I still think the industry needs to take initiative and give the consumers what they want. I personally don't download many MP3s, and of the ones I do download I usually delete them after a few weeks. But to me it's a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. Its not fair to say that consumers should not download MP3s for free, unless there is some sort of way to pay for them. It's like saying that you shouldn't download a screensaver for free, when there is no other way to get it. Maybe you'd pay for it if you could, but noone is there to take your money or bill you. Of course, few will pay for the product if they get it for free. But maybe if the music itself was encripted such that you needed to pay for a key to listen to it, then people would have an incentive to pay 50 cents or a buck per song to the artist. ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
I love Napster. From a personal standpoint, I use it to check out artists that I never heard of (music from the 50's and 60's). If I find songs that I like, of course I will download them (1033 mp3.s so far........yeah, I'm going to hell). Is it "right"? That's debatable. Is it legal? Well, so far (soon to change). Everyone complaining needs to realize that we live in a capatilistic society, and the majority of the benefits that we receive as Americans are legal, but they aren't "right". I detest the idea of overseas sweatshops, I don't think it's right. However, I'm pretty sure the majority of the clothes in my wardrobe are not made in America (where people demand higher wages, meaning I would have to pay more for my clothes). I live in Texas, a land the US Government basically stole. Is that right....HELL NO. Yet, I can't seem to recall me ever wishing that my citzenship be revoked. I can think of countless other examples. The music industry is just pissed because the public (the consumers) finally got our hands on a piece of technology first. I can understand people saying it's not "right", but don't hate on others for taking advantage of a loophole in the system. We ALL do it every day. I'll be downloading until I can download no more. ------------------
I see your point and I know you feel strongly about this issue. But to me its not the same product. The CD forces you to (sometimes) buy all sorts of songs you don't want, so that you can get the one you do (of course, sometimes I like the whole CD, but not always). Let's say you wanted Cheetos. But the only way you could get cheetos was to buy one of those variety packs, like for sack lunches, that had 4 or 5 different kinds of chips in them. You don't want to spend the $4.50 (or whatever) to buy 12 bags of chips, half of which are those nasty plain Lays and Ruffles, just to get 2 bags of your cheetos! They should let you buy your cheetos by themselves. And they do. I haven't even gotten to the convenience issue yet (online download vs. having to drive down to Tower records). I'll think up a good analogy and get back to you. ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
This is exactly why I steal Chee-tos. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
If you only like one song, well, that's your decision but that is why they make singles. Part of buying is taking a risk. You can always buy the CD, make a copy of the song you like and sell the thing to a resale shop. You'll get about half what you paid for the CD new if you do it fairly quickly. Obviously, that doesn't address the convenience issue but that is something that will have to be addressed through the industry. I agree on that one. They don't make it easy or inexpensive. I also think CD's are too expensive. I often can't afford to buy some CD's I really want and have to wait until I can to hear them. I routinely have 15 or 20 CD's on my Amazon.com wish list and at least 10 more or so in my head that I'd like to have. At one time before we thinned them out, my wife and I had a combined close to 2000 CD's. I'm just not willing to take something that doesn't belong to me simply because it is easy. It wouldn't feel right to me. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Jeff, Yeah, but smart marketers usually know if their artist is a one hit wonder or not (or if the rest of their album sucks besides their one hit). If so, then they won't release a single to a killer track. They will make you buy the entire album to get that one track. It's happened to me quite a few times. As far as someone taking my job away.....yeah, I would be pissed, but I might understand giving the situation. Tons of people lose their jobs all the time as technology progresses. There are countless jobs that have been sacrificed as we become more advanced. Once again, it's the upgrade of technology that has put the music industry in this situation. It's just rare that the consumers actually got a hold of it first. ------------------
