Bye bye Napster.....

[OuTpaTienT]

Even though I had my gripes about it, I don't want to see it disappear. But it certainly doesn't look good now. Judge shuts'em down until a court date.

http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2608129,00.html?chkpt=zdhpnews01

[chipbgt]

doesnt start until friday I believe so smoke em while you can, boys and girls...

[Ultima]

I'm d/l'ing like crazy right now, running 34 songs at the same time.

I figured I'd better get em while I still have the chance.

Ahh well, got a hole day tommorrow too, so....

Too bad though, I kinda liked napster.

Pim

[skywalker[TSG]]

hmm does this mean that the software wont work
or that u cant download it anymore ?

[RayH]

It means you go HERE (http://www.napigator.com/) and HERE (http://gnutella.wego.com/go/wego.pages.page?groupId=116705&view=page&pageId=119427&folderId=118398&panelId=119597&action=view) to get peer-to-peer action on digital files......

Napster usually has about 5300 libraries per server. It's running about 7500 right now!

[This message has been edited by RayH (edited 07-26-2000).]

[jad1097]

Share it while you can! I have opened my dir up to the public! 1400+ songs.

[wyvrn]

Oh well so you can FTP instead. This will not stop MP3 sharing that much, because if you really want em you can still get em.

[JonmaTifa]

Heck....guess it's on to the next best thing.... Scour Exchange. It's supported by quiote a few users, I think it was second to napster in use. Guess we can use that until it starts getting attention and is shut down itself.... hehehe

you can find it at www.scour.com (http://www.scour.com)

[rmpfreeman]

Right now OpenNap has more users and more MP3's than Napster. Come Saturday all that will change is that Napster will not be on the Napigator's list. The RIAA email has been closed because of the 340,000 email complaints received in the last 7 hours. Strange that it's Judge Patel in this case. She is the judge who allowed cryto software to be exported and used over the internet - see http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/HTML/bernstein_961218_pressrel.html

She also took the side of disability rights against Macy's see : http://examiner.com/991029/1029macys.html

Seemed pretty liberal up to this point. Anyway's it's only a injuction it's not a verdict or even a trial yet.

THINGS CAN CHANGE!!

[jacobnero8196]

I recommend Imesh and CuteMX, very good software and alot of people using it.

[Karloff4568]

I saw somewhere that music sales had increased quite a bit since Napster came on the scene. I think everybody should make the RIAA feel what we think about this stink they have caused, How? by not buying music. As for copyright infringment on music, this has been happening long before the Internet came around. How many prople ever recorded anything of the radio? The RIAA is just another money hungry dog. I have no use for them. I guess nobody that works for the RIAA has ever downloaded to a cassette any music for their kids from work. Just my opinion, bitter and jaded as it is.

[VERT]

Napster is an excellent source for those of use who make their own music and want to get it out there.

[M_Six]

So isn't the internet an "enabler"? Let's shut it down! While we're at it, why not get rid of electrical power generators and motorized vehicles. Hell, let's just revert back a hundred years and return to the fields. With all the manure being shovelled by groups like NIAA, it smells like we're pretty close to the farm anyway.

[RayH]

This is a case about the recording companies wanting to maintain a stranglehold on the industry itself.

In the 70's there was a Jaimacian movie, "The Harder They Come" starring Jimmy Cliff about a singer-songwriter to had dreams of making it rich. But the recording company had a complete vertical and horizontal hold of the industry.

First the recording company wants to give him only a pittance for the rights to his song. Next, the artist decides to self produce. But he can find neither air time nor shelf space in the record stores. This is because the radio station and record stores don't want to be cut off by the major label.

(more)

[RayH]

But the "Harder They Come" situation is actually how the industry is run.

We never hear of many good recording artists because the companies put them under contract only to sit on their works. Why? Because they compete with someone the company is actively promoting!

The company doesn't want to promote two or want to draw away sales from the promoted group!

In the 60s, there was a very well known group called the Lovin Spoonful, with a funky "old time" sound. In San Francisco, there was a local band called the Sopwith Camel with a similar type sound. The Camel was signed by the same label as the Lovin Spoonful, which was making the charts and national TV shows (in an era when there were only three networks and no cable). The Camel stuff was never released until that sound ran aground. The Camel did have one hit!

(more)

[RayH]

I'm dividing my postings so that they won't be too long! http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif

Overall, Napster helps the [b]artists[\b] and not the recording companies. It provides an outlet for the up and coming and the over-the-hill.

