shanna: I speak from experience when I tell you that you are fighting a losing battle on this one. I've already been down this road and most people here don't really have a problem with downloading music for free. For me, it comes down to a combination of not wanting to steal from other musicians like myself who, I know, work their asses off on what they do and not wanting to steal anything. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Well, you converted me, Jeff. I no longer use Napster or any of its knock-offs. So your battle is won on at least one front. I was just pointing out to shanna why I thought her ideas were fighting a losing battle. ------------------ "Ive seen more class at a Pig Humpin Contest ." -- moestavern19 makes headlines again, and in the process leaves little doubt as to what Saturday nights in his hometown of Lompoc, California are like.
Every machine has an IP and can be traced to an exact computer ... but not to a person. I have NO problem buying my music ... but I do have a problem paying 20 bucks for a cd with one or two songs I want. If we all were legal, sheep abiding citizens, we would probably paying more ... not to mention paying for other things like paying $5 for a loaf of bread or $1 for a koolaid pack or a pack of ramen noodle soup. If consomers would stand up against these giants, then we would have no need for napster! ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
I just wish people who are against Napster could make a case without using the word "stealing". If it's stealing, then people who buy used CDs and used CD proprietors are also stealing. I've never seen anyone come up with an argument for this. Are used CD stores not legal? What was taken? Can you explain how one 'takes' a song? If I 'took' a song, how could someone else still hear it (there is only 1 song, right?)? Usually when you take something, it's gone, right? If someone 'took' AC/DC's 'Back in Black', wouldn't it be gone? How could I ever hear it again? Timing really made some excellent points in another thread about this, and nobody had any answers. They usually just had to play the old "stealing" card. I wish someone would steal the next Eminem song that comes out. By the way, I don't use Napster. ------------------ "My hair's too long and you can't pronounce my name My favorite songs, everybody says are lame"
Resale is allowed by law because it is not copying. It does not represent lost revenues for the artist or the company who produced it because you are giving up your copy to someone else. The difference here is that the CD has already been paid for. A copy of that CD in any form represents the potential for lost revenues. If you, for example, copy a CD from someone else and never purchase it, you have turned 1 CD into 2 but only paid for 1. In essence, Napster has given people the ability to do that over and over and over again. If 1000 CD's are sold and then each owner gives up his/her CD by selling it and it is resold, there are still ONLY 1000 CD's out there and all of them were purchased with the revenues going to the owner. However, if 1 CD is sold and 999 copies are made, the owner of that CD (the artist and record company) made only the amount for 1 CD, yet 1000 are available. Rules for reselling are very different because they don't constitute any losses to the original owner. If you get a $1 bill from the bank and then give it to a store who returns it to another bank, etc, it is still just a dollar. However, if you take the bill home and copy it 1000 times, it is counterfeitting. The copying of CD's (or books or movies) constitutes "theft of intellectual property" which is the definition, in this case, of "copyright infringement." Theft = Stealing, hence the use of the word. Here's a really interesting look at the case from a legal perspective from CNN. (FINDLAW) -- The phenomenon that is Napster swept into power and market dominance on a wave of euphoria -- euphoria over the possibility of a new world of free content on the Web. The blinding beauty of the new technology stunned normally law-abiding music customers into believing they could have the fruits of musical creative genius for free. College students who would not dream of shoplifting a compact disc from a real-world store leaped into the Napster world with abandon. Many others followed. But with Monday's ruling in the case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, this utopia will crash. The much-maligned Scrooge in this new utopia, the recording industry, sued Napster, arguing the company was contributing to massive copyright infringement. On Monday the 9th Circuit ruled -- quite correctly -- that Napster should be enjoined from permitting the infringement. The law was never on Napster's side. As a result, the 9th Circuit was faced with two choices: Stick with existing law, or fabricate a new set of rules for this new utopia. Despite the allure of the latter choice -- making new rules, after all, increases the power of judges geometrically by transforming them into legislators -- the 9th Circuit sided with settled copyright law, and applied it straightforwardly to the Napster situation. The 9th Circuit rejected Napster's arguments, one