I don't have anywhere near that many MP3s on my computer, either. And actually, the majority of the MP3s I have saved on my hard drive are unsigned bands from MP3.com like the Distorted Penguins or Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie or the Arrogant Worms. Those people put their music on the Internet specifically for people to download and enjoy, so it's not the same thing as the Napster controversy we're talking about. I think I have no more than ten MP3s (aside from the MP3.com ones) that I didn't later buy the CD. So, I've stolen from Murray Head, Harvey Danger, BB King and whoever sang Houston Oilers No. 1 (those are the ones I remember off the top of my head). Of course, I also have purchased used CDs from The Record Joint (3008 W. 6th in Amarillo. Go on by when you're in town) and other places, and the artists and record companies don't benefit from that transaction. But that's not really the same. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Why not? How is it not the same? I don't have any numbers but I would image the losses of the record companies/artists due to used CD's is enormously larger than any supposed loss due to MP3's. And in fact the record companies did raise a big stink when used CD places started to become common. They just realized they were going to be fighting a losing battle if they tried to ban used CD sales. So really, how do you consider it different, at least from a recording company/artist point of view? dylan ------------------
It's different because the record companies and the artist got paid for every copy of the CD that exists. I haven't increased the number of copies of the music by buying a used CD. When I download a song from Napster, I've increased the number of copies of the song. The person I've downloaded it from still has his copy, and I've added a copy for myself. Buying or selling a used CD is simply transferring an asset from one person to another. The total number of copies never changes. Napster is the equivilent of making copies of the asset and dsitributing those copies to people. So, it's not really the same. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
dylan: In the case of Coltrane or dead artists, I think a lot has to do with who sees the royalties from those sales. Of course, that is speaking only from an ethical perspective. I would research it first and make sure the Coltrane family isn't getting money from it. Probably not, but even so, it is still taking something illegally. This may not be physical property like car, but it is intellectual property making it owned by someone somewhere. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
They should set up some kind of legitimate reimbursement program. One where you can pay back for the MP3s. If the price is fair, I would pay for the ones I have OR delete them if I don't pay. The problem is I cannot pay because there is noone there receiving. Per the quantity of MP3s you have, then come up with a fair price. For instance, 3 songs = $3.00 . Let the wrongs make things right. The MP3s I do have are not very good quality. And, the songs I download I would not normally buy(because I would have really bought them already). The problem is the recording industry is too slow to adapt to technology b/c they are happy with the way things are and they don't want the change. The artist is suffering as a result. Surf ------------------ [This message has been edited by Surfguy (edited February 12, 2001).]
To those of you who believe that artists make money on the road, stop for a second and consider what all goes into making a show go on. Let's just say for example that they are playing the Summit, they have to pay the costs for all the stage rigging and various parts that are used to support the fancy lighting and sound systems. Then there is the cost of the labor involved (stagehands) normally from 20-50 hands from the local area. They average from $10 to $25 dollars an hour at 10-14 hours per day. The touring crew must get paid, the various support staff that tour with the bands all make a pretty good salary. There is the cost of the venue for the night.Tour bus and tractor/trailers need to be leased for moving the chow from town to town. Cost of security, catering, merchandising people (t-shirt stands) and any incidental costs all are charged to the production company and subtracted from the total receipts before the band can even look at any money. Obviously, I don't have the exact numbers but rest assured that it takes a sh*t-load of dineros to put on that 3-4 hour concert. Don't get me wrong, I'm not real pleased with the RIAA but I AM pleased with all my musician friends that bust their butts to play in dingy clubs every weekend in the hope that maybe, someday some A&R guy will notice them and put them on a label. And after they have put in all the blood,sweat and tears to put out their music how do the get repaid?? By 1 person buying their album and copying it for 10 friends just so they can deprive the record labels of a few bucks?? The record company isn't getting hurt...it's the artists. I don;t have any problem with D/L ing a song to try them out,but......... <font size="8"> If you like it, BUY IT!</font> ------------------ Lar
I love the napster. In my opinion music CDs at the music store are a BIG FREAKIN RIP OFF!!!!! The amount of music they waste on an entire disc is ridiculous!!! Wayyy too expensive and No, I won't pay that kind of money. When Napster is shut blocked, I'll pay the fee AND I'll burn discs from friends. What a rip off the music industry is. What are they crying about? Sale are up and up and up every freakin year, GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!! ------------------
Oily...just who do you think gets the money?? Unless you can find a way to change the way the business works, the guys makin the bucks are the record companies. If everyone believed as you do, pretty soon there will be no artists left who wanna make decent music...all there will be are record-company constructs that will work for what little the record companies will give them. Put yourself in the shoes of the musicians, really. think long and hard and see if you don't think your attitude is mighty self-centered. ------------------ Lar