I'm fifty years old. Through Napster, I was able to find recordings that are out of print. These recordings can't be found NEW at any price right now. I've tried.

You're getting old when stuff you like isn't even played on the radio and elevators any more because your too old.

Napster was saving a lot of the culture of the twentith century and building a new one for the twenty-first.

If Metallica had a problem with different versions of its recordings being available on Napster prior to offical release, they have a SECURITY problem at the recording company!

[drdirt]

you are responsible for your actions. Napster is not the one who chooses to make "illegal"
copies or to infringe someones rights. Perhaps the judge should think. what a concept that would be!

[kittylipz]

Bite the hand that FEEDS YA!!!!

I'm going to open my list up too - I closed it because of Metallica's ****, but ya know what-fuque em. Who says they should be paid for each song constantly everytime its played or shared - this copyright **** is getting out of hand. It's not like 'recording artists' are hurting in the MONEY department. And just think, they get wealthy off their fans. Music Industry - If I can't share the music i purchase - I don't need to purchase it anymore. I've spent TONS of money over the years replacing cassettes that don't hold out - CD's that get scratched - NOT to mention the old album collections that we all still hold. I am guilty of recording off the radio. Recording movies off the television & I will continue to do so. Technology will take care of itself. Hopefully someday - the fans will win (anyone notice the price of concert tickets - or memorabilia?) HAH

I don't think I need to support this industry anymore if they are going to be such whiny - greedy folks. Metallica -- you top my list of whiners. And to think - its us fans who MADE you what you are!!!

I agree authors should be paid -- but take a look at who holds the wealth here!!!! Is the distribution fair??? Do we pay too much for our music & our software?? Do these people make a killing off us?? Do I sound like a complainer??? I'm getting there!! Imagine all the concert tickets you will sell via napster users who wish to see you live. I hope the courts will get a glimpse of the strong hold the music industry has endured all these years, it will be nice to see if technology can change the game a bit!

[charnov]

Does anyone remember that this just happened...(caution LONG post)...you would think this would come up in the arguments for Napster's method of distribution...

Major record companies in deal with US on CD prices
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission on Wednesday settled a suit with major music companies, clearing the way for retail stores to advertise discounted CDs and save consumers millions of dollars every month.

``The proposed settlements should help restore much-needed competition to the retail music market,'' said Federal Trade Commission Chairman Robert Pitofsky at a news conference, announcing the 5-0 vote.

The companies involved together sell more than 80 per cent of the CDs in the United States. They are Warner Music Group, a division of Time Warner Inc. ; Sony Corp.; Bertelsmann AG's BMG Entertainment; EMI Group Plc ; and Seagram Co.'s Universal Music. The FTC said the companies paid retail stores money to advertise particular CDs, and in return expected the ads to mention the list price.

But Pitofsky said that in 1995 the retailers added a new twist, demanding that retailers advertise the list price in all advertising, even in-store ads that retailers themselves paid for. ``This is very unusual in my experience,'' said Pitofsky, who is generally regarded as one of the most knowledgeable antitrust lawyers in the United States and, at one time, was dean of Georgetown Law School.

Record sellers who violated the agreement and undercut the list price faced being cut off for 60 to 90 days, which in the case of large chains amounted to hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, Pitofsky said.

As a result, Pitofsky said consumers had overpaid by $500 million for CDs over a 2-1/2 year period, amounting to several dollars per disk. He said that with the settlement, ``consumers can save as much as $17 million a month.'' Under the proposed settlement regarding the minimum advertising price programs (MAPS), for seven years the companies may not require the stores to use list prices -- or any prices -- in return for promotional funds.

``After months of carefully considering our options, BMG concluded that, rather than engage in prolonged litigation with the government, the best solution for resolving the FTC's MAP investigation, was to sign a consent decree which does not admit any wrongdoing,'' a BMG spokesman said.

``We believe that MAPS serve a valid business purpose for our customers and the consumer and is an appropriate and lawful practice. However, the FTC has made it clear that they disagreed with our view.

Rather than risk having the focus of our business personnel being distracted by this matter, we made a business decision to resolve it,'' a Warner spokesman said. An industry source familiar with the situation said that Warner decided this was not a good time to get into a fight with the FTC, which has two matters under consideration involving Time Warner. First, the commission is considering whether America Online's bid to purchase Time Warner is legal under the nation's antitrust laws.