I'm not so sure you wouldn't be singing a different tune, Jeff, if you were NOT a musician. If your a person who believes that everything is a right or wrong decision and acts accordingly by those morals, then that is commendable. But, the rest of the population doesn't always do what is right or wrong in all situations. 50 million Napster users are obviously doing wrong and could care less who gets hurt in the process. I know that sucks but that is reality. If anyone is to blame, it is the people who make this type of sharing software. They should have never let it proliferate and get this far. Is anyone going to make such a product to share files and then expect the masses to just do what is right in obeying copyright laws with zero enforcement of the law either through the product or by some web task force or whatever? There is no way. Napster is liable as far as I'm concerned for all of it. They should be locked up for life for letting it go this far. Of course, their weak argument was this was legal. That is the funniest part of it all. It drags on through this long litigation. The servers still haven't shut down. Hell, everyone has downloaded their favorite music already. The usenet groups are still a haven for MP3 downloaders as well. We can blame the morally wrong people all we want. What is needed is enforcement. Until they have that, they will have problems and this will not end with Napster. It's just the beginning. Until the RIAA addresses the Internet issues and seeks a workable solution and business model, underground MP3 sharing will go on and on and on. Also, depending on the musician, they either hate MP3 sharing or love it. On the one hand, a lot of musicians are obviously into the copyright law enforcement. On the other hand, a lot of musicians are more into getting their music out to the masses and getting exposure. That strikes me as kind of strange that the musicians can't even agree that it is a bad thing even though they are losing money. Of course, the made bands are the ones who don't care as much. However, the unknowns want high exposure as well. Surf ------------------
Ummm...nope, can't put the all the blame on them. People were swapping tunes long before they came along. Napster just gave it more publicity. Are you also going to blame the designer of the mp3 compression scheme next? Cat's outta the bag and he isn't ever going back in....that's the way it is. The only way you can stop it is to shut down the internet...and I don't see that happening. Whether it's newgroups(superior to napster anyway,IMHO), FTP sites, web sites, napster clones, you just can't stop it period. The music biz better find a way to capitalize on it rather than just whining in court or else. I've probably got close to 5000 mp3 titles, but probably 70 to 80 percent of them I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway. So they're not losing much on me..... ------------------
Actually, that is not true. Artists battle to not have to release a single but record companies force them to. Up until the late 80's, radio was album driven with the stations picking the cuts they liked in rock music. Singles were only for people who had no other good songs. Today, every album has a single. That is the way it is in the business. Radio stations won't even bother playing a record if a single is not recommended by the label. They won't do that work. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Surf: You are right. My interest in this issue is driven by the fact that I have a vested interest in it. No question. However, I have no way of knowing the difference because I can't change who I am. I know that I have never stolen anything in my life - not a piece of gum, not anything. That is just my nature and I can't imagine this would be any different for me. Everybody knows the cat is outta the bag. No one is going to stop what is happening and that's fine. However, it is ridiculous to think that what is happening doesn't constitute theft. It does. If it doesn't bother you (or the 50 million others who go to Napster), that's fine. I'm not judging what people do. I've done plenty of stuff I regret and I'm sure that list will only grow longer as I get older. The point is that we should call it what it is and be honest. Copywritten material is property and Napster was illegally allowing millions to download it for free infringing on the rights of the owner. I don't really even believe in right or wrong and this will certainly not end here. I just think we should call it what it is and not try to pretend otherwise. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
MoonDogg, I wasn't blaming the whole MP3 debacle on Napster. I am blaming them for bringing MP3 illegal file sharing to the masses. I never did MP3 before Napster. How could you ignore it? Hell, it is everywhere. I guess the question is how could anyone on the web not know about or use Napster... unless they just don't care enough about the topic and music to explore it further. Surf ------------------
Sorry Jeff, but every album does not have a single. I listen to Rap and R&B mostly, and a lot of local rap artists don't come out with singles. When Cash Money first made it big, all their top hit's didn't have singles. Neither did Master P. The common diss on them was that you had to get the entire album, even though you would only listen to one or two songs. Local Houston acts like Lil Keke didn't produce singles at first, neither did DJ Screw, and the majority of the people I know download his music. I don't recall DJ Jubilee or Funkmaster Flex ever having a single. The top groups and artists that are supported by the big labels produce singles, but those aren't the only artists that people listen to. So sometimes, listeners are forced to buy the whole album. I know......I've done it before. ------------------