Yessir I realize who gets the money, sorry it must of been the red wine is why I seem so brash. Simply put, I just don't think discs are worth say 14 to 17 dollars we pay. Actually most of the money made for the musicians thenselves is from merchandise and touring, NOT records. Sony and all them boogers take that profit. I believe an artist gets about 1/14th or less of the sales of records. Its just not and never has been a good deal in my opinion. Yeah, I gotta be a bit selfish because I don't make enough money to be a yuppy and have a 100 disc changer. ------------------
The big problem with this issue is perception, plain and simple. Here are the big 3 myths that contribute to the problem... 1. The RIAA is just a bunch of rich guys who rip us off. True, CD's are expensive and the RIAA is made up of large corporations but they are no different from Microsoft, GE, GM, UPS, Amazon.com, whatever. They are all businesses that employ thousands of people, many of whom work for very little just for the priveledge of working in the music business. I'm not even talking about the artsits here either. I mean the people who work in accounting or promotion or the mail room workers. Record companies have secretaries and computer experts, publicists and researchers, accountants and personal assitants - just like any other big company. It isn't just a bunch of rich guys in suits and power ties sitting around smoking cigars. This is a HUGE industry that employs literally thousands of people in all areas of the business. 2. The musicians make enough money. Only about 1/10th of 1 percent of artists who actually have a record contract have big hits and become recognized. As one industry person put it recently, out of 12 artists signed to a label, 10 lose money, 1 breaks even and 1 pays for all of them. And those are just the artists that actually get a record deal. The chances of getting a deal is one in a million to begin with. The fact is that Napster and other downloading services don't really create serious problems for artists like Metallica or the Backstreet Boys or Bruce Springsteen. They do create serious problems for all the artists on the fringe of the business, many of whom drive the industry. Without them, the whole record business would be made up of cookie-cutter artists with no real development of unique and different musicians. This is one of the ramifications of artists collaborating with capitalists. In most countries and in the past, artists were subsidized by the government or by wealthy donors in much the way the symphony is handled today. Just like painters or poets, people would support the artists financially so they could make art. Today, art is driven by commerce and that fuels some innovation like graphic design, but mostly it forces compromises that don't always lend themselves to the artistic process. There is no way to change it. That is part of what we have done as a society. However, you can mitigate it by avoiding the free distribution and trying to give the artists more of a degree of control over their art and how it is distributed. 3. It isn't really stealing. In the United States and the world for that matter, we have laws that protect against the theft of "intellectual property." This is no different from actual physical property. The main difference is that it is not nearly as frowned upon because it usually comes down to a battle over money rather than the property itself. Stealing a car and stealing a song are basically the same thing. The difference is in the punishment and the stigma attatched. If you steal a song, it may not seem like much harm is being done. In reality, if you download a song for free and without the permission of the artist only once for yourself, it isn't THAT big of an issue. However, if thousands or hundreds of thousands of people do what you are doing, it becomes a big deal. Nestles probably can handle one kid stealing a candy bar, but it cannot handle hundreds of thousands of kids doing it. Neither could Stop n Go or any store that sells them. That is why we have shoplifiting laws. If we didn't, businesses couldn't survive. We pay for the right to do many of the things we do in this world. Entertainment is a paying business. The only difference with stealing songs using Napster or stealing a candy bar is that one is easier to pull off than the other and doesn't carry with it the consequences. You don't have to like the recording industry. I hate it. You don't even have to feel for the artists. But, you do have to recognize that your actions are not simply happening in a vacuum. Someone, somewhere, sometime has to stop and realize that you have to pay to be entertained. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to listen. But you can't have it both ways. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
1. What do I as a consumer care how many people any company employs? The only thing consumers care about is a quality product at a good price. Consumers don't want to pay inflated prices just so that some company or association can employ thousands of people. 2. How does this justify price fixing? 3. Stealing a car and copying an MP3 is nowhere close to being the same thing. When I steal a car, it's gone. When I copy an MP3, it's just that... a copy. How about if I was able to copy your car... is that stealing? Your car is still there, I just have my copy of it. When I tape a song over the radio (something that's been done thousands of times by thousands of people for decades) is that stealing? What about people who read the newspaper online instead of paying for a copy? Or even students who xerox textbooks? Fans who tape the Rockets? What if I tell a Carlin joke to some friends? Is stealing his joke the same as stealing a car? Of course it isn't. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
This is a ruling on the appeal Napster made following the original ruling. This ruling will basically uphold the original ruling and stop Napster from allowing copyright materials on their services, or overturn the original ruling and allow Napster to continue until a later trial. ------------------ "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.