And Warner has also announced it will merge its music division with that of rival music giant EMI. The FTC's agreement with the record companies is subject to a judge's approval. The FTC brought charges the companies had violated antitrust laws and at the same time gave the judge the proposed agreement. (Reuters)

It's **** like that that makes people want to trade mp3's and not go out and buy a whole CD. This is really a case of choice and distribution, not copyright per se.

[Gutter Ball]

Eh, I just wish the RIAA would stop complaining. Everytime I hear "so and so will be in concert at so and so. Their latest album had RECORD sales of..." I get pissed off. If Napster is so bad, then there SHOULDN'T be RECORD sales of albums! My gf and sister belong to those CD clubs and they buy CD's at the store if they can't wait for the club to get it. They spend at least $100/visit between them, as a protest, they haven't bought a CD since the Metallica thing!

[kennan]

We must protect the rights of the artist! This dosen't go far enough. We should also protect writers by not allowing libraries to loan books out, no magazines in waiting rooms, childrens paintings on display in schools without a commision being paid. We should also do what Micro-soft does and allow the use of any music source to only one machine. They could also make a machine that allows listening by only one person, unless an extra fee is paid. The sad fact is, that might makes right.

[rogerf777]

Enabling technology for thieves is just that - it's technology that enables the criminals among us to do their work anonymously with little or no risk. It sometimes changes us as people and/or changes our morals by either enabling something that would not have been possible without it or making what was already possible, easier, cheaper, or safer. The person who doesn't have the guts to risk getting caught stealing a CD from a music store will often download MP3 files from Napster and others.

The SF Chronicle on 6/9/00 printed results of a survey showing that 13 million people have downloaded pirated music from the web. In their 5/11/00 edition they ran the story that Napster was forced to block access to 300,000 of its users whom Metallica had identified as pirating their songs. These numbers greatly exceed the annual numbers of all persons charged with shoplifting nationally.

In its present form, Napster allows its users to share MP3 audio files via the Net. Run Napster, search for the name of the song you want, and if a user has the song, and is currently logged into Napster, you can download it directly from that user's system. Napster can be thought of as an electronic fence, of sorts, where Napster provides the means to transfer files digitally from one PC to another, and goes a step further by enabling users to seek out particular files they want to receive, and allows users to specify which files they want to allow others to access. It is specialized service for pirating music.

Some other ways of pirating music are:

-Scour Exchange (http://www.scour.com/Software/Scour_Exchange/)
-Gnutella (http://gnutella.wego.com/)
-Napigator (http://www.napigator.com/)
-Email
-ICQ
-FTP
-Burn it on a CD and send it by: Federal Express, UPS, U.S. Postal Service, Airborne Express

So what's the problem here? Is it the above mentioned "enablers"? Those companies or applications which enable consumers to transfer materials between one another? Yes. The problem is manyfold:

1, Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal risk.

2 Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal cost.

3. Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal effort.

Does anyone else notice anything amiss with this whole scenario?

People have always been able to make tapes (and more recently burn CD's) and mail them to their friends. This has always been self limiting and small scale because it takes a lot of effort, time and some money and was done with friends. Now it is being done on a huge and anonymous scale.

Lets see - I'm a recording artist whose music is being pirated by a mob of people claiming the right to steal a lifetime of work and talent and practice. I through my trade association the RIAA chose to make a test case of the original and most flagrant of the enablers - NAPSTER! Yes, that's a good start. The point of test cases is to get the message out to all those who would break the law as well as to make it easier to later prosecute other offenders.

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel disagrees with the millions of U.S. pirates who believe they have the right to steal my life's work. She ruled Wednesday in a preliminary injunction that Napster, "is enjoined from causing, assisting, facilitating, copying, or otherwise distributing all copyrighted songs or musical compositions" by 3 a.m. EDT Saturday. In other words, Napster will have to disable illegal MP3 sharing and will be crippled as of Saturday, unless they can obtain a stay by an appeals court.

I am not a piracy advocate. I believe that just as it is a felony to own burglar tools or to make burglar tools available to the general public I believe that it is a crime to steal music or to make stolen music available to the general public.

Napster has demonstrated that it has first class programming skills. and I believe that it could have chosen to adopt or modify any one of the several schemes proposed for ensuring that music files were not stolen. Perhaps by digitally signing work that is meant to be distributed freely. There are many artists who want their music distributed without charge on the web and there is a great body of non copyrighted material available. It would be of benefit to those artists and to the general user if this work had been done.

