I understand why they do it, but they are basically complaining in this article that sales are down for things that they authorize anybody to have for free by releasing them to radio. I'll help you out RockHEAD. Freak, releasing the songs to the radio is the choice of the RIAA or whoever controls a particular song. If they want to reduce or increase the value of their own property, that's their right. Napster takes that right away from the property owner and gives it to Napster or whoever else -- that's where the problem occurs. It's like someone selling your house at whatever price THEY want to sell it for instead of what you want to sell it for. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Freak: Thanks for bringing up Brian Kagy's numbers in another thread as a way of dismissing mine here. Actually, Brian and I were split and we agreed on that. As for TAXI, they are an independant service that works with unsigned artists to help them produce and distribute their material as well as facilitate involvement with record companies. They are not supported by the music industry. They are paid by artists. In addition, BMI and ASCAP, two artist support groups, have studied the issue. They have had the same findings. ------------------ "You know what they say about the music business. Here today, gone TODAY! - Chris Rock at the MTV Music Video Awards
Jeez, I go away for the weekend, get back, and this! I'm way too lazy to actually read all of the posts but I have to point something out about this article: Of course, CD singles make up less than 1% of all revenue for RIAA. Not only that but they lost 36% of profit due to CD signle sales falling since they raised the average price. Thus RIAA is losing less than 36% of 1% of their sales. Man, those basdtards are really hurting... Then there's the following: The facts are that their "CD sales" are up this year, even over last year's stunning performance. The RIAA increased the average price of a full-length CD from $13.65 to $14.02, and still managed to sell 3,600,000 more of them. dylan ------------------
As I mentioned earlier, if the RIAA weren't so eager to lie through their teeth to demonize Napster I would be lot more willing to listen to them. When they blatently misrepresent the truth, however, I no longer regard anything they say as having any veracity whatsoever. dylan ------------------
I do not agree with the e-bay precendent. I am certain that they do not care about precedent, only their deep-pockets that could be an easy target. E-mail is not checked for illegal content...yet. Thinks of that this way, if you owned an apartment property and drugs are dealt by some dealers there, should you be held accountable? It is interesting that the authorities cannot stop the sale of those blackbox descramblers. The boxes' only purpose is to steal scrambled signals, yet they can be sold because there is no law broken until the purchaser turns it on. Common-sense is not law. Laws protect rights first, that is why someone who clearly committed murder can get off when their rights are trampled. Internet companies should not be required to analyze the electronic content of what crosses their servers, unless maybe when they are only intended for illegal purposes. Napster does have legal uses that will probably grow as the unknown artists with free MP3s grow in popularity. I do not see how Napster differs from email or phone providers. This is all new and we are setting precedents now; this is not a good precedent. [This message has been edited by Cohen (edited February 27, 2001).]
Thinks of that this way, if you owned an apartment property and drugs are dealt by some dealers there, should you be held accountable? If you know it's occurring and do nothing to stop it (reporting it or whatever), I believe you can be held accountable. I do not see how Napster differs from email or phone providers. This is all new and we are setting precedents now; this is not a good precedent. The difference is that Napster is an active participant in this. They store filelists and such on their servers, making them an involved party. That's what Gnutella and other such programs have "fixed" and why they haven't yet been targetted. To extend your analogy further, what Gnutella does is more what you described. What Napster does is like the apt owner keeping a list of all the drug dealers selling goods and referring potential buyers to the proper dealer. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I don't think the record companies should demonize Napster. I think they should've tried to find a way to work together (like Bertlesmann is doing now) so that royalties are paid, etc. Seems like that would've been the better course of action for everyone involved. I agree to an extent, but I think this helps the RIAA set a precedent as well. Basically, "don't mess with us". Other companies who may be thinking of doing something similar now have to realize that there is someone out there who's going to fight back to protect their property rights. I think that's as important as the actual dollars involved in the lawsuit itself, and I think that's at least a part of why the RIAA would (and should) reject the Napster offer. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Hehe, I saw this image today and was highly amused. I thought some of y'all might get a kick out of it. ------------------
Thinks of that this way, if you owned an apartment property and drugs are dealt by some dealers there, should you be held accountable? Actually, you might be held accountable depending on what steps you, as the owner, took to prevent such things from happening on your property. Of course, the difference is that apartments have uses other than drug dealing. Napster has no other use besides copying songs, the vast majority of which are illegal copies. I don't think the record companies should demonize Napster. I think they should've tried to find a way to work together (like Bertlesmann is doing now) so that royalties are paid, etc. Seems like that would've been the better course of action for everyone involved. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Then can we consider this to be tolerable form of Communism? The Capitalist system in which we live in has been able to incorporate many different Socialist elements. So why not just consider this an acceptable way for the proletarians to promote their goods in an honest and fair way? ------------------ "...just because a clever person can complicate the discussion about the truth doesn't necessarily mean he or she is making any progress in finding it."
