Napster
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
i'm not 100% on this, but i believe there is a tax on blank cassettes in the US that goes directly to the record companies to cover home taping losses. also, i believe there is a similar tax in canada on blank "audio" CD-R's (no tax on "data" CD-R's). your comment about 2 good songs for $15 is exactly what the record companies are worried about. if people can get those 2 songs from napster, then they might not buy the CD. how would you feel if Napster was set up to trade copyrighted software - the same software that i assume most of are working on for our salaries? -c http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
i'm not 100% on this, but i believe there is a tax on blank cassettes in the US that goes directly to the record companies to cover home taping losses. also, i believe there is a similar tax in canada on blank "audio" CD-R's (no tax on "data" CD-R's). your comment about 2 good songs for $15 is exactly what the record companies are worried about. if people can get those 2 songs from napster, then they might not buy the CD. how would you feel if Napster was set up to trade copyrighted software - the same software that i assume most of are working on for our salaries? -c http://www.smalleranimals.com
This Napster thing is BS! The only ones who are crying are the established artist who became who they are through boot legged tapes! ie, Metallica. The reason why the "older" generation is so against this is beacuse as an artist you really start making money on your third album, otherwise the record company gets most of the revenues. The public tired of paying 15-20 bucks for a CD with only one or two good songs on it. This just forces the artist to write better "fillers" for the album. The bottom line is that if you really like the artist you'll will buy the CD. The music industry is just like another other industry where they don't really "work" (hollywood, sport athletes, etc) filled with a bunch of cry babies when then cheque is missing a zero. Jake
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
This is going to be a tough battle for the publishers I think. Lets face it, there really isn't a big barrier to entry to the technology behind Napster, so as soon as Napster is shut down I'd expect a few dozen alternatives to pop up. Although I doubt it will actually happen, I think it would likely be in the Music industry's best interest to leave the millions of Napster users where they are, maybe charge a minimal fee $5-$10 dollars a month, and also add the ability for the music listeners to easily order a copy of the CD for themselves, including the CD insert, jewel case etc. Trying to stop this form of piracy will be virtually impossible, I think. David
-
This Napster thing is BS! The only ones who are crying are the established artist who became who they are through boot legged tapes! ie, Metallica. The reason why the "older" generation is so against this is beacuse as an artist you really start making money on your third album, otherwise the record company gets most of the revenues. The public tired of paying 15-20 bucks for a CD with only one or two good songs on it. This just forces the artist to write better "fillers" for the album. The bottom line is that if you really like the artist you'll will buy the CD. The music industry is just like another other industry where they don't really "work" (hollywood, sport athletes, etc) filled with a bunch of cry babies when then cheque is missing a zero. Jake
No jake, don't hold back... Tell us how you really feel ;P
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
I did the same thing in the 80's ( only it was metal songs off RRR ), but while I don't know about cassette decks, I believe an attempt was made to stop VCRs when they came out. The difference is pretty simple really. It's the difference between waiting for a song, hoping you catch the start, hoping the DJ shuts up at the end, buying expensive blank tapes and demagnetisers to hope to get close to the quality of a bought one, etc., and just browsing a list whenever you want. Also, record companies get paid when a song gets played on the radio. My opinion ? The Napster debate is a joke because it seems to pretend downloading files from other Internet users is a new and unique idea. I collect mp3's of long out of print 80's hair bands ( OK, don't feel the need to ridicule me, I get enough in the office ) and I rarely use Napster, mirc is much better. No-one is going to pay to download mp3's, to quote someone talking about this in a different forum, free music, like free love, loses it's appeal when you need to pay up front. The record companies should accept Napsters 1 billion $$$ offer - it will bury them, because they won't find the users to pay it, let alone make a profit. Right or wrong, people want to get stuff for free, and they will, be it songs or software. In that sense, the issue cuts a little closer to us than most people. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
This Napster thing is BS! The only ones who are crying are the established artist who became who they are through boot legged tapes! ie, Metallica. The reason why the "older" generation is so against this is beacuse as an artist you really start making money on your third album, otherwise the record company gets most of the revenues. The public tired of paying 15-20 bucks for a CD with only one or two good songs on it. This just forces the artist to write better "fillers" for the album. The bottom line is that if you really like the artist you'll will buy the CD. The music industry is just like another other industry where they don't really "work" (hollywood, sport athletes, etc) filled with a bunch of cry babies when then cheque is missing a zero. Jake
Metallica still condones and encourages the wide spread of bootleg tapes. They just don't like the spread of their studio albums. Have you any idea how much money they spend on studio time? Metallica is one of those bands that spends 7-12 months in the studio for an album, paying millions in studio fees. Lars is also partially right. If something is not done now by those that are knowledgeable about the issues, it's going to get decided by judges who don't know about them. The next decade is going to be big on digital music, and the rules have to be layed out now. I don't completely agree with him, but he does have a right to protect their investment in studio time. Concerts pay for themselves, thus bootlegs of concerts are no big deal.