My personal opinion is that Napster chose the path it followed because their hit rate, and thus their financing, would have dropped precipitously if they hadn't made stolen pop music available.

[rogerf777]

Enabling technology for thieves is just that - it's technology that enables the criminals among us to do their work anonymously with little or no risk. It sometimes changes us as people and/or changes our morals by either enabling something that would not have been possible without it or making what was already possible, easier, cheaper, or safer. The person who doesn't have the guts to risk getting caught stealing a CD from a music store will often download MP3 files from Napster and others.

The SF Chronicle on 6/9/00 printed results of a survey showing that 13 million people have downloaded pirated music from the web. In their 5/11/00 edition they ran the story that Napster was forced to block access to 300,000 of its users whom Metallica had identified as pirating their songs. These numbers greatly exceed the annual numbers of all persons charged with shoplifting nationally.

In its present form, Napster allows its users to share MP3 audio files via the Net. Run Napster, search for the name of the song you want, and if a user has the song, and is currently logged into Napster, you can download it directly from that user's system. Napster can be thought of as an electronic fence, of sorts, where Napster provides the means to transfer files digitally from one PC to another, and goes a step further by enabling users to seek out particular files they want to receive, and allows users to specify which files they want to allow others to access. It is specialized service for pirating music.

Some other ways of pirating music are:

-Scour Exchange (http://www.scour.com/Software/Scour_Exchange/)
-Gnutella (http://gnutella.wego.com/)
-Napigator (http://www.napigator.com/)
-Email
-ICQ
-FTP
-Burn it on a CD and send it by: Federal Express, UPS, U.S. Postal Service, Airborne Express

So what's the problem here? Is it the above mentioned "enablers"? Those companies or applications which enable consumers to transfer materials between one another? Yes. The problem is manyfold:

1, Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal risk.

2 Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal cost.

3. Individuals who wish to steal copyrighted music can go to Napster (anonymously if they wish) and find a list of artists whose music they can download on the spot at no personal effort.

Does anyone else notice anything amiss with this whole scenario?

People have always been able to make tapes (and more recently burn CD's) and mail them to their friends. This has always been self limiting and small scale because it takes a lot of effort, time and some money and was done with friends. Now it is being done on a huge and anonymous scale.

Lets see - I'm a recording artist whose music is being pirated by a mob of people claiming the right to steal a lifetime of work and talent and practice. I through my trade association the RIAA chose to make a test case of the original and most flagrant of the enablers - NAPSTER! Yes, that's a good start. The point of test cases is to get the message out to all those who would break the law as well as to make it easier to later prosecute other offenders.

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel disagrees with the millions of U.S. pirates who believe they have the right to steal my life's work. She ruled Wednesday in a preliminary injunction that Napster, "is enjoined from causing, assisting, facilitating, copying, or otherwise distributing all copyrighted songs or musical compositions" by 3 a.m. EDT Saturday. In other words, Napster will have to disable illegal MP3 sharing and will be crippled as of Saturday, unless they can obtain a stay by an appeals court.

I am not a piracy advocate. I believe that just as it is a felony to own burglar tools or to make burglar tools available to the general public I believe that it is a crime to steal music or to make stolen music available to the general public.

Napster has demonstrated that it has first class programming skills. and I believe that it could have chosen to adopt or modify any one of the several schemes proposed for ensuring that music files were not stolen. Perhaps by digitally signing work that is meant to be distributed freely. There are many artists who want their music distributed without charge on the web and there is a great body of non copyrighted material available. It would be of benefit to those artists and to the general user if this work had been done.

My personal opinion is that Napster chose the path it followed because their hit rate, and thus their financing, would have dropped precipitously if they hadn't made stolen pop music available.

[flash4master]

Download Napigator (http://www.napigator.com). 'Nuff said.

[jad1097]

Perhaps I should be able to get a replacment casset, record or cd when it is damaged then! I have had some tapes that I bought several times because they got damaged. I have records and cds that are not worth much because they have scratchs on them. I will continue to "steal" this music for as long as I can since I do have most the records and cd's for the mp3's that I have. And I have been known to steal cd's in stores many years ago. So I do have the "guts". Hell I used to make money doing it!

And concert ticket prices have become outragous for one band shows. I have no problem paying $50 for tickets for a show like the Ozzfest because there are so many bands. What the hell ever happened to the free Pace shows?

The record industry has been screwing them for years. Many artist do not make any money from their first album and that is just a fact. The only way for a band to make any money is touring or have their own independent record co.