But what you are saying is that I should actively spy on all of my tenants to make certain that they are not breaking the law. The police cannot do that, yet they want Napster to. And I see a list of my emails on my ISP. Once again, if one has an 'illegal' attachment, then anti-Napster logic implies that they are just as libel as Napster. Once again, there are many MP3's available that can be legally traded. If this happened to be Napster's original intent, why should they be forced to police what users are doing on their servers? Also, you did not respond to the descrambler boxes. These result in illegal and only illegal activites, so Napster could be considered 'more legal'. [This message has been edited by Cohen (edited February 28, 2001).]
But what you are saying is that I should actively spy on all of my tenants to make certain that they are not breaking the law. The police cannot do that, yet they want Napster to., This is not true at all. If you don't know, then you're not liable (unless that's true negligence or to intentionally avoid the law, I believe). However, if you do find out (say a tenant tells you), then you have a responsibility to deal with it as it is your property. There's no "spying" involved. If this happened to be Napster's original intent, why should they be forced to police what users are doing on their servers? Because in business, intent is irrevelent. If you do harm to another company through negligence, you're just as liable. When artists tell Napster that they are facilitating the illegal trade of their songs, and Napster does nothing to stop it (we know they can because they did for Metallica songs at one point), they become liable. In a public school, if a teacher is harassing students, the school is liable as soon as they find out and don't do anything about it. If the administrators don't know, they are OK. Once they do know, however, they are required to act or they can be sued. Same principle applies here. Also, you did not respond to the descrambler boxes. These result in illegal and only illegal activites, so Napster could be considered 'more legal'. You're twisting the argument again. Descrambler boxes are like assault rifles. The creator cannot ultimately control how the product is used. Napster *can* control how its service is used because of the important fact that things are running through their server. Again, that's the difference between Gnutella and Napster. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Shanna, The descrambler example does not twist it at all. In fact, per your logic, all that the cable companies would need to do is contact the descrambler manufacturer and say 'your customers are using this to steal my product'. Of course, the manufacturer just responds ' I am not stealing anything, so go away'. So, they now know that there product is used for illegal purposes, but they are not libel. Hmmm. Your arguments do require spying on users. Informing Napster that illegal activities is only the first step. The resolution to the problem, per the record companies, is what requires the spying. My only purpose in bringing up 'intent' was to respond to the argument that Napster was only intended for illegal purposes. And altough it is not relevant to this discussion, you do not have the same civil or criminal exposure for negligence and intentional harm. Unofrtunately, this analogy is full of holes (and I admit that yours are usually quite good). The question is whether Napster has a responsibility to the record companies. School districts have both explicit and implicit responsibilities to the students. Napster should not have the responsibility to spy on all of its users to see if anyone is breaking the law. Once again, what is the difference between Napster and email or phone companies? All large ISPs have illegal attachments stored on their servers. All phone companies have illegal things discussed over their lines. The resolution with precedent would be for the authorities to produce search warrants if laws are being broken, but with 20 million or so Napster users.... Again, I am very concerned with the precedent that is being set here. My displeasure is mediated somewhat by my belief that the court-ordered outcome may be the most beneficial one for the artists. It would be nice if there was an alternative.
