Is Napster Selling Out?

[Crazyace]

They are cowards. They are giving up the good fight. Charging a fee is everything they were against.

[Memo]

Yea, I think it sucks they have to charge now. But that's only cause we want our free mp3's. I guess it's the 'right' thing to do. Hate to see Napster go like that though. And they're not giving up a fight, they lost the fight. Court smacked them down.

[topane]

I wouldn't call them cowards, just hopelessly overmatched. The recording industry has the money (and with it the clout) to get its way. There's a point where fighting doesn't make sense. Napster doesn't make money, so how long can they keep paying David Boies and company's legal fees? Not long. They probably are so in debt to their lawyers, it's ridiculous. I'm sure once tons of people started using it, Napster thought they could make some cash. And why not? Especially for such a revolutionary piece of software. And I'm still not sold on Napster being the perfect means of music distribution (there's another thread around here, but I don't feel like looking for it now :)).

[TheLoneGunman]

WAIT A MINUTE!

It is *my* bandwidth they are selling, not theirs. If I was simply a mirror site and they had a main site with all the MP3s that would be different. What exactly are they providing for this fee?

[theTechLounge]

Anyone who downloads music from Napster is a FREELOADER. No matter what excuse you may come up with, what you are doing is illegal and wrong.

It's not about the record companies having big money, it's about copyright laws. It's about ownership of intellectual property.

Napster is goin' down.

Too bad FREELOADERS!!!!!

[hapoo]

I wonder who joined the forums just to say that. Napster can go down. I WILL STILL DOWNLOAD MP3'S, i've been doing long before napster, and this wont stop me.

[m0j0]

Originally posted by theTechLounge
Anyone who downloads music from Napster is a FREELOADER. No matter what excuse you may come up with, what you are doing is illegal and wrong.

It's not about the record companies having big money, it's about copyright laws. It's about ownership of intellectual property.

Napster is goin' down.

Too bad FREELOADERS!!!!!

anyone? wow. that is quite a statement.

does your closed mind help you with receptiveness?

[theTechLounge]

Wow... Why get arrogant and defensive if you aren't doing anything wrong? Closed mind? What is it closed to, stealing? Probobly.

Try making your 'witty' sentences make sense next time.

Did you guys happen to vote for Al Gore?

[hapoo]

Originally posted by theTechLounge

Did you guys happen to vote for Al Gore?


I happen to support the internet, ALL its technologies, and their inventors :P

[TheLoneGunman]

With perhaps 1 or 2 exceptions, the only stuff I have downloaded from Napster are MP3's of songs I already own (I find it easier than keeping the whole CD around when I only want 1-2 songs). I also have some stuff from the public domain (like famous speeches) and some TV Clips (I am not sure how to "buy" them but would probably do so if there was a reasonable way to do so).

Please be careful who you paint with such a broad brush.

As far as Al Gore, yes, I voted for him as did the overwhelming majority of Californians (and all Americans for that matter--lest you forget The Son of a Bush did not get the popular vote, no matter how Florida was counted)

[apmiller]

Napster serves a purpose! People want free stuff and Napster has supplied that. That doesn’t make those people free loaders! Heck you could call just about everyone in the world a free loader. We’ve all accepted free stuff from someone and some place at one time or another.

Napster’s making us pay sucks but I don’t think they sold out. They just want to keep offering the service most everyone has wanted. They want to stay in business and we still want our music.

[quest577]

I've never considered myself a person who steals or freeloads, actually much the opposite. But it will be a cold day in hell before I give a shit about downloading songs from Napster. I downloaded a ton of MP3's while they were still upand running and i would still be doing it to this day if I could. I mean, it WASN'T illegal until the courts shut them doen, until that day nobody was breaking the law. And as far as being called a freeloader, I would actually like to be refered to as a "freee-downloader"

[topane]

No matter which side you're on here, we've all got to understand that what we're dealing with is not a simple "black and white" issue here. Both sides have valid arguments, but both sides perceive things a little differently. Napster is a great tool for any band wishing to get its music out there, but doesn't have a major recording deal. It sucks for the songwriter who makes royalties only on record sales. It's good for finding rare or unreleased music which never found its way onto a record. It's bad for artists who put out a record with one good song and no one want to buy the album, but downloads the good tune.
The reason that CDs cost so much is because of all the hands involved in bringing it to the store shelf. I believe a CD only costs a buck or two to make, packaging and all. The rest of the markup is the store who needs to pay its rent and employees, the company who ships it there, etc. It's no different than buying a box of Captain Crunch at the local store with advertising, middle men, store employees salaries all built into the cost of the product.
The RIAA may be a bunch of rich suits with way too much money, but they are defending their business model. However, that model is now showing its age with all the new technologies which have come out.
I have a couple of questions for everyone: If you're pro-napster, how do you feel about copying music or software cds for people (or from them)? Do you feel as though people are suffering because of you?
For you anti-napster folks: Why do you feel people are hurting because of napster? Have you ever taped a song off the radio before?