[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 07-27-2000).]

[mp3ripper]

Everyone go to www.cutemx.com (http://www.cutemx.com) and get the ware and check it out. Same as napster but a little better. Tons of files in about 10,000 libraries as of now. Little known program, likely to be around awhile. Email me with your questions and comments on the application. Like to hear what ya all think.
also mpegs, avi's, jpegs, gifs, and much more.

[mirrorman]

Nice Troll !

But in defense of liberty ...

The Demise of Napster ? Some observations :-

1)
Honest people are not going to steal
from their favorite artists - probably
the only ones they're interested in.
This does not mean that they are not
interested in using Napster.

2)
Honest people will not "buy more" as a
result of measures like these. There is
only so much resource out there.

3)
Honest people are the ones that the RIAA
and it's members should really be
interested in.
There will always be others who will
find alternatives to Napster.

4)
Technology like this provides a FREE
source of publicity for the RIAA's
interests, and all those who are keen
on getting their music to the buying
public.

On another level it might be thought
of as a technological counterpart to
freedom of speech - though many will
certainly disagree with this.

5)
One downside of Napster and it's
related technology lies in it's
consumption of bandwidth. We have
experienced this first-hand - it has
this in common with a number of other
packages.

[Lurk]

Everybody likes a free lunch. Unfortunately, as you grow up you find out that there really is none - somebody, somewhere, ends up paying for your freebies. No matter how much you want to believe you can and should shaft the other guy, it simply isn't compatible with peace and longevity; and ultimately, we all lose. The Napster concept was pretty cool for letting regional bands and garage bands get noticed; there's others too, but I won't mention them since apparently people aren't mature enough to handle it - too many people just have a cracked up, selfish, dishonest value system and that's too bad, way too bad, so there's a price on that too.....

[Jitterbugfive]

Cutemx...like cuteftp, like in spyware. They track your every move. The like to call it ad supported software. Check out grc.com about spyware, and these guys are about as bad as they get.
I guess I don't get it. You go nuts over Napster, but don't care if someone knows everything you download, and every web site you go to. Then it "phones home" so you can be presented ads that are relavant to your "taste" by the sites you have been to. You know, like the next person that may use your computer (mom?) get porno ads because you were at some porno sites a few days back.
Worst than Realnetworks.

[commodsquad]

Napster was forced to block access to 300,000 of its users whom Metallica had identified as pirating their songs. These numbers greatly exceed the annual numbers of all persons charged with shoplifting nationally.

Just wanted to clear something up here...
Metallica never identified a single person as "pirating their songs"...The 300,000 users that was quoted as those being "blocked", were collectively blocked only because they had "Selloutica" songs on their machines..There was no way they were able to distinguish between who was legal and illegal - if they had one of the band's songs, the "offending" machine was "blocked" by a "forced" fraudulent phony update that (from what I understand) ran a check thru the harddrive for any references to "Greedalica" regardless if any were in nonshared folders and nowhere near the Napster program or if the person owning the computer was the legal owner of copies ( ie. owned the cd's).
Of course those numbers quoted are going to exceed annual shoplifting statistics when the words and actual context of how those numbers were obtained are misconstrued and manipulated to show what the author wants to portray..In fact, any survey can be manipulated biasedly.. The Internet itself, in its present form, allows sharing of any type of data (like the slower postal system and other delivery services) just as cd burners, double cassette recorders, radio, and vcr's have done just to name a few. There was mention of "burglar tools", I had to hold back from laughing, I own many tools for my automobile and computer repair (not to mention carpentry tools and maybe the odd rock that can be tossed thru a window) that would be considered "so-called burglar tools", for that I would be a felon? I dont think so... Napster wasnt the "original" file sharing app (although it did make it easier), but it could have been considered "flagrant" only because it was garnering major publicity. The precident that will be set by this "shamless example being made of Napster" is borderline dangerous if not totally dangerous since the ruling will effect more than the music industry and will have a dominoe effect on the Internet as a whole, as well as physical life dealings and in business or what have you..
I also want to itterate that I have never used Napster nor any other mp3 sharing app like it and probably never will and also that I own all of my cd's that I have songs in mp3 form of.. I have no fear of punishment nor morality so punish me for owning burglary tools ( I own a screwdriver! BAD morals!)(incidently, backseats also promote illegal activity that would make auto companies enablers and many peoples parents and grandparents hardened criminals according to those that use the word "enabler" that is being tossed around like the term "dot com" was tossed around as the buzzword of the day) and I dont believe that there is any such thing as anonymity that is ever gaurunteed.. those that will conduct criminal activity will do so whether they are anonymous or not and many do regardless of the consequences no matter how harsh they may be...I know I would resent being compared to different more larger degrees of criminality like felonious activity when all the accusations point towards owning a music file...

