Round 2 goes to Napster. Yeah Baby!!!! Court grants Napster a stay SAN FRANCISCO — Two federal appeals judges Friday granted Napster a stay allowing the music-swapping service to remain online at least temporarily. The wildly popular service was facing a midnight PT deadline for shutting down after a lower court judge sided with the recording industry, which claimed Napster allowed users to violate copyrights. Napster employees screamed jubilantly at hearing Friday's news from a two-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a company spokeswoman said. Before the stay, tens of thousands of outraged users had pledged to boycott the recording industry in retaliation for its lawsuit — and looked for alternative music-sharing programs. ------------------ "Don't think twice, its allright"
All I got to ask is who Judge Marilyn Hall Patel thought she was? Damn straight. She just got slapped in the face along with the RIAA. ------------------ Home of Rashard Lewis and the Mighty Rams - Alief Elsik
damn! I was hoping the would shut it down. Now i can't sell my pirated CD's at a higher price j/j ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
woowooowoowooowoowooooo... .weeeeeheeheheeeheeee.. woowoowoooowooooowooo... -homer. ------------------ i need a vacation
That battle has been won, and now its time to win the war! I hope this isn't just delaying the inevitable. Azim da Dream ------------------ We don't live for the destination. We live for the journey.
As a musician, I think it sucks that music can be downloaded for free over the internet like that. Look, I know that no one sympathizes with Metallica because of their perceived millions of dollars, but this really isn't about them. Many artists struggle most of their lives to break into the industry and then, when they finally do, they have to fight with record companies, promoters, managers, booking agents, producers and lawyers just to get a CD released that they want. Once they do, they have to fight to get it promoted and played on the radio so it will sell. If they are lucky enough and it sells a couple million copies, they end up making about $100,000 (split four ways usually if it is a band) for their first year of the album's release. Then, they go back and hopefully make another to stay afloat. If it doesn't do well, as so many bands find out with sophomore releases, they get dropped from the label and maybe never work in the industry again. For every Metallica or Brittany Spears, there are 100,000 bands that make it into the industry with only modest success if any and 1 million that don't even make it that far. Downloading music may seem like no big deal because the industry makes tons of money but you are only hurting the artists because the record companies make them suffer for it. If you like an artist, you should want him/her to succeed so they can keep releasing records. That is what they do for a living. Using their stuff for free is taking their livelihood away and, for many of them, that livelihood is worse than what most of us make in a year. They do it because they love it and, if they are lucky, make money too. I agree that the Napster's of the world must be addressed by a record industry that has largely turned a blind eye to the problem. It is their own fault for not getting involved sooner. While I don't think this will tear the industry apart, it will certainly tighten the purse-strings of record companies and leave less money for the development of new artistic talent. What that means for you and I is less music to listen to and more formulated artists like Brittany Spears, the Backstreet Boys and In Sync. Why? Because record labels know that those types of acts will always sell records and they cost very little to promote. Plus, once they run their course (see Debbie Gibson, Tiffany, etc), they can drop them and lose nothing. Don't view Napster as some pirate radio that gives us all what we want - free music. See it for what it is: a means by which record companies can tighten their grips on an ever-decreasing artist marketplace. If you think the record industry is formulaic and un-imaginative now, wait until they lose about 1/4 of their sales to free download sites! ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
I hear ya SCF, but some of us are just pissed that the software and the company is being shut down because of the people using it. The ruling was ignorant and bizarre. It's not just a matter of not being able to d/l files, it's a question of "what is wrong with that knucklehead judge"? ------------------ Just shut up and post