-
This Napster thing is BS! The only ones who are crying are the established artist who became who they are through boot legged tapes! ie, Metallica. The reason why the "older" generation is so against this is beacuse as an artist you really start making money on your third album, otherwise the record company gets most of the revenues. The public tired of paying 15-20 bucks for a CD with only one or two good songs on it. This just forces the artist to write better "fillers" for the album. The bottom line is that if you really like the artist you'll will buy the CD. The music industry is just like another other industry where they don't really "work" (hollywood, sport athletes, etc) filled with a bunch of cry babies when then cheque is missing a zero. Jake
The music industry is full of people who don't really work ? Based on what ? How many do you know, or is this just an opinion that helps justify Napster ??? The problem is that industries like this make money by providing a conduit - a way for the artists recordings to get to us. The Internet obvioulsy threatens that, but the fact that they are middle men does not make them leeches, or people who do not work. Having said that, I think public opinion would be different if music was not so overpriced ( $30 per album here in Australia ) But it is the artists who decide how much effort goes into all the songs, and just because you think a song is filler does not mean the artist intended it that way. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
I did the same thing in the 80's ( only it was metal songs off RRR ), but while I don't know about cassette decks, I believe an attempt was made to stop VCRs when they came out. The difference is pretty simple really. It's the difference between waiting for a song, hoping you catch the start, hoping the DJ shuts up at the end, buying expensive blank tapes and demagnetisers to hope to get close to the quality of a bought one, etc., and just browsing a list whenever you want. Also, record companies get paid when a song gets played on the radio. My opinion ? The Napster debate is a joke because it seems to pretend downloading files from other Internet users is a new and unique idea. I collect mp3's of long out of print 80's hair bands ( OK, don't feel the need to ridicule me, I get enough in the office ) and I rarely use Napster, mirc is much better. No-one is going to pay to download mp3's, to quote someone talking about this in a different forum, free music, like free love, loses it's appeal when you need to pay up front. The record companies should accept Napsters 1 billion $$$ offer - it will bury them, because they won't find the users to pay it, let alone make a profit. Right or wrong, people want to get stuff for free, and they will, be it songs or software. In that sense, the issue cuts a little closer to us than most people. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
... waiting for a song, hoping you catch the start, hoping the DJ shuts up at the end, buying expensive blank tapes and demagnetisers to hope to get close to the quality of a bought one :) How true, especially the part about the annoying DJ! On the other hand Top-40 stations repeat the same songs every hour so you don't typically have to wait a lot for a particular song. ... just browsing a list whenever you want I wish! Since I have a misley 56K connection at home, each song takes between 10 and 15 minutes to download when it's transferring at optimum speed (from a T1). During that time, I pray that the guy on the other side doesn't kick me out or start downloading 10 more songs. Then, when I finally get the song, I play it to see that it's complete AND sounds good (which happens about 60% of the time). When it's not, guess what? Start over! I can see how a lot of people like me, who want the complete song and in good quality, would just give up, jump on their cars, and just buy the freaking CD at the store. Also, record companies get paid when a song gets played on the radio. Are you sure about this?? This is certainly news to me. I always thought radio stations got promotional copies of the music and that record companies would be happy to have them played just so they could give the songs/artists exposure -- free marketing, basically. I had no idea that radio stations had to actually pay to play. mirc is much better I've never heard of mirc. Why is it better than Napster? Where can I get it from? Thanks, Alvaro
-
Metallica still condones and encourages the wide spread of bootleg tapes. They just don't like the spread of their studio albums. Have you any idea how much money they spend on studio time? Metallica is one of those bands that spends 7-12 months in the studio for an album, paying millions in studio fees. Lars is also partially right. If something is not done now by those that are knowledgeable about the issues, it's going to get decided by judges who don't know about them. The next decade is going to be big on digital music, and the rules have to be layed out now. I don't completely agree with him, but he does have a right to protect their investment in studio time. Concerts pay for themselves, thus bootlegs of concerts are no big deal.
