Bye bye Napster
Thursday, September 5, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
So Napster appears to be about to move from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 liquidation.
During the ealry days of our news group, Napster was a pretty hot topic as people debated their business model, business ethics, and the record industry ethics.
I'm on fan of the record industry but I think many of us who are in the business of CREATING intellectual property can breath a sigh of relief to see that Napster died. Part of the reason for that (a big reason) was the very idea that people could get rich by allowing others to pilfer the work of others.
Early Object Desktop users may recall the discussion of Object Recommendation, which preceded Napster by a year. This component allowed users to select folders on their hard drive as well as links on the net" to "recommend" to others. These files were then available as part of a global file database. Why did we kill it? Because we couldn't figure out how to prevent people from using it to pirate software and music. An ethical dilema that Shawn Fanning apparently did not worry about when he whipped up Napster in MFC a year later and went on to win various "technology of the year awards" to the dismay of software develoeprs everywhere who had been discussing peer file networks for years but were prevented from creating open ones due to moral/ethics issues involved.
So while there is definitely a bit of a sour grapes feeling among some of us that someone could gain international fame as a "brilliant" software developer simply by having no moral qualms over IP theft, at least in the end there seems to be justice - that you can't necessarily make a long term business out of creating things designed mainly so that others to steal the work of others easily.
(flame away)
During the ealry days of our news group, Napster was a pretty hot topic as people debated their business model, business ethics, and the record industry ethics.
I'm on fan of the record industry but I think many of us who are in the business of CREATING intellectual property can breath a sigh of relief to see that Napster died. Part of the reason for that (a big reason) was the very idea that people could get rich by allowing others to pilfer the work of others.
Early Object Desktop users may recall the discussion of Object Recommendation, which preceded Napster by a year. This component allowed users to select folders on their hard drive as well as links on the net" to "recommend" to others. These files were then available as part of a global file database. Why did we kill it? Because we couldn't figure out how to prevent people from using it to pirate software and music. An ethical dilema that Shawn Fanning apparently did not worry about when he whipped up Napster in MFC a year later and went on to win various "technology of the year awards" to the dismay of software develoeprs everywhere who had been discussing peer file networks for years but were prevented from creating open ones due to moral/ethics issues involved.
So while there is definitely a bit of a sour grapes feeling among some of us that someone could gain international fame as a "brilliant" software developer simply by having no moral qualms over IP theft, at least in the end there seems to be justice - that you can't necessarily make a long term business out of creating things designed mainly so that others to steal the work of others easily.
(flame away)
 |
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
c242
Reply #22 Friday, September 6, 2002 6:06 AM
Reply #22 Friday, September 6, 2002 6:06 AM
Hmm , I used to do DJ'ing regulary every week so I maybe a little different on that matter. And the whole 'independent' sector is quite different but : For me filesharing had positive aspects if I wanted to listen to something new. I never downloaded anything without buying the cd afterwards or deleting the crap I downloaded... And also the record labels in my direction (mainly electronic music / Industrial / Harsh Noise / Dark Techno) are on a right path compared to the big players : They offer something special with many cd's like a special cover or goodies like stickers and so on, so that it is not only the music You buy, but a 'skinned' nice product. Some of them are so beautifully done, that I have them standing in my shelves to look at them. Just my personal view on that matter. And : The big record labels shouldn't whine about their losses, sure it is file-sharing, that does some harm to them, but in my mind it's all the crap, that they press on CD also... Some people don't want to buy a cd of a band, noone remembers about in a year or two anymore...
nice product. Some of them are so beautifully done, that I have them standing in my shelves to look at them. Just my personal view on that matter. And : The big record labels shouldn't whine about their losses, sure it is file-sharing, that does some harm to them, but in my mind it's all the crap, that they press on CD also... Some people don't want to buy a cd of a band, noone remembers about in a year or two anymore...
paxx
Reply #23 Friday, September 6, 2002 8:39 AM
Reply #23 Friday, September 6, 2002 8:39 AM
OK, here's a few thoughts addressing a few issues that were raised.
20 years ago, yes, we made tapes for our friends. Yes we knew it was illegal, but then again a lot of things are illegal even if we don't think it's wrong. J-Walking is illegal but everybody does it without feeling guilty. The difference between sharing tapes and P2P file sharing may be in the volume. Sharing a tape with a few friends was illegal, but if we had made mass production of our tapes and distributed them to hundreds of people, then our illegal activities would have been a lot less trivial.
Everybody wants free beer. But what makes the success of files sharing is its facility and the lack of danger. If anybody could walk into any records store and take all the CDs they wanted without any risk of being recognised or caught, you can be sure there would be millions of people doing it. So the fact that there is "demand" does not make it right, since the "demand" is nothing but the desire of getting everything for free, as seems to be human nature.
On the other hand, theft goes both ways. The RIAA is nothing but legal mafia, both to the artists and to the consumers. They are thieves. Remember when records and tapes use to be $8 to $10? Then they came up with CD's and suddenly the price for music was $20-$25. The argument made sense: at the beginning there was not enough demand and therefore the cost of production was higher. The RIAA promissed that prices would go down to that of tapes and records once the demand gets higher. Well, hello! It never did. That's for theft towards the consumers. Do you know that most artists (except the handfull of top 10 artists) gets approximately $1 per album sold? the other $19 goes to the label. I understand that the record label has to pay for the promotion, the production, etc. I understand that they take a risk and often end up not making their money back. But so does the mafia when they lend money. An artist is tied via contract to its label and is not allowed to distribute his songs on his own. To be, that's organised crime. I'm all for giving to the artist all the money he deserves. I wish I could just write a check directly to the artist's name, but I can't do that, because the mafia is there to prevent it.
