I just saw on CNN that the courts were going to announce some kind of ruling on Napster at 1PM Eastern. If memory serves me right (which most of the time it doesn't ) didn't they announce a ruling a few months back?? Anyways, they said the ruling would be posted on the internet instead of having a big TV press confrence about it. ------------------ Charles Barkley on TBS on the "fat track" poll: "What? 47% said I'd gain more.....why those.....they better be glad this is a family show."
The appeals court said a good case was presented for copyright infringement and that Napster knowingly encourages users to download material and may derive financial interest in doing that. However, the appeals court said the scope of the preliminary injunction was overbroad and is sent back to the district court. Makes sense. Here is something written by Bob Clearmountain. He has mixed records by everyone from Paul McCartney to Bruce Springsteen to you name it. As one magazine wrote recently, "If God made a record, Clearmountain would mix it." Here is his take on Napster... I have a question for you. Imagine for a moment that you are a cabinet maker in a small town. Instead of going to college, you choose to learn the art of cabinetry by going through a lengthy apprenticeship, until you obtained the skills to make your own cabinets. At that point you began to develop your own style of cabinets to the point where you became known for making beautiful cabinets. You then started selling your cabinets through local furniture stores. You were soon able to make a decent living selling these cabinets with pride in your craftsmanship. You soon found that by selling your cabinets, you were able to make enough money to start a family and move into a larger home, which you did, while continuing to build and sell your beautiful cabinets in order to support your family, buy food & clothes, pay your mortgage, etc. One day, a bunch of people in your town declare that all cabinets, in fact all furniture should be free to everyone who wants it. People start going into the furniture stores and taking your furniture for free. The furniture stores soon go out of business. You start trying to sell your cabinets on the street, but because everyone has all the free cabinets they can get their hands on, no one buys it from you - why should they? Even if they did want it, they can just take it - for free! My question to you is this: how do you and everyone else who makes furniture continue to support your families, now that the only craft you know, one that you have spent practically your whole life learning about, has become entirely worthless? This is the question everyone in the record business (myself included) could be faced with if the world continues to embrace technologies such as Napster and Gnutella. I know it's unlikely, but if all current and future record buyers became crooks like the people who currently freely download copywritten music (and other media) without the permission of it's owners, eventually there will be no new music to download. No one will be able to afford to record new music. Downloading will end because everyone will have all the music that can be downloaded - and there will simply be no more... Now, I also know that a large part of the problem is that records are simply too expensive. Most kids, like the ones who resort to downloading, simply can't afford them. It really is a shame the labels couldn't somehow find a way to sell albums for less, say under ten dollars apice. I'll bet if they did, they'd probably make the same amount of money 'cause they'd be selling more, plus less people would be bothering with Napster and the like, except possibly only to sample things. I mean, MP3s sound like crap anyway, which for me is really the worst part of it all! This is a guy who has been working as THE mixer in this business for over 30 years. He knows more about the music business than most people and he dislikes the RIAA as much as anyone. He speaks, really, for the musicians. While I consider the idea that no music would ever get made again to be the farthest extreme, we've already seen what an increasingly large and fickle music industry can do to the music world by overpopulating the airwaves with boy bands and a seemingly never-ending supply of 19-year-old bands who make one record and then disapper. By the way, anyone seen Limp Bizkit lately? No, well it's because their album is flopping and they are on thin ice with their label. How about Nine Inch Nails? Their album debuted at number one and the next week it set a Billboard record by dropping all the way to 600!!! That's what happens without promotion and the short-term memory of record labels. Unfortunately, it will only get worse and Napster actually encourages it. Labels already want bands to make a ton of dough very quickly for them and then go bye bye. The downloading of music encourages that disposable behavior. Artists get popular through promotion, raido and MTV airplay. Once the band has been heard and the records have been bought, that is when services like Napster really begin to provide the service. At that point, the band is maxed out, the album is tired (this is less than 6 months after its release) and the label is ready to move on. If the band doesn't increase its sales on the next album, out they go. I know lots of people here like Napster and probably have hard drives full of MP3's. Whatever. The thing is that Napster is aiding the constant narrowing and dumbing down of the industry. Since most of us don't really care for boy bands or girl pop singers, I would think we would all want to do whatever fosters the growth of the artists we do like and the development of artists we haven't heard of. If you don't really care about any of that, keep downloading and be prepared for more crap from the industry. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
When I've used Napster, I've downloaded songs and then I almost always went out and bought the CD (unless I didn't like the downloaded song. In those cases, I deleted the MP3). I don't hear people like Save Ferris or Goldfinger on my local radio station. Napster gave me the ability to see if I liked those bands before I bought the CD. Napster has also helped me when I just wanted to hear a song and didn't have the CD already. It allowed me instant gratification and to listen to the song while the CD was being delivered (inevitably, the songs that would get stuck in my head would be ones that I couldn't find at the local chain record stores). If anything, Napster has increased the number of CDs I've bought. I wouldn't have taken the chance on Goldfinger or Save Ferris or some other CDs I've bought had I not been able to listen to the songs beforehand after downloading them from Napster. Of course, I seriously doubt that the way I approach Napster is the way the average person approaches Napster. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