You have to love rap music. It has the coolest names. I've never heard of Funkmaster Flex, but that might be the best one I've heard since Flavor Flave. No disrespect to the music intended. ------------------ I am Jack's utter lack of surprise. www.clutchtown.com
Maybe they don't release a single, but every label suggests one to the radio stations. The Gavin Report, Billboard and Taxi have recently reported on the non-release of singles in R&B and Rap music as well as pop and rock. The new waave in music is the "single suggestion" where artists don't have to release a single like in years past but still promote a single in the form of videos and suggestions to local and national syndicated radio stations. This practice is becoming more and more common in all areas of the business. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
Even if record companies release singles, most of those singles don't make it to the consumer market. The vast majority of CD Singles I see are in used CD stores where some DJ has taken the single from the station and sold it. I rarely see the singles for sale beyond that. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
This is a neat topic. I don't think copyright laws were written with this kind of "copying" in mind. The law has been passed up by technology. A new law or some type of change needs to be made to the law. I really don't consider copying MP3's to be stealing and yet I don't think it's perfectly okay for someone to d/l a thousand songs and then put them on a cd to listen to. I guess to me it's in the middle gray area somewhere. I don't believe in the assertion that consumers should have to take "risk" when buying a cd. Cd's are among the very few things sold that you cannot return because you don't like it. There is literally no monetary recourse for someone displeased with the quality of their cd (music, not defects, etc.). Also, I've been trying to think of something that is a better analogy than what's been thrown around and I guess the best I can think of is the movie industry. I remember back in the 80's, movie tapes sold for $80-100. That price has steadily declined since then. Music tapes across the same time frame have gone from like $11-13 down to probably $7-9. Music cd's are at exactly the same prices now as they were when they came out, around $16-18. Hmm... pretty fishy to me. ------------------ "Relax... kids swallow quarters all the time. If she craps out two dimes and a nickel then start worrying!" -Grumpier Old Men
But, there are other ways to pay for it. You can buy the CD. Your argument doesn't apply. If the music were ONLY available online in MP3 format and getting it free was the only way to get it, you would have an argument. As it stands, you still have the option of purchasing the music in another form of media. Speaking of software, why do you think software companies make you sign user agreements to use their stuff? How long do you think it would take Microsoft to squash a company giving our free downloads of Windows 2000? ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
In that case, me downloading MP3s isn't a problem -- it's all you other bastards doing it! ------------------ NOTHING BUT .NET CLUTCHCITY.NET
For the most part, I agree with what you are saying. There is really a level of hypocracy in dealing with right and wrong. They are gray areas. However, how would you feel if someone took your job away and then just said, "Too bad."? It wouldn't make you happy, would it? What if you spent your life trying to learn a craft and someone forced you to perform that craft for them for absolutely nothing even though you derive your income from it? It would suck. ------------------ Me fail English? That's unpossible.
one point of perspective here... It's ok to download the music because it isn't hurting anyone? How bout if 50 million people download the entire album from Insert artist name hereand then did not want to go buy it.Then who is gonna pay for it?? Is anyone gonna pay? How is the artist gonna make any money? I know alot of guys who play music just because they love it, but they all have to work other jobs to live.Now think about someone who is on the road to promote their album and is getting rave reviews from everyone, but the problem is that instead of buying the album they just go download it..is the artist gonna be able to afford to make the next album?? I don't think so. The money made from the clubs they are playing just might cover the traveling expenses but what good samaritan is gonna step up and say "Here,take $100,000 and go record that next album." If they can't afford it, do ya think they will continue playing? I know I made this point about the road expenses before, but this time I am referring to a struggling unsigned band. btw...It totally eludes me how that many people are stupid enough to allow strangers access to their hard drives..Doesn't Napster require that you allow file-sharing to your HD? That is freaking unbelievably stupid! ------------------ You would have to pry the ball outta his hands with a crowbar. Bill Worrell referring to Cuttino.