by one. First, it held that the district court did not err, as Napster claimed, in its interpretation of expert testimony on Napster's deleterious effects on the recording industry. It is a popular myth that because sound recording sales have increased since Napster was launched, Napster is actually good for the music industry. As the 9th Circuit held, and as the district court held, Napster's expert simply did not have the data to support such a claim, and the plaintiffs presented credible evidence that Napster had caused them harm. Second, the 9th Circuit rejected Napster's creative characterization of its service as merely an opportunity for users to "sample" (browse) sound recordings. Browsing requires only limited usage -- not the type of full-scale downloading, with the capacity to permit others to copy any file downloaded, that Napster enabled. Third, the 9th Circuit rejected Napster's claim that its service does no more than permit "space-shifting" of sound recordings. Napster was attempting to capitalize on the 1984 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal City Studios, which rejected a claim that videocassette recorders were tools for contributory copyright infringement, holding that users were simply "time-shifting" their television viewing (by, for example, recording TV shows for later viewing). The problem with Napster's invoking Sony is that Napster does far more than a VCR. It does not merely move content into a more usable or portable mode, it also makes and holds copies (of MP3s) so they can be shared with others. Another problem with Napster's analogy to the Sony decision is that VCRs are used in a private, home environment, whereas Napster is both communal and ubiquitous. Moreover, Napster is aware of direct copyright infringement by its users, whereas in Sony direct infringement was not clear at the time the case was decided, given the stage of development of VCR technology then. Of course, it is now apparent that VHS taping does permit direct copyright infringement, in the form of movie copying. Time-shifting for home use is not its only use. But that means that the Napster decision may be a problem for the Sony decision, rather than the other way around. Fourth, the 9th Circuit held that Napster has a clear obligation to police infringement to the extent of its technological abilities, a task that it has eschewed until now. Finally, the court held that neither the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor for Internet service providers nor the Audio Home Recording Act appears to provide cover for Napster's contributory infringement. For these reasons, the 9th Circuit upheld the district court's injunction against Napster in principle. It did, however, direct the district court to re-craft the injunction to reflect a requirement that the copyright holders notify Napster of the specific sound recordings as to which they claim copyright infringement. Napster has threatened to petition for reconsideration by an en banc court -- that is, a larger panel of the 9th Circuit than the three-judge panel that issued Monday's decision. But given the strength of the arguments discussed above, that is an empty threat, and a likely waste of legal resources. Moreover, Napster did not just threaten to seek en banc reconsideration; it also declared that it will go to Congress. That is exactly where Napster belongs, if it intends to try to legitimize its practices. Federal copyright law is positive law, the contours of which are determined by Congress. News reports indicate that use of the Napster site went up dramatically as soon as the 9th Circuit's decision made it clear that an injunction would issue. Napster will likely argue to Congress that a service for which there is this kind of market demand must be good, and that therefore the law should be changed. It is up to Congress. Is the Napster decision enforceable? A New York University communications professor declared Monday that file-sharing cannot be stopped, and that the recording industry needs to wake up to the end of copyright law, despite this win. But the truth is that none of the "experts" knows with any certainty how the Web will appear once the technology of "walls" and "fences" is deployed around creative goods. What we do know is that the Napster decision signals the end of the Wild West era on the Internet. The courts can and will enforce copyright law in a Web environment. The million-dollar question is what the Web environment will be like in the future. As the technology that can prevent the illegal downloading of such works continues to develop, the current, border-less commons of the Web will change yet again. Let the debate begin A lively debate in Congress is long overdue over the cultural battle between the free Internet folks and the authors and industries that require remuneration to prosper. There is no hurry, however. It took 22 years to "amend" the 1909 Copyright Act into the 1976 Copyright Act. While we may not want to wait that long this time, it makes sense to approach these issues carefully rather than like Chicken Little. Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office should create a commission to explore these fascinating issues -- with no sense of a need to alter the law immediately, but rather with a mission to look at the big picture, and re-exam why copyright exists in the first place. For years Congress has been derelict in its duty to truly understand the interstices of copyright law. Rather than fulfilling that duty, it has effectively delegated its decision-making responsibilities to the very copyright-dependent industries it is regulating. It is high time it re-embraced those responsibilities and started thinking about how the public will be best served in the future on the Web. Let the debate begin in the forum where it belongs, and let it be deliberative. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Fundamentally I think using Napster is wrong. You should pay for the product. However, I have trouble supporting the RIAA and its member recording companies because of things like this. http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2464013.html?tag=st.mu.1652424.ncnet.1005-200-2464013 Price fixing and collusion is AT LEAST as bad as illegal copying of music. Ever hear the one about the pot and the kettle? ------------------ Maybe all the rulers are wrong. Current Rocket's Salary & Contract Info
I still find it amusing that people like Shanna are more concerned with copying of MP3's than the federal crimes of price fixing and collusion regularly committed by record companies. If record companies are really upset that music is being converted to MP3's and copied then they should get off their butts and make CD's that cannot be converted to another format. I know that Disney makes movies that cannot be copied and there are also computer games out now that cannot be copied. The fact is that they are just upset that Napster is profitting at their expense because they are too pigheaded to embrace the technology. They want to control music by keeping the status quo so that they can maintain their price fixing. The internet can one day make record companies obsolete and that's why they're worried about. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
Personally, I hope the record companies do get their asses busted for collusion. It is ridiculous. That having been said, it isn't the record industry that I care about when it comes to copying of songs, it's the artists. It is easy to dismiss copying as no big deal when you think of the record companies or even the multi-platinum selling artists. Those aren't the people who are hurt by copying. As copying continues en masse, it is bands that you may like that don't sell a ton of records that end up getting the axe. The bands and individual artists who represent the fringe of pop and rock music and who are often times the artists that change the direction of pop music if given enough time to develop are the one's who suffer. Why? Because, if it hurts the sales of a proven commodity, the unproven talent is the first to go. If you are in business and sell 2 different product lines - one a proven seller and the other up-and-coming but unproven in the marketplace and your company hits some rocky times, which is the one to go? You can bet it isn't the proven seller. That means we get stuck with Brittany Spears, Back Street Boys and all the artists that sell while many of the best musicians and music gets lost and we never get the opportunity to hear it. The record industry sucks and you won't find a single musician who will tell you otherwise. We ALL know it. But, we also know that it is what it is. Without it, most musicians would never have an opportunity to explore his/her creativity. Instead of making the records everyone listens to, musicians would be working regular jobs because they couldn't afford to play music for a living. The only reason albums like Sgt. Pepper's, The Wall, What's Goin' On and other classic rock, pop & R&B albums were made was because the artists were able to hone their skills by making albums and making mistakes. It took them time to grow as musicians and as people before they were able to breakthrough with a record that changed music. In many countries, you don't become a master musician until you are 50 or 60 years old. Today, they expect kids that are barely out of high school to forge the music that will represent us 50 or 100 years from now. No offense to young people, but it is a rarity for someone that young to have the depth of experience both in music and in life to make a classic record. Hell, I'm still wishing that labels would be forced to sign only single-album deals with artists much the way movie studios do. That's a battle that has been ongoing since the movie studios gave up their control in the 50's. So, I am FAR from pro-industry. However, I am anti-Napster because it gives away what I and many others like me have worked most of our lives to accomplish and it would be no different if we demanded that you give up part of your paycheck or put your job on the line because we want your service for free. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I know shanna pretty well, and I'm pretty sure he/she's never stated that he/she's more concerned with copying MP3s than price fixing. Just because one argues against one doesn't mean they're for the other. I'd like a raise now! ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