We all have opinions and feel strongly about them, but let's at least stop the name-calling and try and act like thinking human beings.

[helius]

Originally posted by quest577 I mean, it WASN'T illegal until the courts shut them doen, until that day nobody was breaking the law. And as far as being called a freeloader, I would actually like to be refered to as a "freee-downloader" [/B]

Uh... no. What the courts decided was that Napster was helping people break the law.

If you have copyrighted works (and not compensated the copyright holder in some way), you're breaking the law. Granted, individuals are almost never prosecuted for "bootlegging" music albums, but that doesn't make it legal.

[quest577]

[quote]Uh... no. What the courts decided was that Napster was helping people
break the law[quote]

Uh....that's exactly what I referring to

[TheLoneGunman]

Explain this to me:

Why does a smaller, easier to handle and containing cheaper media, DVD cost much more than the exact same VHS video?

Why does a CD which is also smaller, easier to handle and made of cheaper materials than a cassette tape cost much more than the exact same cassette tape?

It has got to be greed.

[m0j0]

Originally posted by theTechLounge
Wow... Why get arrogant and defensive if you aren't doing anything wrong? Closed mind? What is it closed to, stealing? Probobly.

Try making your 'witty' sentences make sense next time.

Did you guys happen to vote for Al Gore?



who is arrogant? you don't even know what i am doing. maybe i use, maybe i don't. it's your closed mind that prevents you from seeing that i responded to a blatant attack. and your lack of vision prompts you to make silly remarks, comments, and blanket statements.

[helius]

Originally posted by quest577



Uh... no. What the courts decided was that Napster was helping people
break the law

Uh....that's exactly what I referring to




Let's try again (Bold-faced emphasis mine):


Originally posted by quest577 I mean, it WASN'T illegal until the courts shut them doen, until that day nobody was breaking the law.

Everyone who was using Napster to get files without compensating the copyright holders was breaking the law. It was always illegal. The monetary penalty for each incident is somewhere in the tens of thousands (US$), I believe. (It's been a while since I read up on those things, and I'm too lazy to check :heh: )

As for your original post... Yes, you're in effect "stealing" or "freeloading" by not paying for any downloads you make (depending on whether you'd pay for the stuff via the traditional outlets if they weren't available "for free").

I don't like what the RIAA has done, or what it is doing, but that doesn't make it any more "right", morally or legally.

[Edited by helius on 04-06-2001 at 03:23 PM]

[hapoo]

Whats with all the flaming?? So what? I AM A FREELOADER (after all we ARE on a deals site :)) Obviously I don't mind downloading songs...thats why i do it. You can call me whatever you wish but in the end of the night i have no trouble sleeping (while listening to the music i downloaded of coarse).

[theTechLounge]

Originally posted by hapoo

I happen to support the internet, ALL its technologies, and their inventors :P

Oh ya, that's right...Al Gore invented the Internet. How could I forget.

What we are dealing with is very "BLACK and WHITE". There is no valid argument when it comes to stealing someone elses property.

Say I write a program, copyright it, then sell it. But instead of you buying it, you burn a copy from someone who already has the program. Is that stealing?

Why don't these bands/artists just start having free concerts and give away all of their CDs for free? Isn't that what you want?

Because someone feels that the CD costs to much, and since it only takes a buck or two to make a CD, the band/artist should work their ass off and not reap any benefits because you think you are entitled to their music for free?

Very "BLACK and WHITE" issue. There is absolutely no justification.

[m0j0]

Originally posted by theTechLounge


Oh ya, that's right...Al Gore invented the Internet. How could I forget.

What we are dealing with is very "BLACK and WHITE". There is no valid argument when it comes to stealing someone elses property.

Say I write a program, copyright it, then sell it. But instead of you buying it, you burn a copy from someone who already has the program. Is that stealing?

Why don't these bands/artists just start having free concerts and give away all of their CDs for free? Isn't that what you want?

Because someone feels that the CD costs to much, and since it only takes a buck or two to make a CD, the band/artist should work their ass off and not reap any benefits because you think you are entitled to their music for free?