Fortunately, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel disagrees with the millions of U.S. pirates who believe they have the right to steal my life's work..

I disagree with Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, but that doesnt make me one of the million of so-called pirates and it certainly doesnt say anything about me (like the statement about believing in the right to steal anybody's life's work) other than I simply disagree, it does make me one of the members of the opposition though and for that simple opposition; trolling zealots - quoting extremes, throwing stones (a potential burglar tool I might add) and condemning the babylon around them way before there is even a verdict - feel the need to jump on their collective sandboxes and start the whole controversial discussion all over again in such a heated way that it will inevitablely lead to the dreaded locked thread syndrome....
Sorry I guess I was just in one of those moods hehe..

[This message has been edited by commodsquad (edited 07-27-2000).]

[geumber]

"..the invention of the atomic bomb was not a bad thing."!!!!! Scott, you are whacked!! How about another analogy: stop picking on drug dealers. They aren't forcing people to take drugs! Or: The cigarette companies didn't REALLY know that cigarettes were harmful......


geumber: Please hit the Submit button once only. If your browser hangs or times out, hit the Back button and your post should be posted. Thanks! -socalgal


[This message has been edited by socalgal (edited 07-28-2000).]

[GroundZero3]

Whats next? why don't we just close down IRC. everyone trades on that also.
JaYsin

[flashngcurser]

Metalica is only being a mouthpiece for the music industry.

Here is why: most artist DO NOT get compensated for each song sold. If they do it's usually a pittance. How do most artist make money? The recording contract. They get paid to make a record. If your last album sold well then you can command a larger contract for your next album, but that is the only importance regarding individual album sales to an artist. Like in Hollywood, only the most elite artists can command a percentage of each album sold (or movie shown).

Metalica is now amongst the elite.

I think most artist would like the extra "promotion" that mp3's provide. Most artist make allot of money on tour, this is were they really make money. On tour they take reasonable percentage of the ticket price. (Though Ticketmaster takes almost as much as the artist do)


Most of the artist on napster have been paid for the music via their contract. The only ones who have not been compensated are the record companies.

I find this turning of the tables very interesting for metalica. They said f___ you to M-tv. This is a band that sold more than a million albums (three records 83-89 six years!) before producing their first video! (on their 4th album, and only one video at that) This band toured with everyone for any reason, and had great music. Now with nice slice of the pie, their music is boring and they almost never tour.

[Karloff4568]

I have no problem paying an artist for their work, I do have a problem with paying an overinflated price for a CD, Cassette or other media, that the middle man(RIAA) sets. I also have a problem with not being able to find the music I would like to have. Napster wasn't perfect, it probably did hurt some artists, but who reaps the benefits of an artist who is long dead, and has no family? The RIAA. Yet they would deny me the pleasure of listening to a song that they won't even publish anymore for me to buy. What about the artists who have no problem with us downloading their work? We are denied. For the majority copyright is for the rich to get richer, just look at microsoft, can you tell they are hurt by piracy? I can't. You could say be the RIAA's way of thinking that we violate copyright when we listen to a CD our friend may have playing in their car. This **** is out of control. The RIAA is the music mafia. I just hope this breaks up their little playhouse.

[M_Six]

I agree with Lurk on one point, too many people have a warped sense of right and wrong. Napster promotes illegal activity because it allows anonimity. What other crimes would be committed if anonimity were guaranteed? Frightening to think about, but proof that it's fear of punishment, not morality, which keeps many people honest. Take away the fear of punishment and those same people suddenly become amoral. Still, I can't fault Napster. We as a society find it way too easy to place the blame for everything on somebody else. It's simple, commit a crime and you're a criminal. It's not somebody else's fault. You can't blame your parents or your neighbor or TV or Napster. You can only blame yourself. The difference between the people who use Napster and the NIAA is that the NIAA isn't doing anything illegal. That's not to say the BS they pull isn't immoral, but they have the law on their side; even if the law doesn't seem to work.

[RayH]

Intellectual property is a strange thing, the more it's stolen the more the original makes. People who pay, will pay and even more will pay because it's popular.