Jeff, I totally see where you are coming from but I'll give you another analogy to prove my point. If I buy a CD, do I have the right to make my friend a copy so he can listen to it or not? How can you really stop me from doing it if I have a CD-R at home? Isn't that the same thing here when it comes to MP3's? I feel that these record companies have to adjust to the new technologies instead of fighting it. They have to realize that eventually, music on the Internet will be free to listen to like radio and will have to find a good way to make their money (like advertisements). ------------------
The 9th Circuit reversed the injunction made by the district court, calling it overbroad. So we're all free to pirate music for awhile longer, at least until the district court issues an acceptable injunction. http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/02/12/napster.decision/index.html ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
That would technically be illegal. It would be hard to stop you from doing it (and the record companies won't go after you because it isn't worth the time, effort and cost), but that doesn't make it any less of a copyright violation. You have a right to make copies of your CDs for your own use, but distributing copies to your friends is a no-no. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
How about giving my friend that original copy and keeping the burnt copy for myself? is that legal? ------------------
Timing, et al: Here is the real issue. Copying is something everyone does. I do it when I make tapes for people or when I used to record songs off the radio. It is part of the way the music biz has always been. The difference is that groups like Napster make a business out of it, profit from it and streamline the process making it easier. As the quality of MP3's grow, soon buying CD's won't be necessary. Just download the whole thing. Timing, the reason you care about companies employing thousands is the same reason you care if who you work for employs you. It drives the economy and puts people to work. If you want everything for free, maybe we should all live in a socialist or communist country. I know you personally would love that! The point is that copying isn't the real problem. En masse copying is. If all we had to worry about was people making tapes for one another or sending MP3's back and fourth through emails, none of this would come up. But, when a company profits from the work of someone else without their permission and costs the artists money, they should be shut down. Like I said, I HATE the music industry. It isn't the RIAA I am trying to protect. I could give a **** whether the stockholders of those companies make money or not. The problem is that they control what we hear. The more difficult we make it for them to earn a profit, the more likely we will get **** to listen to on the radio. Every dollar they lose is another nail in the coffin of great bands who haven't had the chance to prosper. That is the reality and it is bad for everyone who loves music. If you really love the music, go buy it. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Well I absolutely agree with you about Napster on that point. It's definitely wrong for them to be able to make a profitable business out of this stuff. ------------------ "Somebody DO something out there." -Bill Walton
Concerning buying a CD and giving a copy of the CD to a friend: This is illegal. Think about it like a book. If you buy a book, it is perfectly O.K. to give that book to as many folks as you want and have them read it, but keep in mind that at all times, there is only one copy of the book. The same goes with a CD (or tape or album). You can lend it to as many folks as you want as long as that is the only copy circulating. Concerning recording directly from the airwaves (video or audio): This is perfectly legal as long as the copy is not later sold or used in any way for profit. For example, you can't record a movie and then charge admission for folks to watch it or sell it in a garage sale. I would be more than happy to pay a reasonable monthly fee to download MP3's from Napster or a Napster like service. There was a site that was allowing you to download a number of live tracks from a "The Who" tour that were not released on any album. You paid only for the tracks you downloaded and you could listen to a sample before choosing. While this was still pricey (~$1.00 per song) it was certainly a step in the right direction. ------------------