Great points as usual Jeff. However, the recording industry is ignorant. They seek profits first, common sense trails somewhere behind that. The advent of MP3 and mpeg audio compression didn't just start. It's been gaining and building steam for over 2 years. The advent of DSL and cable modem lines has been SLOW... it's been over 3 years since the public first started hearing about them, and those technologies are still not mainstream. Any moron with foresite could have guessed the following : Hmm... I have this thingy here that can turn CD audio into files... I have this technology here that speeds up the transfer of those files 28-fold and greater in some cases, and what's this? CD writers that allow you to place those files on a CD you can get for under a buck (now)? Of course the music industry couldn't add those 3 together, so we're at our current state. The RIAA is attempting to shut down a product that has done nothing wrong. They have only themselves to blame in this. Let the artists blame the people downloading illegally and also the RIAA. Don't blame Napster. That's ignorance at its worst. As we speak the music industry is trying to put together a copy-protection scheme for audio CD's. Sony and EMI have gone their own way and are trying to come up with one of their own without waiting on the "consortium" to come up with a solution. Already the boneheads can't even put up a united front against a common enemy. And haven't these people learned from the software industry that on-media copy-protection schemes usually fail? Haven't they learned that from the now-dead DIVX technology? That thing hadn't even seen the light of day before someone had broken through its copy-protection. Hey recording industry... you cannot stop people from stealing from you. It's a sad, but true commentary on society today. However, why not try to take advantage of this? Why not allow people to buy individual cuts (ie, DOWNLOAD THEM FROM YOUR SITE OR USING A TOOL SIMILAR TO NAPSTER?) from artists' CD's? I was sick of buying a CD only to find out there's 1 or 2 great tracks and the rest of them are never to be played again material. If the recording industry could put Artist X's album online for me to listen to, I would be willing to listen to each cut, select the ones I like (a la shopping cart) and then buy those cuts. The software industry already allows you to download software like this. I don't know what the complete solution to any of this is, but I know that what the RIAA is doing will not work. I guarantee you that if/when Napster gets shut down, the next technology will be out there waiting to take over... be that audiognome, gnutella, or whatever... ------------------ Just shut up and post
Dr: I TOTALLY agree that the RIAA is way behind the 8 ball on this and, believe me, I don't shed a tear for them. But, the downloading and copying of music IS wrong because it IS ILLEGAL. In facilitating that, Napster is being held up as an example. Music is NOT free. It is an owned commodity. It is copywritten and the big problem is that it isn't the RIAA that is getting burned though they would like you to think that. The artists are the one's losing money. Most record companies have clauses in their contracts now that make the artist SOLELY RESPONSIBLE for the loss of profit due to MP3 downloads. So, if Metallica is forced, it would have to repay the RIAA a portion of the money it lost from illegal downloads if the RIAA can prove that those downloads correlated directly to a drop in sales, which wouldn't be hard to do. The same month that over 3 million downloads of Metallica occurred on Napster, their CD sales dropped by 1/3. As for being angry that only 1 or 2 songs on a CD are any good, well, that's the risk you take. As a kid who was raised on vinyl, I remember that part of the joy of buying a record was finding out that the last song on side 2 was a gem. Sure, I've gotten plenty where I only liked a couple of songs but that goes with the territory. It's like going to a movie and finding out it sucks. That's the chance you take. You read reviews and check out trailers (or songs on the radio) and hope for the best. Not liking it doesn't give you the right to not pay for it. If that were the case, no one would have to pay for anything they didn't like. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Jeff, The reason (well one of them anyway) that napster is so popular is because of the rocording industry. The are shoving Brittney, NSYNC, Backstreet Boys and lots of other crap down our throats. Granted, the young kids love that crap, but what about us Baby Boomers? The music industry has turned their backs on us because we are not willing to fork over $15 for sub-par material. The music industry is not about "Art" anymore, and hasn't been in quite awhile. It is about money. Napster allows freedom to choose. Now, if the freakin music industry would wake up and smell the roses, they would come up with a similar plan. Offer music that consumers can pick and choose from, not force them to buy what they want us to buy. My feelings on this are very strong because (as I am sure you have also) I have seen many talented musicians ignored or thrown by the wayside because they didn't fit what was popular. They are forcing us to listen to what they want us to listen too. I haven't bought a cd from a major label in a long long time. I support the independent labels. The music is a hell of alot better too. ------------------ "Don't think twice, its allright"