I've lived a number of years without some of the stuff I've gotten from Napster and I can live the rest of my live without it!

I've downloaded mostly stuff that ain't available anywhere except in used music stores!

But as I'm an old timer, I've been also replacing stuff that I do own on scratched vinyls, which is legal!

The whole thing is a ploy by the record industry to maintain control of the market for its choosen few!

I remember when FM Rock was brand new. It started in SF when I was in high school and didn't come on until after midnight on a Portuguese language station! It then, gravitated to 3pm and so on.

But the point was, that this new format challenged the old thinking about what type of music people want to listen to!

It's getting out of the record companies' hands.....

[Ultima]

I don't know what the problem with Napster is, but I still could download songs today, and that's friday.

So when is it gonna go offline???

Pim

[GroundZero3]

midnight

[chipbgt]

this copyright **** is getting out of hand.

Yeah, people wanting to get paid for there work? we cant have that can we.

Napster itself is not the problem. It was meant to be a great medium for smaller musicians to distribute there music freely. Its the users who turned it into a cesspool of copyrighted music, and the music industry has a right to want to stop the bleeding.

I guess this is what it is like to live a life trying to justify stealing. I am glad I am not a WNC (Wunded Napster Child)

[rogerf777]

To me it doesn't matter whether or not people had copies of Metallica's music on their hard drives legitimately. They posted them to Napster to be pirated.

This may help those who have a problem with the concept of "Burglar's Tools". I'm not a lawyer, these are the first 2 references my search engine turned up.

Wyoming (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/titles/99titles/title6/t0060303.htm)

ARTICLE 3
BURGLARY AND CRIMINAL INTRUSION

6-3-304. Possession of burglar's tools; penalties.

(a) A person is guilty of possession of burglar's tools if he possesses an explosive, tool, instrument or other article
adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating the commission of a crime involving forcible entry into buildings or occupied structures with intent to use the article possessed in the commission of such a crime.

(b) Possession of burglar's tools is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than three (3) years, a fine of not
more than three thousand dollars $3,000.00), or both.

Missouri Revised Statutes (http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/C500-599/5690180.HTM)
Chapter 569
Robbery, Arson, Burglary and Related Offenses
Section 569.180

August 28, 1999

Possession of burglar's tools.
569.180. 1. A person commits the crime of possession of burglar's tools if he possesses any tool, instrument or other article adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into premises, with a purpose to use or knowledge that some person has the purpose of using the same in making an unlawful forcible entry into a building or inhabitable structure or a room thereof.

2. Possession of burglar's tools is a class D felony.

(L. 1977 S.B. 60)
Effective 1-1-79

(1984) It is not necessary that the tools be "breaking" tools but only that they be adapted, designed or commonly used for committing or facilitating offenses involving forcible entry into the premises. A flashlight and a pair of gloves can qualify as burglar's tools. State v. Adkins

[Fingers]

Maybe I'll go steal new car tonight because I think I paid too much for the last one I bought. http://smilecwm.tripod.com/cwm/smirk.gif

Stealing is stealing. Period. You may not like the price of music media, but that doesn't justify violating copyright laws. You can't just take something because you think the price is too high.
The price of music is not dictated by the manufacturing costs of the media it is printed on, it is the product of artist fees, production costs, advertising, etc. Downloading copyrighted music from the internet is really no different than lifting it from the music store. Either way, the people that made, distributed, and advertised the music aren’t getting anything for their work.

When you do something a thousand times, you begin to believe that is your "right" to do so; regardless of whether it's illegal or immoral.

[jad1097]

..

[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 07-28-2000).]

[wtp]

i dont' care, napster works, and i'm not paying 15 or 20 bucks for a 1 disc or 2 disc record just to listen to 1 or 2 songs.... Napster works, and i'm happy.

wtp

[chipbgt]

must be nice.

not minding theft and all...

[smokin1]

So...everyone here has sent their money in to Winzip?..good...good, and you have never taped a television show?..World series., British Open?.. a sit com..to watch later..ahh..ok, ever made a music cassette?..no?...I doubt any of the nay sayers can honestly admit to that...in fact..my cable provider encourages me to tape whatever to watch later..they advertise it for crying out loud. If I download a song and try to sell it, then I see the wrong in that..it's not mine to sell. If I like an mp3 I download, and a few more from the same artist, I will invariably go buy it...why?..for the quality ...mp3 is close but not cd quality to my ear..so..let's not throw stones..I think there are a lot of glass houses out there...
http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/wink.gif

[Fingers]

Shareware by definition, is a little different than copyrighted music. Nonetheless, using shareware beyond its intended free use period is not honest either.