I think you're kind of right. The problem with Lars is that people like me stood by him when his band was unheard of ( I LIVED in a Master of Puppets T-shirt, for goodness sake ), and now his position is basically "I'm rich, but if you copy my songs, I don't want you as a fan'. I don't object to his stance so much as the way it's presented. I foresee that the impossibility of protecting copyright in the digital age will mean artists will more rely on tours than album sales to generate revenue, which is poor news for their early retirement plans ( no work, no pay, no real residual income, although the Black album currently goes Gold annually ) and worse news for the record companies ( although they continue to make record profits ) I agree buyable downloads are a good solution, but like software, which can also be registered online, most users will first look to see if they can get it for free from a site of the Long John Silver variety. In any case, this still hurts the CD stores, so no matter which way you look, the Net is breaking down barriers and undermining traditional ways of doing business to the detriment of those with an investment in the old way of doing things. Don't misunderstand me, people will continue to buy CD's for now, but how far away is the PC that is also the home entertainment system ? My PC provides the music in my house AND plays the DVD's. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
... waiting for a song, hoping you catch the start, hoping the DJ shuts up at the end, buying expensive blank tapes and demagnetisers to hope to get close to the quality of a bought one :) How true, especially the part about the annoying DJ! On the other hand Top-40 stations repeat the same songs every hour so you don't typically have to wait a lot for a particular song. ... just browsing a list whenever you want I wish! Since I have a misley 56K connection at home, each song takes between 10 and 15 minutes to download when it's transferring at optimum speed (from a T1). During that time, I pray that the guy on the other side doesn't kick me out or start downloading 10 more songs. Then, when I finally get the song, I play it to see that it's complete AND sounds good (which happens about 60% of the time). When it's not, guess what? Start over! I can see how a lot of people like me, who want the complete song and in good quality, would just give up, jump on their cars, and just buy the freaking CD at the store. Also, record companies get paid when a song gets played on the radio. Are you sure about this?? This is certainly news to me. I always thought radio stations got promotional copies of the music and that record companies would be happy to have them played just so they could give the songs/artists exposure -- free marketing, basically. I had no idea that radio stations had to actually pay to play. mirc is much better I've never heard of mirc. Why is it better than Napster? Where can I get it from? Thanks, Alvaro
Well, public radio had a few metal stations, so unless it was the new Iron Maiden, chances were a song would be played once, and once only. If I use a nap client, I use WinMX on the basis I can preview the song as it comes down AND resume the download from that user or someone else if it fails. Yes, Deep Purple each make over a million dollars a year from Smoke On The Water. I don't know if the actual record label gets a share, now that you mention it. They give away promo copies to get the ball rolling, but radio stations certainly pay to play. Public venues also pay copyright fees - our church has to pay for the right for us to sing the songs we sing on a Sunday. mirc is a chat client ( www.mirc.com ) and it is better because it is a community, you join a channel devoted to the same things as you ( #hardrock&metalmp3 for me ). meet people, talk about things, get to know people ( not the naptser 'oh cool, that's a good song' and that's it ) and, of course, resumable downloads. To use it this way you need to get a file serving script as well. I think you'd probably prefer www.winmx.com. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
... waiting for a song, hoping you catch the start, hoping the DJ shuts up at the end, buying expensive blank tapes and demagnetisers to hope to get close to the quality of a bought one :) How true, especially the part about the annoying DJ! On the other hand Top-40 stations repeat the same songs every hour so you don't typically have to wait a lot for a particular song. ... just browsing a list whenever you want I wish! Since I have a misley 56K connection at home, each song takes between 10 and 15 minutes to download when it's transferring at optimum speed (from a T1). During that time, I pray that the guy on the other side doesn't kick me out or start downloading 10 more songs. Then, when I finally get the song, I play it to see that it's complete AND sounds good (which happens about 60% of the time). When it's not, guess what? Start over! I can see how a lot of people like me, who want the complete song and in good quality, would just give up, jump on their cars, and just buy the freaking CD at the store. Also, record companies get paid when a song gets played on the radio. Are you sure about this?? This is certainly news to me. I always thought radio stations got promotional copies of the music and that record companies would be happy to have them played just so they could give the songs/artists exposure -- free marketing, basically. I had no idea that radio stations had to actually pay to play. mirc is much better I've never heard of mirc. Why is it better than Napster? Where can I get it from? Thanks, Alvaro
I think the radio stations pay something like $.06 a song to play them (and that might vary by transmitter power and other factors), but my facts are at least 15 years out of date ... David
-