And Napster is incorrectly being held up as an example. Also, I agree with you that downloading and copying of copyrighted music is wrong and illegal. Jeff, this is where we'll disagree. I don't find any joy in buying a CD comprised of 12 songs and finding only 2-3 maybe worth listening to. Again, I agree. Not liking the fact that only 2 of 12 songs on a CD are worth listening to does not give you the right to download it for free (illegally). But then I was never making that statement. I'm simply stating that I'm happy to see the RIAA running scared with their pants around their ankles and in diapers. That fact alone makes me HAPPY. My points are the following : 1) No, it is not right to download copyrighted material without authorization/permission. 2) No, it is not right that artists are getting burned in this whole deal. 3) The RIAA is getting what it deserves, IMHO. 4) Napster should not be held accountable for this. They have done nothing wrong! 5) It is up to the RIAA and musicians to come up with a way to stop piracy. Unfortunately for the musician bums, I feel sorry for them, but I doubt there's anything they can do to stop it. 6) It is up to the RIAA to wake up in the Information Age , use technology such as Napsters, online e-Commerce, B2B, etc. to take advantage of the Internet. Not to try to stomp down the little guy, but rather try to promote themselves to their end user. ------------------ Just shut up and post
jeff, i understand your view, but unfortunately i have to disagree with it. As for being angry that only 1 or 2 songs on a CD are any good, well, that's the risk you take. As a kid who was raised on vinyl, I remember that part of the joy of buying a record was finding out that the last song on side 2 was a gem. Sure, I've gotten plenty where I only liked a couple of songs but that goes with the territory. i think that technology changes this, doesn't it? that the ability to download music gives the consumer the freedom to choose which songs they like from the artist and which songs which they don't like. compare this to the tape and the CD. the CD gives the listener the ability to play their favorite portion of songs any time they want to as opposed to the donwnside of the tape... if the music industry took that away, would you say "ok, because LPs were even less convenient than tapes"? i fort one do not like it that i pay 17 bucks for two songs that is worth listening to. consumers are getting smarter, and i personally like to see my money go farther. mp3s is just another progression in enhancing the listener's choice. i know a lot of people who have songs on their computer and who have bought the artist CDs that they liked for their collection, lyrics, cover, whatever. as for up and coming artists, i think mp3s, and the easy access of mp3s present an excellent opportunity for them to introduce their music to the public.. rather than going through the music industry as you have said: Many artists struggle most of their lives to break into the industry and then, when they finally do, they have to fight with record companies, promoters, managers, booking agents, producers and lawyers just to get a CD released that they want. Once they do, they have to fight to get it promoted and played on the radio so it will sell. for example, they could promote their music on the napster website itself.. and as this thing progresses, compensation will have to be shifted more towards tours, listener interaction, and etc. (i don't know quite how yet, but inevitably, mp3s will not go away, adaptation is necessary). as much as i would like to say that people will see this as a moral issue and not download "free" music, the fact is that people will do whatever is most convenient and least burdensome. new technology always disrupts the status quo, and mp3s does this.. rather than trying to adapt old systems of work to a new environment, artists should see this as a way to bypass the corporate music industry and take their music directly to the public. ------------------ i need a vacation