It is not illegal to record television or cable programs. These programs are paid for when they are aired, either by your cable fees or by advertising. Ditto for radio.

I can't say for sure, but I don't think it is illegal to make copies of your albums, cassette tapes or CD's for your own private use.

When you download music from Napster or the like, no one involved in creating that music gets paid one cent for providing you with entertainment.

It is not illegal to make a back-up copy of your legally obtained software either.

As I’ve said before, you may be comfortable encouraging or participating in the violation of copyright laws, but that doesn’t make it your "right" to do so.

[smokin1]

It appears you are misinformed..it is not legal to tape television..that is copyrighted too...ever notice the trailer at the end of most shows/sports events? Am I to understand that taping a TV show is my right because I pay X $ every month to use cable? I think not. Radio is free game?..I think not as well...apart from advances in technology, what is the real difference between taping FM radio and using napster?the answer..nothing..did FM radio kill the music biz?....gee...I think it helped it grow HUGE...I think it's time to take a step back and look at what is going on here...technology has changed....that's it...by stating it's not a problem to tape radio..you have admitted by omission that you do...so get with the program this is the year 2000...things are changing..metallica is NOT starving, and neither are the other artists that are signed to a label...if they are it is because their music sucks..not because of Napster...as I said before..if I like it I will eventually buy it....the recording industry should be rejoicing...not litigating...think about it..

[jl123]

Wow smokin1 you really said it all there. I agree with you smokin 100%. http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/smile.gif Well said!

~Joel

[Missing the point]

Hey Smokin, I never thought of it like that, but it is exactly the same, just the technology has advanced!

Man, thanks for that, I can impress friends now http://sysopt.earthweb.com/forum/biggrin.gif

[chipbgt]

what is the real difference between taping FM radio and using napster?the answer..nothing..

I will have to disagree (gee, whats new)

The difference between the FM radio and napster, is that the owners of the copyrighted material are not voluntarily releasing the music on Napster for your enjoyment, as is done on sites like radio sonicnet. I will agree that the technology is advancing, but to say that it is the same as radio is just, well...wrong.

[OuTpaTienT]

I think I agree with your philosophy Smokin', but Chip is right about it not being the same as FM radio. Almost...but not quite. The main difference is when a radio station plays a song, they are not playing that music for free...no, they are paying royalties every single time they play a tune. I don't believe anyone from Napster is paying a cent to the record industry.

[This message has been edited by OuTpaTienT (edited 07-30-2000).]

[RataToo]

well you can bat it back and forth ...radio...vcr...napster...blah blah blah. fact of the matter is napter doesn't HURT anyone. Musicians will still make MILLIONS...MTV will still make you 1% less intelligent for every second you watch it, and Britney Spears will still be considered a Role Model. the real question is....is an artists work so painful, stressful and unimaginable, that they should be richer than the average man? Don't you think that artists are just a tad bit OVERPAID? Do they deserve a better life than an average Joe? Isn't being an "artist" supposed to be about art, not money? I thought the idea of art was puting a thought, or feeling, or idea into a painting or song or sculpture or anything with the purpose of EXPRESSING YOURSELF....TO REACH PEOPLE.....TO TOUCH PEOPLE...and if thats true...doesn't napster help an artist express him/her self to the world? I am disgusted with these "artists"....metalica isn't a band...they're a dealership...they're salesman....so why are we listening to them? Personally...if i ever right a song or paint a picture that reflects some aspect of life that I consider important....I hope you all download it. An if my song was being smeared all over naptser and people were downloading it left and right...I would be unbearably proud. Actually I think its the kind of thing that I would have dreamed of as a kid...everyone knowing my name...relating to me because of my art... what if I made enough money to buy a car with royalties from a record label! How cool would that be! A whole car for one little song that I wrote because it was inside of me and needed to get out. I would be glowing...
I would be happy to get a new car, because I know what its like to work hard...because a new car is a dream to me. But if being an artist would mean that money would corrupt me to a point that expressing myself was not enough...that sharing myself was no reward, or even that a shiny new car would not be worth my time....then i think my voice would not be worth hearing...who cares about a corrupted heart...what can metalica possibly express now...they aren't artists.... an artist would be honored to be able to make a living of of his/her work. These people have no honor.


[This message has been edited by RataToo (edited 07-30-2000).]