All this Napster crap

[Blu]

What a bunch of jerks. Who does that? First they fight for the freedom of the net. Then they go and sell that freedom. Looks like I'll be uninstalling Napster when I get home tonight. Sell-outs.

Blu

[revil]

what?

[Butch]

Let's think about this logically - the guy who created Napster did it solely so that he wouldn't have to hear his college roommate complain about the difficulty of finding MP3's. It was not started as some grand protest against the music industry.

The fact of the matter is that Napster DOES infringe upon the intellectual property rights of the artists. Napster inadvertently stumbled upon an issue of tremendous importance - how do we fairly resolve the property rights and interests of the artists, the record companies and consumers in the face of the widespread distribution capabilities and anonymity that the internet provides??

Having Napster continue to fight would not have been an optimal solution. Odds are Napster would have lost either based on principle or because the recording industry would have outspent them. Even if Napster had won, it probably would have been a pyrrhic victory because of the resources expended and more importantly because without guaranteed intellectual property rights, I'm sure we'd have seen a considerable backlash by the recording industry and artists that would hurt those of us that truly appreciate the music.

By settling and starting a strategic partnership with Bertelsmann, Napster has succeeded in something greater - they have created a SUSTAINABLE system that is ENDORSED by the industry (Or at least part of it for now). EVERYONE ends up better off as a result - including the consumer - because you had better believe that the ways of Napster from 5 months ago could not have continued. As it stands, consumers will have to pay a paltry monthly fee of $5 or so for the right to trade MP3's - yearly that's $60 - about the cost of 4-5 CD's, right?? Are you going to tell me you aren't better off now than you were before Napster existed?? Especially when the money that you pay them can go towards building an infrastructure that will enable faster and more reliable downloads for you.

It was not the original purpose of Napster to fight for the freedom of the net. But inadvertently they were forced into it and they succeeded. To think otherwise is to take an extremely short sighted and jaded view. If you just want stuff for free, then sorry . . . be pissed at them and call them sell outs . . . but I disagree.

If you're going to uninstall Napster, do it because you don't think it's worth $5 a month to trade music - but I think it's pretty worth it if you used Napster frequently.

[Grimm]

Well stated Butch.

[gwilks98]

I think there was a case like this in the past: Universal Studios vs. Sony Inc. (I think I have the companies right)
When Sony release the VCR, Universal Studios had the same complaint, that people could use VCR's to copy movies without actually paying for them. (People could also record movies off the television and cut out the comercials, whose advertisers had paid for the broadcast of the movie-but that's not the relevant point)

Universal Studios lost the case.

I think that if the lawsuit against Napster is successfull, not only will I be dissappointed in case law and judiciary precedent, but I'm also thinking about foul play and how bribery might be a factor.

It's basically the same damn case. People receiving a copy of something that they did not pay for. Why should Napster be any different?

(And I acknowledge the fact that the artists ARE getting screwed. I could give a damn about the record companies. Those bastards have been able to keep the price of a CD at $15+ for well over a decade and I think it's about time to let the laws of supply and demand drive the price down a bit.)

And that's my $.02. Please feel free to share this idea with anyone. I won't charge.
:-D

[sbp]

Its ironic that the VCR which was fought against so hard has turned out to be a major moneymaking boon for the movie studios. Many stinkers of movies go straight to rental shelf.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=464&invol=417

That $5 a month subscription service fee is only for Bertelsmann. It doesn't cover the other four major labels.
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3345604.html

[Butch]

Originally posted by gwilks98
I think there was a case like this in the past: Universal Studios vs. Sony Inc. (I think I have the companies right)
When Sony release the VCR, Universal Studios had the same complaint, that people could use VCR's to copy movies without actually paying for them. (People could also record movies off the television and cut out the comercials, whose advertisers had paid for the broadcast of the movie-but that's not the relevant point)

Universal Studios lost the case.

I think that if the lawsuit against Napster is successfull, not only will I be dissappointed in case law and judiciary precedent, but I'm also thinking about foul play and how bribery might be a factor.

It's basically the same damn case. People receiving a copy of something that they did not pay for. Why should Napster be any different?

(And I acknowledge the fact that the artists ARE getting screwed. I could give a damn about the record companies. Those bastards have been able to keep the price of a CD at $15+ for well over a decade and I think it's about time to let the laws of supply and demand drive the price down a bit.)