Bob: There is nothing new about the music industry and its "lack of real talent". In the 60's, it was beach blanket music (Fabian, Frankie Valli, et al). In the 70's, it was disco. In the 80's, it was glam metal. In the 90's, it was grunge and alternative. The industry molds to fit the trends in music as much as it molds the music to the industry. There will always be Brittany Spears and the Backstreet Boys (Connie Francis and doo wop, Debbie and Pat Boone, Debbie Gibson and New Kids on the Block). Manufactured pop music is nothing new. Believe me, no real musicians have EVER wanted to please the music industry. It is very much a love/hate relationship. Art vs. commerce is discussed in nearly every musicians rag you pick up on the newsstand. It is a constant battle that I know all too well (I have a whole file cabinet full of rejection letters to prove it!!!). My point was that downloading stuff for free isn't going to solve that problem. No artist is going to be brought back from relative obscurity because of it. I'll give you a good example of beating the odds and why: Santana. Supernatural is not only a terrific album, it is also very popular. Why? Well, that album never would have been made without Clive Davis. Davis, a long-time veteran of the industry who discovered, among others, Santana, Bob Dylan, Billy Joel, etc, forced Carlos to do this record - well, maybe persuaded is a better word. He understood the popularity of Latin music and knew the time was right. The thing is that Davis is maybe the biggest scumbag in all of music. Pick up a copy of "Hit Men" and read all about his involvement with the mafia, the payola scandal and other choice tidbits. As Billy Joel once said of the industry, "This ain't the boy scouts." The record industry won't lose anything but sweat and a few bean counters. The artists will lose money from MP3 downloads. Period. Dr: Like I said, I totally agree that the RIAA is WAY behind the times and needs to get with it. Frank Zappa predicted in the 80's that music would eventually be downloaded over cable TV lines. The liner notes would appear on the screen and then be printed out. The music would be downloaded to some digital device connected to the cable lines and music stores would be outdated. Everyone called him crazy! I am totally with you on that. My point is that, if you think artists are squelched now by the music industry, try segregating the music even more - having a single song here available but the whole CD just sitting on store shelves. The term "one hit wonder" will take on even greater meaning! insideout: Yes, technology definitely changes the way music is handled. It is forever changed by MP3. And, yes, it is a tremendous asset to independant talent. It gives artists a direct line to fans and vice versa. It also gives independant record labels a chance at survival because they won't have to be dependant on the RIAA for expensive distribution costs. I think that the first total online record label is not far off. The problem is that, until the industry decides what to do about it, every single artist on a record label will suffer. Some will profit by it but most will not. The direct result will be, for the time being, a lack of real quality music available to the general public. Eventually, I think it will be a good thing because more artists will be directly accessible giving consumers and music fans (as well as bands) more freedom and flexibility. It will also serve as a way to wrestle away some of the power from the BIG 6 industry giants. The problem is that Napster and its clones are giving people access to and making money off of the sweat of others. It is clever but it doesn't help the artists in question and they should have the final say on what people can or can't do with their music. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
If Napster doesn't win, just go get something like GNUTella or IRC that CANT be shut down. ------------------ Who's ya daddy?
But Jeff, the Internet gives artists this power. They don't need a record label as much for promotions and sales if they go digital. Or am I just being naive by saying that? Assuming they don't have an existing contract, nobody's going to be able to stop Metallica from dropping a new single on their website and saying, "Hey fans, we think this our next great cut, here's a snippet. If you like it, click this link and you can download it for $x.xx". Isn't this to the advantage of the individual musician? In the short-term, will there be backlash from the RIAA and big names such as EMI, Sony, BMG, etc.? Sure there will be. Will some musicians suffer? Sure they will. But it's just part of the evolution of the industry. If musicians out there would sieze this as an opportunity to break away from "big brother" instead of alligning themselves with "big brother", I think they'd be better off. But I don't profess to know the ins and outs of the industry, so again, maybe my thinking is just naive. ------------------ Just shut up and post
A link to a related story: http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,17257,00.html?nl=int Mango ------------------ 1. Put new topics in the proper forum 2. Use clear wording for new threads 3. No duplicate threads 4. Conduct yourself as an adult The Serious Police are watching Donate Blood or be assimilated!
What i find entertaining is the high percentage of people here on this board say it is wrong to copy copyrighted material. I have yet ran into one person who refused a copied CD from me. ------------------ ...out with the old, in with the new...