Very "BLACK and WHITE" issue. There is absolutely no justification.


why don't you just say that you are not receptive to the reasoning of those that oppose your opinion and move on?

[StonedWheat]

Originally posted by topane
No matter which side you're on here, we've all got to understand that what we're dealing with is not a simple "black and white" issue here. Both sides have valid arguments, but both sides perceive things a little differently. Napster is a great tool for any band wishing to get its music out there, but doesn't have a major recording deal. It sucks for the songwriter who makes royalties only on record sales. It's good for finding rare or unreleased music which never found its way onto a record. It's bad for artists who put out a record with one good song and no one want to buy the album, but downloads the good tune.
The reason that CDs cost so much is because of all the hands involved in bringing it to the store shelf. I believe a CD only costs a buck or two to make, packaging and all. The rest of the markup is the store who needs to pay its rent and employees, the company who ships it there, etc. It's no different than buying a box of Captain Crunch at the local store with advertising, middle men, store employees salaries all built into the cost of the product.
The RIAA may be a bunch of rich suits with way too much money, but they are defending their business model. However, that model is now showing its age with all the new technologies which have come out.
I have a couple of questions for everyone: If you're pro-napster, how do you feel about copying music or software cds for people (or from them)? Do you feel as though people are suffering because of you?
For you anti-napster folks: Why do you feel people are hurting because of napster? Have you ever taped a song off the radio before?

We all have opinions and feel strongly about them, but let's at least stop the name-calling and try and act like thinking human beings.

Preach on topane. Napster trying to make money? What the fuck? Who in there right mind would try to make money? :rolleyes: Ok to answer your question, (pro napster) I don't feel that people are suffering, because last year in napster's height, the record sales actually went UP. Because of all the work that goes into making a CD (packaging mostly) I don't mind paying for a completely packaged product that I really like. It's just nicer to have something packaged than to simply burn it on a cd. And plus, I can definitely tell the diffrerence between an mp3 and cd quality. Bass dosen't seem as strong, highs don't seem as sweet. For an album that I REALLY like, I would pay for it for sure, even if I downloaded it off of napster first. Hmm somehow I think I'm the minority here.

[helius]

Originally posted by hapoo
Whats with all the flaming?? So what? I AM A FREELOADER (after all we ARE on a deals site :)) Obviously I don't mind downloading songs...thats why i do it. You can call me whatever you wish but in the end of the night i have no trouble sleeping (while listening to the music i downloaded of coarse).

Hrm... I suppose I might have sounded like I was flaming quest577. Oh well. :heh:

I don't really care if you download stuff for free using Napster. But know what you're really doing, and don't go around proclaiming that "you're not doing anything wrong". ;)

[eSDee]

Music has been around for thousands of years. Copyright laws have been around how long? Aren't we are really arguing here is if the American capitalist idea of everyone getting paid outweighs the idea that music is for everyone, is an intrinsic(sp?) part of many of our cultures, and never cost any money before? I mean, music is a way of expression, saying something that we want other to hear, so why charge them for listening?
I do think that if someone is downloading songs, burning them, and then selling them then they should be prosecuted. I'm not even going to try an figure out a way to do that, but what I am saying is that the internet is all about communication. Communication is what makes the internet a wonderful thing. Music is the most effective way of communicating, so if you start charging people for this then you are putting a price on communication. I fear this could lead to everything on the internet having a price tag, thereby destroying not only the web, but all that makes the web a beautiful thing.
That probably makes no sense, but I don't give a rats ass. Napster rules, Metallica sucks. That's the way it is no matter what you think, and God told me that so THERE!!


Ok maybe not. Oh and once again I will mention that if you have posted here before, and then changed your name just to post a controversial reply, then you are not only a dumbass, but a coward as well.

[topane]

Originally posted by EsDeeLoco
Napster rules, Metallica sucks. That's the way it is no matter what you think, and God told me that so THERE!!:laugh: Does anyone else think it's odd that Metallica, who has already made a bazillion dollars, is so anti-napster and (most of) the artists who support it are not as popular and probably don't have as much cash: Radiohead, the Offspring, Foo Fighters, etc.
Originally posted by StonedWheat
Preach on topaneSorry, I get like that sometimes ;)--must have been one of those days.

[Crazyace]

That is a bit odd. I didn't understand that myself. It's because Metallica has lost it's roots. They dont remember what it was like. They are rich yuppies now. The bands with no money are still rockers man. They get up in the morning, rock all day long, drink beer, and get chicks. It's still al about the rock n roll. They remember when they didnt have a nickle for the bubble gum machine. They still remember that the music is what matters.