The music industry is full of people who don't really work ? Based on what ? How many do you know, or is this just an opinion that helps justify Napster ??? The problem is that industries like this make money by providing a conduit - a way for the artists recordings to get to us. The Internet obvioulsy threatens that, but the fact that they are middle men does not make them leeches, or people who do not work. Having said that, I think public opinion would be different if music was not so overpriced ( $30 per album here in Australia ) But it is the artists who decide how much effort goes into all the songs, and just because you think a song is filler does not mean the artist intended it that way. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
I have friends in bands, they do not work. They buy drugs and write it off as a business expense *to help their creative writing* ;P sounds like work to me. I totally support Napster! This is the ultimate marketing tool for new artist. You can write one song and like the Harry Potter craze have everyone want to hear it with no advertisement! Bands like the Bare Naked Ladies used Napster to help promote new albums by intentionally leaking out new songs, and then cutting them off in the middle with their ad, "Tricked you, thought this was a bootlegged version?! Our new album is coming out XXX." All Napster does is allow free music to be passed. Some cases it helps increase an album sale. All this is saying is that musicians better write decent songs if they want to sell their albums. jake
-
I have friends in bands, they do not work. They buy drugs and write it off as a business expense *to help their creative writing* ;P sounds like work to me. I totally support Napster! This is the ultimate marketing tool for new artist. You can write one song and like the Harry Potter craze have everyone want to hear it with no advertisement! Bands like the Bare Naked Ladies used Napster to help promote new albums by intentionally leaking out new songs, and then cutting them off in the middle with their ad, "Tricked you, thought this was a bootlegged version?! Our new album is coming out XXX." All Napster does is allow free music to be passed. Some cases it helps increase an album sale. All this is saying is that musicians better write decent songs if they want to sell their albums. jake
If you read my post again, you'll realise that by people in the music industry I meant people other than those wo make the music. As to your friends, do they make money ? Do they support themselves ? Being in a band and dropping out of the workforce is definately not the same as being a professional musician. Sure, it would be a lot of fun, but I doubt that touring fails to turn into a job, albiet a fun one. How about not being able to have a bad day and show it, lest people who only meet you that one day tell the world you are a jerk and your sales plummet ? You're saying the majority of Napster users go out and buy albums if the songs they download are good ? I agree that a tool like Napster is great for bands trying to get heard, but the argument that it causes people to buy CD's is not borne out by any logical thought process. Christian The content of this post is not necessarily the opinion of my yadda yadda yadda. To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion.
-
I think the radio stations pay something like $.06 a song to play them (and that might vary by transmitter power and other factors), but my facts are at least 15 years out of date ... David
Radio definitely still pays (here in Australia) for songs. And Telstra (phone company) recently lost a court case in which they claimed they were not liable to pay royalties on songs that customers played as 'wait' music over phone systems. The court ruled that Telstra was liable, so they now pay a royalty to APRA (the Australian Performing Rights Association) for any song that a Telstra customer chooses to play while you hang around waiting for customer service. And I once got my cheque for $36 for my yearly APRA royalty payments - we were a big selling band that year!!
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
The reason this issue seems complex is that people are constantly mixing two very similar but different issues into one. There are two sets of 'rights' that Napster interfers with - the rights of the artist to decide what happens to their music, and the rights of the record industry to conduct their legal business. Most people in favour of Napster probably just want something for nothing - it goes no deeper than that. For those that try to offer a rationale for their support of Napster, it's almost always based upon a variation of the argument that the "record Industry" is corrupt/immoral/greedy, and therefore it's the morally correct thing to do to oppose it at every turn. "They rip us off, so why not rip them off?" appears to be the underlying philosophy. I may even agree with this - I'm not sure, and it probably depends how much I like the last CD I bought! However, I have yet to hear a 'pro-Napster' argument the relates to the artist's rights, I can't see any argument that can resolve how to give the artist the control of thier material, and allow free digital copying at the whim of the end users. When I take a song from Napster, I remove the Artist's choice. At some stage, I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the 'pro-Napster' camp if they are to truely try and suggest this 'free music' concept is NOT fundamentally about stealing. At the moment, the Artist generally sells/transfers the rights to material to a record company for money, then the record company sells the material to customers. If the "Free music" philosphy takes away the record company's ability to make money (and no, I don't believe Napster curently does that - but then Napster is only the 'thin edge of the wedge'), then the Record company will cease to exist. This does not seem to worry 'Napster' supporters (if fact, it probably makes them happy!). But once that has been achieved, how does the artist control the rights, and make their money?