And that's my $.02. Please feel free to share this idea with anyone. I won't charge.
:-D




It is somewhat similar, but there is a VERY significant difference. One is only allowed to copy tapes for personal home use. It IS still illegal to give or trade a copy to anyone else. THAT is what is at issue with Napster - the ability to trade for copyrighted material that you did not pay for.

SBP - Napster has only made an agreement with Bertelsmann so far and $5 was the fee being thrown around as a likely subscription fee. Even if it is higher as a result of the agreements with other companies (Which remains to be seen), then the principle is the same . . . you just have to evaluate whether the higher cost is worth the right to trade music.

[gwilks98]

How is this different than Napster:

"And there is no precedent for imposing vicarious liability on the theory that petitioners sold the VTR's with constructive knowledge that their customers might use the equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Pp. 434-442. "

Napster was originally designed as a way to find mp3's, not pirate them.


And Butch, you are right in one respect, but Universal Studios was also worried that people would rent a copy or borrow one to dub (VCR to VCR) which IS illegal. That is how the two are alike. Napster is dubbing music, just over a longer series of wires. (The cases would be different if movie companies were getting paid royalties from VCR manufacturers)

Again, my $.02, but what the hell do I know. I'm a business student...



(One last thing: Where the HELL do you guys find these links. Anytime I may a question, or give commentary, someone finds some strange obscure link to make a point of fact. Good 'ol internet)

[Butch]

Originally posted by gwilks98

How is this different than Napster:

"And there is no precedent for imposing vicarious liability on the theory that petitioners sold the VTR's with constructive knowledge that their customers might use the equipment to make unauthorized copies of copyrighted material. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Pp. 434-442. "

Napster was originally designed as a way to find mp3's, not pirate them.


And Butch, you are right in one respect, but Universal Studios was also worried that people would rent a copy or borrow one to dub (VCR to VCR) which IS illegal. That is how the two are alike. Napster is dubbing music, just over a longer series of wires. (The cases would be different if movie companies were getting paid royalties from VCR manufacturers)

Again, my $.02, but what the hell do I know. I'm a business student...



(One last thing: Where the HELL do you guys find these links. Anytime I may a question, or give commentary, someone finds some strange obscure link to make a point of fact. Good 'ol internet)


The difference I see is that VCR's were used to create a copy, not to distribute pirated copies - which inevitably followed. Napster is solely a distribution tool for "pirated" material. In that sense, there is no "legitimate, unobjectionable purpose" for Napster. That is where I see the difference. The issue is not the creation of a copy of something for personal use, it is the distribution to people who do not own personal licenses.

For what it's worth . . . (c:

[gwilks98]

Although that is what millions of people are using it for, that is not what Shawn Flannigan (sp?) stated it was for.

The way I heard it was that it was supposed to be a tool so he could find a way to share music that he already owned copies to. I could be wrong, but that's what my B-Law teacher said.

In either case, does it really matter? Napster's going byebye.

Hello Scour and Imesh!

[giambona]

How the hell did they make enough money to stay in business this long?

[Butch]

Selling equity stakes in the company.

[quest577]

Is that really true Butch??

[pennypinch]

Originally posted by gwilks98

The way I heard it was that it was supposed to be a tool so he could find a way to share music that he already owned copies to. I could be wrong, but that's what my B-Law teacher said.


The fact that HE already owns it has nothing to do with what other people are doing with it. Ostensibly (and common sense dictates) that he'd only be looking to find music he did NOT already own. By downloading the unowned music to his hard drive, he was illegally procuring copyrighted material. It would be the equivalent of getting someone to dub a movie onto a blank tape of his, which is technically illegal. Meanwhile, sharing his music gave others access to copyrighted material that THEY did not own. He is, therefore, distributing copied movies to his friends. What you are saying makes little sense to me: Napster is a tool to share music he already owns? In that case, if all Napster users already own the same music library, why bother trading?
A very poorly written and confusing argument, but I think you get the gist.

Quest: unless all their money was given as gifts, they had to have sold equity. They sure as hell didn't borrow it!

Whatever, scour works better anyway.

[quest577]

So whats the deal....is imesh similar to Napster? If I download it will it work as well or even similar to Napster? Or is (or was) Napster one of a kind?