[Memo]

Damn techlounge, you are the arrogant bastard out of all of us and you can't even spell correctly. Breaking the law.....man, we download some stupid mp3s! Are you one of those people that doesn't cross the street when it says "DON'T WALK!" eventhough there is no cars around because it is JayWalking? I'll save my comments on George W. as to not turn this into a political thread.

[m0j0]

that is one of the reasons behind my thread about ppl who judge http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=21941 . some ppl just wanna tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

personally, i buy albums that i think are worth it.

[OC]

They say that Napster is allowing people to break the law. Well, the manufacturers of blank audio and video tapes allow people to do the same thing. Are they held accountable for copyright violation? No. But this is the digital age and the rules have changed. The record companies refuse to accept the march of time and update the way they do business. Question: If I download an MP3 of an old 12" single (remember those?) that someone else recorded from their record player into their computer AND I still own that old 12" single, have I broken the law?

To Metallica and others I would say this: most of you have already made a lot of money, and your fans wouldn't be downloading your songs if they didn't like them. To say that someone has to pay for the priveledge of listening to your music is a slap in the face to those that made you famous, and I won't be one to support that attitude.

The technology exists today to provide what the record companies want: secure digital music. But now they can't get past their own greed to agree on a standard.

And can someone give a reason (besides greed) that cheap-to-manufacture CDs and DVDs cost more than their costlier-to-assemble analog counterparts? Here's another: Movies cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Albums, maybe a couple mil. Why then are (new, not bargain) CDs and DVDs priced so similarly?

-OC

[helius]

Originally posted by overclocked
They say that Napster is allowing people to break the law. Well, the manufacturers of blank audio and video tapes allow people to do the same thing. Are they held accountable for copyright violation? No.

If I remember correctly, Canada has a special tax on CDRs just because of the piracy thing. It's rather silly, but to say that these things don't exist is just as silly.

The fact of the matter is, they've monitored users of Napster and determined that quite a few people were in fact "pirating music". Also add to that the fact that digital copies are identical, you can see why they've got their panties in a big collective bunch.

If they had similar studies/data on audio/video tapes, you can bet your ass that they'd add the special tax onto those things as well.

[helius]

Originally posted by overclocked
And can someone give a reason (besides greed) that cheap-to-manufacture CDs and DVDs cost more than their costlier-to-assemble analog counterparts? Here's another: Movies cost tens of millions of dollars to make. Albums, maybe a couple mil. Why then are (new, not bargain) CDs and DVDs priced so similarly?

Sure. Digital media such as CDs and DVDs afford much better playback quality compared to, say audio and video tapes.

In a (somewhat) free market, demand has quite a bit of impact on actual price of things, more so than the cost-to-produce for many things. If you want to blame someone, blame the customers for putting up with all this.

[OC]

Originally posted by helius
[QUOTE]If you want to blame someone, blame the customers for putting up with all this.

Actually, it's us customers that are using Napster to avoid paying these high prices. Face it, before Napster we had to put up with high prices because we had no acceptable alternatives. If we had stopped buying CDs then we wouldn't have been able to enjoy the music we like. The music industry had us right where they wanted us.

Personally, if I only had to pay $5 or so for a (non-bargain bin) CD instead of the usual $14-20, I would have said "so what" to Napster, and I suspect a lot of other people would have too. The music industry has become its own worst enemy.

-OC

[helius]

Originally posted by overclocked

Originally posted by helius
[QUOTE]If you want to blame someone, blame the customers for putting up with all this.

Actually, it's us customers that are using Napster to avoid paying these high prices. Face it, before Napster we had to put up with high prices because we had no acceptable alternatives. If we had stopped buying CDs then we wouldn't have been able to enjoy the music we like. The music industry had us right where they wanted us.

Personally, if I only had to pay $5 or so for a (non-bargain bin) CD instead of the usual $14-20, I would have said "so what" to Napster, and I suspect a lot of other people would have too. The music industry has become its own worst enemy.

-OC

That's my point. Even without mp3s, you don't have to "put up" with the high prices. Music isn't exactly a necessity. If consumers as a whole are not even willing to do without it for a while to protest unfair pricing... well... they deserve what they get.

If enough people grumbled loudly about the prices of CDs/cassettes, maybe they would've lowered the retail prices.

[ZrEo0]

screw napster, get audiogalaxy
http://www.audiogalaxy.com