legislative or judicial branches of government. The laws have been interpreted and yes, it's stealing. If you want to "stick it to the record companies", try spending some energy getting a movement that says "don't buy any cd's". I bet that'll stick it to them. Hey, I know where you're coming from. A few months ago I agreed completely, but the more I thought about it, the more I realized there's no way I could defend myself. It's illegal. ------------------ Somebody say something witty so I can put it here.
It all comes down to this: I like Metallica*, but not enough to buy their stuff. If I can get Metallica songs free off Napster, great! If not, to hell with them. * could be any band ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel boy. [This message has been edited by fadeaway (edited May 06, 2001).]
I always like to distinguish between what is "illegal", and what is RIGHT. In Texas, it is illegal for two men to have anal sex in their own home. Yet people still continue to debate the issue...why is that? It's legal to kill a baby in the womb, yet still some people object...go figure. The term "copyright infringement" doesn't mean much to me. It really doesn't affect my decision on whether to use Napster or not. What matters to me is whether I think it's right or not. I downloaded a couple of songs by the band SALIVA last night that I had NEVER HEARD, to see if I wanted to buy the CD or not -- ironically enough, I have no moral objection to what I did. Doc seems to think I was stealing -- put me behind bars then. That is what happens to people who 'steal', right? ------------------ "When we were really hard up, Nikki and I would date girls who worked in grocery stores just for the free food. But we always bought our own booze. It was a matter of pride." --Vince Neil
You guys would have told Rosa Parks, "If you don't like sitting in the back, just don't ride the bus." You would say all Vietnam protesters and draft dodgers were just long haired freaks who'd rather have dope and free love than fight for their country, as opposed to crusaders fighting against an unjust war. You can't generalize millions of Napster users and declare them all to be immoral thieves. I'm not staying that fighting the record industry is as noble as fighting bus segregation or the Vietnam Comflict, but if one cares enough about an issue, one may have to break laws in the process of protesting that issue. The proliferation of Napster effected real change. At least one record company signed a deal with Napster. A group of firms joined together to create the SDMI. Napster forced the record industry to change. Napster forced the record industry to realize that people wouldn't accept paying $16 for CDs. As soon as an alternative was available, a huge number of people started using it, even though they had to break the law. As a protest movement, Napster was completely successful. It attracted lots of attention, and forced the "powers that be" to change. Without Napsters, there's no Napster/Bertlesmann deal. There's probably no SDM Iniative. Without Napster, we never hear Courtney Love ranting about the record industry. If you hate them so much, why do you keep sending them stuff? Jeff says "If you don't like the record industry then don't buy CDs." I say "If you don't like the record industry, then stop sending them the music you put your 'heart and soul' into". Look Jeff, you stated a blatant untruth. Definitely false. Every penny of profit DOES NOT go to the artist. Quite a bit of the profit, as you stated, goes to the promoters. You can't tell how experienced you are in the music biz, act like you know what you're talking about, then spit out a clear untruth.
You guys would have told Rosa Parks, "If you don't like sitting in the back, just don't ride the bus." You would say all Vietnam protesters and draft dodgers were just long haired freaks who'd rather have dope and free love than fight for their country, as opposed to crusaders fighting against an unjust war. Yeah, that's a terrific analogy! As a protest movement, Napster was completely successful. But it wasn't a protest movement. It was a business and a way to use music that didn't belong to them to make money. If you hate them so much, why do you keep sending them stuff? Jeff says "If you don't like the record industry then don't buy CDs." I say "If you don't like the record industry, then stop sending them the music you put your 'heart and soul' into". I also hate banks but I don't keep my money stuffed in a matress. It is they way musicians make money. It's part of the business. Look Jeff, you stated a blatant untruth. Name it. I have a good friend who worked for Pace Concerts for years. He worked directly with record companies on co-op advertising and watched it drop dramatically while he was there. They would make some of the most money off of small non-record industry bands because the costs associated were so low. Why do you think bands like REO Speedwagon, Foghat and Bad Company still tour even though they don't make records that sell (if at all)? Promoters don't care about CD sales. They care about ticket sales. Definitely false. Every penny of profit DOES NOT go to the artist. Quite a bit of the profit, as you stated, goes to the promoters. You can't tell how experienced you are in the music biz, act like you know what you're talking about, then spit out a clear untruth. Profit = revenues minus expenses. Expenses include the percentage paid to the promoter. The artist DOES get every penny of profit if profit exists. So, where is the untruth? I totally understand that Napster represents a change in the industry but if you think that it means lowered profits for the music business, you're nuts. They'll get their profits the way they always have, off the backs of the artists. ------------------ So, I took the million dollars and bought a steam shovel...