So we're to the "they commit wrongs, so it's okay for me to commit wrongs" argument. If something is wrong, it's always wrong no matter what a person or organization harmed by your actions may engage in. I have no great love for record companies, but the fact that they may be "evil" doesn't mean that it's right for me to thieve their property. My neighbor is a jerk, but that doesn't mean I can steal his lawnmower. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Question: I own a CD. I download the songs from that CD from Napster to my hard drive because it is easier and quicker than ripping them from the CD that I lawfully purchased. Is there anything wrong with that? ------------------
dylan: Two things. First, maybe it isn't "theft," but it is copyright infringement and illegal use of intellectual property. I never said it was not illegal, I just took offense to your blanket statement that napster users are deluding themselves and that they are stealing. Frankly, the legality of an act is not high on my list of things I consider about the act. The morality and ethics are more important. For example, I got an email recently asking me to stop using the words "books on tape" on my production company website advertising our ability to record audio books. Apparently the term "books on tape" is trademarked and even the use of the term was infringement and illegal. They asked me to cease and desist and I did. Now, I didn't "steal" the term from them. I just used it but it in a sentence as a general reference but it constituted infringement. Same thing with MP3's. You may just be "copying" them, but the act of copying constitutes infringement. But did you stop because you considered your "theft" unethical or because you didn't want to deal with the hassles of lawyers, cease and desist letters, etc? Not just a rhetorical question, I think this is an important point. Do you think you were taking away form the ecomonic livelihood from Books-on-Tape? Second, Taxi, an independant group that helps unsigned artists get signed, took a pretty extensive look at the use of MP3's on the net. ASCAP and BMI, two groups that represent artists and their publishing, also joined in to study it. They found that MP3's were very helpful to unsigned artists for a variety of reasons and were used for everything from swapping musical ideas to recording to getting signed to selling their records. They also found that the use of Real Audio snippets on places like CDNow and Amazon.com increased the likelyhood that someone would buy a CD by 50% if they listened. They reported that they were much less likely to purchase a CD once they had the song on their hard drive according to their surveys. Downloaders said that they estimated their purchasing of CD's overall had dropped by 25% since MP3's became available. Thanks for the above info. I had not seen any info that I would consider even fairly objective regarding the effects of mp3's before. The above info is disturbing. I never claimed that mp3 downloading is in and of itself theft, but it certainly can be used as such. The difficulty lies in trying to decide for oneself whether one would have bought a CD that was just downloaded or not. To reiterate, I do not consider my downloading of dance music theft since neither the recording company nor the artist lost any money. Now have I downloaded music making me more likely to purchase a CD? Probably so. As a grad student I make less than 20k/year and like to buy music. Not using that as an excuse to say it's okay, just making a practical point that even w/o MP3's my CD buying budget is of necessity very limited. The most interesting finding was that MP3 downloaders who used Napster or swapped in other ways only bought the CD's of the music they listened to 50% of the time. I think this is one of the least important facts, however. As I have mentioned previously, there have been many mp3's I have downloaded that I would have NEVER purchased. Ergo, no loss occurs. I think the most interesting finding is the decrease in likelihood of purchasing CD's. That is a serious matter and loss does occur then. The RIAA estimates those figures a little higher (closer to 35%) but what would you expect. Much of the increase in sales since Napster's explosion can be directly attributed to holiday sales and a few other key factors (the release of specific big name artists who don't put out albums every year, etc). Frankly I wasn't even conviced that the growth of CD sales was even true, let alone how relevant it was. I certainly agree that the above factors are undoubtedly more significant than Napster usage. I really am not trying to say that it's okay to download MP3's at the expense of someone else's livelihood. I just don't think it is correct to say that all MP3 downloading is theft. Blanket statements such as that tend to erode the rest of the argument (at least in my ever so humble mind). dylan ------------------