mrpaige: You are one of the rare one's. I'm exactly like you. I go listen to the stuff first. Of course, you can find most of the stuff on MP3.com or the artists' websites even if you aren't able to hear the entire song. You can also hear RA versions on CDNow and Amazon.com among others. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I thought the majority of bands made their money through concerts and stuff. It's the record companies who make the killing on cd's, not the artists. I'm sure the big ones like Metallica and whatever make serious dollars from having made so many cd's but I'd thought most non mega star bands made their money through concerts. Also, I don't consider cabinets to be like songs so bad analogy I think. BUT, if you want to say songs are cabinets then why do record companies force us to buy the entire overpriced (cd) living room set instead of just the (song) cabinet we want? I don't condone breaking the law but these companies have encouraged this with their shortsighted business philosophy. I think this issue is much more about controlling the music industry than about artists being profitable. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
Jeff, the guy has several good points. The one I liked the most, however, is how the recording industry has been selling artist's material for ridiculous amounts of money. The CD is cheap to make. The artist gets barely anything on a CD sold. Yet, the label is charging $18 - $20 for the CD. Napster is payback for all the damn times I got ripped off on a music purchase over the years. Like the guy in your post says, maybe if they didn't rip us off so badly, there wouldn't be all this piracy going on. A decent, realistic price for a CD is about $5 to $8.....but NO the labels would never, ever sell a CD for that much. I would never even bother downloading music if I could pay a reasonable price for an artist's music. Hence, they have been ripping us off for years. Who is stuck in the middle? The artist. How am I supposed to care about the artist when the labels don't care about the consumer? I don't feel sorry for the labels one bit. Sure, the artist loses and that is what needs to be fixed. The labels will not side with anything that rips into their profit taking. They won't even hear about it. It's just wrong to them. Surf ------------------
Actually, I read a quote by Jason Newsted, formerly of Metallica, a while back stating that concerts really don't bring in that much money (if you believe him). He claimed that the band usually just breaks even on long tours. ------------------ "Of course, everything looks bad if you remember it!" Homer Simpson
Ditto. ------------------ Nuggets4 The Pinnacle - Rising to the Top With the Denver Nuggets http://www.NugsPinnacle.com
Well that's my bad then. I once read an interview with Chuck D from Public Enemy and he broke down how record companies stack things against the artist in such a manner that the artist only ends up making pennies per each cd sold. Maybe we was off target on what the norm is in the entire music industry. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
Or maybe Chuck D just gets screwed to a bigger degree than the average artist. To be fair, though, I've heard the same thing as you about how musicial acts make very little from record sales and really make the bulk of their money on tours and the like. As a matter of fact, I heard the Dixie Chicks say that on 48 Hours or 60 Minutes not too long ago. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
The majority of money an artist makes comes from merchandising - t-shirts, etc. - because it is usually the one thing it owns outright. Concerts and touring are a break-even proposition. Here's the problem. Who in the hell is going to buy a t-shirt from someone without record sales? Record sales drive the industry and the bands. If an artists makes few record sales, they get dropped and we never hear them again. Why? Because it is freakin' expensive to make records and tour! I agree that the business of music is to blame but, despite your arguments to the contrary, you are NOT stealing from the record industry and harming them nearly as much as you are stealing from and harming the artist. I agree that CD's are expensive but so are cars and you wouldn't go steal one of those. All forms of entertainment (well, most) cost money. It is the trade off for being entertained. If you don't like the cost of CD's, don't buy them, but DON'T download the music either. You can't have both. If you don't want to pay the high price for a car, don't drive, but don't commit grand theft auto. It doesn't matter whether you have pity for musicians. Frankly, they don't want your pity. What matters is whether they can keep making the music you love if they don't get paid, which, of course, they cannot. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I'm proud of you, Jeff!! You're making a very captialistic argument! I agree wholeheartedly..though I have been guilty of downloading, myself. No one is entitled to music at a reasonable cost or free music. If you want the damn song, go out and buy it. Anything less is probably stealing, in one form or the other. Go, Jeff!!! Next I'll have you singing "America, The Beautiful" with me at a GOP convention!! ------------------
"Oh, beautiful, for spacious skies...." I think that should be our national anthem anyway instead of war songs that are difficult to sing. Oh, well, I guess I lapsed back to the left. Sorry, Max. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