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
The advent of technology has make this a fuzzy area. You buy a music CD. 1. You can listen to it 2. You can loan it to a friend to listen to 3. You can make a tape, and listen to the tape 4. you can loan the tape to a friend 5. you can give the tape to a friend 6. you can make a CD copy 7. You can listen to the CD copy 8. you can loan the CD copy to a friend 9. you can give the CD copy to a friend ... One good question is where is the line that separates fair/legal use from unfair/illegal? The Napster case is basically an extension of the above. In almost all cases, no money ever changes hands. Ed Dixon
-
I'd like to hear people's opinion on the Napster issue. I personally think Napster is very much the same as recording songs off the radio onto blank cassette tapes. Back in the 80s, that's how I'd get a hold of all the Top-40 songs I liked. And I never heard of companies wanting to ban stereo systems with built-in cassette decks, or anything like that. I just don't see what the difference is now. I mean, it's not like I'm downloading music, burning CDs with it, and then selling them at the local flea-market. It's just for personal use, and I'm willing to bet that most people who use Napster download the songs for their personal enjoyment. Now Napster wants to begin charging for their service. I don't see a problem with it if (a) the charge is kept low and (b) the record companies can get off Napster's back. Paying 10 bucks a month for unlimitted downloads is to me a better alternative than: 1. Using some underground Napster clone -- since it's has a lot less users, there's a much smaller chance of finding the songs I want, or 2. Buying the music at a store or online -- Ouch! Paying $15 for a CD with only one or two good songs in it. Opinions??? Alvaro
This whole thing is coming out of the Record Industry as a whole saying that napster is causing them to lose money. I once saw a survey back when this whole thing was getting started that showed that napsters user base were still the main money making market for these record labels. Some of us buying up to like 4 CDs a month... sometimes more. That takes into account there use of napster. By pushing the demise of napster that Record Industry takes a chance of alienating (sp?) a large portion of the people who yeild them the most money. It would be interesting to see how well their profits fair if napster is completely shutdown... Will a lot of people be so mad that they boycott buying CDs all together and just use the clones of napster that will most certainly arise. Joseph Dempsey jdempsey@cox.rr.com Joseph.Dempsey@thermobio.com "Software Engineering is a race between the programmers, trying to make bigger and better fool-proof software, and the universe trying to make bigger fools. So far the Universe in winning." --anonymous
-
This is going to be a tough battle for the publishers I think. Lets face it, there really isn't a big barrier to entry to the technology behind Napster, so as soon as Napster is shut down I'd expect a few dozen alternatives to pop up. Although I doubt it will actually happen, I think it would likely be in the Music industry's best interest to leave the millions of Napster users where they are, maybe charge a minimal fee $5-$10 dollars a month, and also add the ability for the music listeners to easily order a copy of the CD for themselves, including the CD insert, jewel case etc. Trying to stop this form of piracy will be virtually impossible, I think. David
-
i'm not 100% on this, but i believe there is a tax on blank cassettes in the US that goes directly to the record companies to cover home taping losses. also, i believe there is a similar tax in canada on blank "audio" CD-R's (no tax on "data" CD-R's). your comment about 2 good songs for $15 is exactly what the record companies are worried about. if people can get those 2 songs from napster, then they might not buy the CD. how would you feel if Napster was set up to trade copyrighted software - the same software that i assume most of are working on for our salaries? -c http://www.smalleranimals.com
totally agree and would like to add ... the copying of music from radio/album/cd onto cassette is ok for the record companies as the quality degrades after a single copy from a copy ... with digital it never does so there would be no incentive to buy anything and shazam ... no record companies bunch of vultures that they are they do need to make a living too as do the artists who make the music ... they just need to sort out a business model that allows for digital distribution whilst maintaining reasonable profits ... if $10 a month is cool with them i'd pay it no problem for the convenience personally i think $1 per song would be better and easier to understand and would probably get as much money as selling 10 songs (on a cd) for $10 as a lot more people would pay for one song than would buy 10 songs where 7 were rather iffy :suss: "every year we invent better idiot proof systems and every year they invent better idiots"