Musicians and record companies may not like used CD sales, but the Courts have said that the used CD market is legal because the consumer has an ownership interest in the physical product (the CD itself). The courts have not looked the same way at Napster and other copying thus far. I'm sure that Thomasville would prefer that I go out and buy a new couch rather than buying one from my other neighbor. But the law doesn't give Thomasville the right to prevent me from buying or selling used property. Same for my CDs. And again, we haven't increased the number of copies of the CD in existance. The record company and the artist get paid for every copy of the CD that has been sold. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
You know Shanna so well that you don't know whether he/she is a he or a she? Raise denied. Copying an MP3 doesn't increase the number of cd's in circulation either. Best Buy doesn't sell MP3's so how can anyone be stealing something they don't sell? These traditional theft analogies are poor. When we start talkin about theft of intellectual property then we're REALLY headin towards the slippery slope. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
But you're increasing the number of copies of the music out there. The true analogy would be your buying a CD and then making copies for all your friends (except on a much larger basis, of course, in the case of Napster.) The used CD store analogy is not the same. It's not the file format that you're stealing. It's the music itself. By your analogy, it would be okay for me to burn DVDs of Star Wars and give them out to everyone who asked for one because no one currently sells Star Wars on DVD. Or, I could burn DVDs with WindowsME on them. Microsoft doesn't sell DVDs with WinME on them, so it must not be a problem if I make DVD copies and offer them to anyone who asks for them. (For that matter, it must be okay to download software from WAREZ sites because those software companies don't offer the software as .zip files. They only sell them on CD-ROM) But it's not the format that's the problem, it's the underlying property - the music. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
I still find it amusing that people like Shanna are more concerned with copying of MP3's than the federal crimes of price fixing and collusion regularly committed by record companies. Timing, Please find where I said this. I'm a tad more concerned about lots of things -- such as murder -- but none of these things are the not the topic of discussion here. Besides, go prove that price fixing and collusion is occurring, and I'll be the first to tell you that the government should prosecute the hell out of those companies. Until then, it's all conjecture and our laws don't allow us to shutdown companies because we think they might be doing something wrong. Pirating music, however, is copyright infringement, pure and simple. It is illegal in any court of law. The simple fact is that its not prosecuted for whatever reason (not worth the effort, too costly, invasion of privacy, etc). However, it's still illegal and nothing anyone says here will change that. No one -- not even Napster -- has tried to make the argument that what's going on using Napster is legal. If record companies are really upset that music is being converted to MP3's and copied then they should get off their butts and make CD's that cannot be converted to another format. You don't think someone will then make a product to copy those? If the music is able to be played, something must know how to read it. If you can read it, then you can make a machine that will read it and rewrite it to a different product. Besides, are you saying that your solution to stopping copyright infringement is to replace the CD? You want companies to stop producing all music in Tape / CD format and force everyone to buy some new technology to listen to it? The fact is that they are just upset that Napster is profitting at their expense because they are too pigheaded to embrace the technology. No, they are upset that Napster is facilitating the illegal distribution of products they own the legal rights to. I think it's even more silly to call it theft if there is no loss. To me, the idea of loss is implicit in the idea of theft. Dylan, so you don't believe in the concept of idea theft? For example, stealing trade secrets or Research & Development information is not theft? ------------------ Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him? I didnt think so!!!!
No, because there is recognizable theft there. As I just replied to Jeff I do think that the downloading of MP3's can be considered theft when there is ecomonic less involved. In the above examples (trade secrets, R&D) there is definite loss that occurs. Downloading MP3's to avoid buying a CD that you would otherwise buy is theft. But I do not think that downloading MP3's of an album that you would not buy is theft. Does that make it more clear? dylan [This message has been edited by dylan (edited February 20, 2001).]
If intellectual property theft is not really theft, I'm going to start producing and selling Rockets' logo merchandise. You don't think the NBA will get mad about that, do you? I mean, I'm not hurting anyone, and there is no loss to the Rockets or the NBA by my selling knock-off merchandise. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