MadMax, you can't be on both sides. Your guilty of downloading yet you want us to buy the music. Hmm...something stinks here. I buy music at times and download at times, too. I have heard artists make very little(in the range of pennies) per CD purchase as well. I don't buy into the crap that they make very little money from touring. I guess if you factor out the merchandise sales...then maybe. A band like Metallica, though, that sells out every show. They have to make decent profits from touring. Maybe Jason wasn't because he was the lesser Metallica member. Sure, artists don't want our pity. I don't give any musician pity. I'm just anti-recording industry. The government should regulate the recording industry all to hell. Otherwise, who and what is to stop them. As you can surmise, they are happier than hell now that they got their ruling. But, they can't stop the software with no middleman server. Everyone will just switch. Nothing solved. Look out Gnutella....here come the masses. Surf ------------------
Why force Napster out of business? The genie's out of the bottle: take away Napster and another company will come in and do the same thing. Heck, there are already 3 or 4 other websites similar to Napster. What the industry needs to do is figure out how to use the technology. I'd prefer to pay for the songs that I want, and skip the ones I don't like. Also, I don't really see how t-shirt sales are affected by Napster. If anything, Napster increases exposure to a band's music, and might create new merchandise-buying, concert-going fans. ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
Sam, that's the whole problem. The recording industry doesn't want to involve the Internet because they have a money-making machine the way the things are as opposed to evolving to the Internet. They can only lose money because they have to set up a subscription type service where they will not make anywhere close to the amount of money they make through CD sales. They want you to buy the CD with 2 good songs on it for full price. It's outrageous for them to offer songs at a lesser price or say $20 a month for song downloads. Hell, they make $20 a CD. Why would they ever want to get on the Internet? Well, they have not nor do they appear to be seriously even considering a subscription-based service. Some have touched on it but few and far between. We need a site that can offer multiple labels songs and which will compensate the artists properly. I would sign up no problem. I doubt there will ever be such a place. Surf ------------------
Look, you guys may not see the correlation or understand how the business works, but the fact is that Napster and every other service like it creates major problems for bands. Surf: You may hate the RIAA, but that doesn't mean you have a right to steal from them. Some of the people that work in that industry aren't millionaires, ya' know. Some work for $20 K a year and bust their asses. Some are in middle management. The same goes for musicians. Believe what you want about touring but it is the truth. Why do you think bands tour for 2 years at a time? They have no choice because they are trying to promote album sales. T-shirt sales come from touring which bands get to do if they have records out and get people to come to their shows. It is true that they only get pennies on the dollar for album sales, but they DO get lots for performance royalties - playing of the song on the radio, the video on MTV, etc. Napster even refuses to pay groups like ASCAP and BMI who represent musicians trying to collect those royalties. NONE of that goes to the RIAA companies. Sam: I agree that the recording industry needs to get with the times and learn how to use the technology. IMO, they will. They don't have much choice now. However, that doesn't excuse the stealing going on now. Man, I know that artists are easy targets as is the RIAA. It is a big business paying people to play music sometimes a lot of money and that seems pretty silly sometimes. I agree. The problem is that, for many of us, music represents a lifelong dedication to something. Imagine if you had spent your whole life dedicated to building something that someone just stole from you. That is a very difficult thing to take. Beyond that, there is the practical aspects of it like how can these artists continue to make music and records if they have no money to do it. The point is that you are stealing, plain and simple, if you download copywritten material. You are not doing anything different than shoplifting or stealing a car or pick-pocketing. They are all exactly the same thing. Just because it doesn't feel like the same thing or doen't yet have the same consequences doesn't make it any better. You still ripped someone off. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
I don't think comparing goods such as cabinets and cars to music is very accurate but for the sake of argument I'll agree here. Every car made by different car manufacturers is a different price from Lexus 400 down to Saturns yet cd's made by completely different companies are ALL the same price. I consider that to be price fixing. The car market has competition which drives prices down and creates different price categories for different consumers. The music industry conspires to keep prices up. Interscope records charges the same price for a cd as Atlantic records. The car industry doesn't charge 50k for a Lexus and the same 50k for a Saturn. If music were a competitive industry there would be $5 cd's for the newer unknow artists and $15 cd's for great established artists. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
Jeff, I have a question regarding MP3's for you. I'm a big jazz fan and most of the artists I admire most are dead. So would you consider it unethical to download, say, an entire album of John Coltrane MP3's? He's obviously not going to get any of my money if I purchase the CD, and I find it difficult to belive his heir's deserve it anymore than I do. Not there's a large variety of jazz MP3's out there since most of it is classic rock/pop, just more of a question in general. Also out of curiosty, how many gig's of MP3's do most of y'all have? I have a 10 GB drive devoted to MP3's which is about 85% full. Now most of that is the approx 50 CD's I ripped myself so I could leave the CD's in my lab and still listen to them at home, so I figure I've got about 1 GB of downloaded MP3's over the last 4 years. dylan PS Jeff, for the sake of all humanity, I think it's best if we agree to never talk about James Bond again. ------------------
Your a terrible person, dylan. I don't have nearly close to that many. Your looking at 10 life sentences to run concurrently. Just kidding. I have a few. Surf ------------------ [This message has been edited by Surfguy (edited February 12, 2001).]