I don't buy music. On average, I buy 1 album a years or so. Music is just too expensive anymore. The same goes with movies (theaters). I just can't afford those things anymore. Ironically, if the price of music cames back down to a normal price of say $10 per album, I would probably spend 10 times more on music than I do today. I can't bring myself to spend $20 on a single album, but I would probably spend $100 on 10 albums over the course of a year.
20 years ago, yes, we made tapes for our friends. Yes we knew it was illegal, but then again a lot of things are illegal even if we don't think it's wrong. J-Walking is illegal but everybody does it without feeling guilty. The difference between sharing tapes and P2P file sharing may be in the volume. Sharing a tape with a few friends was illegal, but if we had made mass production of our tapes and distributed them to hundreds of people, then our illegal activities would have been a lot less trivial.
Everybody wants free beer. But what makes the success of files sharing is its facility and the lack of danger. If anybody could walk into any records store and take all the CDs they wanted without any risk of being recognised or caught, you can be sure there would be millions of people doing it. So the fact that there is "demand" does not make it right, since the "demand" is nothing but the desire of getting everything for free, as seems to be human nature.
On the other hand, theft goes both ways. The RIAA is nothing but legal mafia, both to the artists and to the consumers. They are thieves. Remember when records and tapes use to be $8 to $10? Then they came up with CD's and suddenly the price for music was $20-$25. The argument made sense: at the beginning there was not enough demand and therefore the cost of production was higher. The RIAA promissed that prices would go down to that of tapes and records once the demand gets higher. Well, hello! It never did. That's for theft towards the consumers. Do you know that most artists (except the handfull of top 10 artists) gets approximately $1 per album sold? the other $19 goes to the label. I understand that the record label has to pay for the promotion, the production, etc. I understand that they take a risk and often end up not making their money back. But so does the mafia when they lend money. An artist is tied via contract to its label and is not allowed to distribute his songs on his own. To be, that's organised crime. I'm all for giving to the artist all the money he deserves. I wish I could just write a check directly to the artist's name, but I can't do that, because the mafia is there to prevent it.
I don't buy music. On average, I buy 1 album a years or so. Music is just too expensive anymore. The same goes with movies (theaters). I just can't afford those things anymore. Ironically, if the price of music cames back down to a normal price of say $10 per album, I would probably spend 10 times more on music than I do today. I can't bring myself to spend $20 on a single album, but I would probably spend $100 on 10 albums over the course of a year.
migellito
Reply #24 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:12 AM
Reply #24 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:12 AM
just some more random thoughts..
more often than not, napster was a pain. it was often hard for me to find what i wanted. if i did, the idiot who encoded it left off part of the song, or it had static or something in it.
the behavior of the major record labels is horrible, agreed. cd's are way overpriced. it's sad they can get away with controlling legislation simply by saying "we didn't make as much money as we wanted to." what -really- dismays me now is this notion that it's somehow legal to make cds or dvds that can't be played on a computer. the next thing we know, sony will add some special encoding so cds and dvds released by them can only be played on their equipment.
as far as the whole illegal distro thing, i can see that. it's always been that way.. 20 years ago, if someone was duping hundreds of copies of new albums they'd shut them down too. stealing isn't the right way to send the record companies a message.. and i know the overwhelming majority of people who used napster couldn't have cared less about sending anybody any messages anyway.. it was just about getting music. i don't know how they'll ever get the message though.. people aren't going to stop buying cds [although i have] because the vast majority of people have absolutely no self control.
my answer? emusic.. $10 a month, and you can download as much as you want.. whole albums, all there, with no hours wasted searching and no half-encoded songs. they don't have everything i'd want yet, but their library is constantly growing.
the record companies? vinyl, cassettes and 8tracks all died, and they survived that. they'll survive this too, but hopefully the government won't let them create what amount to dozens of little proprietary formats.
more often than not, napster was a pain. it was often hard for me to find what i wanted. if i did, the idiot who encoded it left off part of the song, or it had static or something in it.
the behavior of the major record labels is horrible, agreed. cd's are way overpriced. it's sad they can get away with controlling legislation simply by saying "we didn't make as much money as we wanted to." what -really- dismays me now is this notion that it's somehow legal to make cds or dvds that can't be played on a computer. the next thing we know, sony will add some special encoding so cds and dvds released by them can only be played on their equipment.
as far as the whole illegal distro thing, i can see that. it's always been that way.. 20 years ago, if someone was duping hundreds of copies of new albums they'd shut them down too. stealing isn't the right way to send the record companies a message.. and i know the overwhelming majority of people who used napster couldn't have cared less about sending anybody any messages anyway.. it was just about getting music. i don't know how they'll ever get the message though.. people aren't going to stop buying cds [although i have] because the vast majority of people have absolutely no self control.
my answer? emusic.. $10 a month, and you can download as much as you want.. whole albums, all there, with no hours wasted searching and no half-encoded songs. they don't have everything i'd want yet, but their library is constantly growing.
the record companies? vinyl, cassettes and 8tracks all died, and they survived that. they'll survive this too, but hopefully the government won't let them create what amount to dozens of little proprietary formats.
messybuu
Reply #25 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:41 AM
Reply #25 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:41 AM
I completely agree with you migellito on your answer to the RIAA. Besides emusic, there's also IUMA. Although such sites don't contain music from the most popular artists, they do contain music from artists that might be as good, if not better, and if supported by more people, might actually send a message to the RIAA without sinking to or below the RIAA's level.
messybuu
Reply #26 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:43 AM
Reply #26 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:43 AM
"Besides IUMA." is supposed to be "Besided emusic (http://www.emusic.com), there's also sites as IUMA (http://www.iuma.com)."
Jafo
Reply #27 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:49 AM
Reply #27 Friday, September 6, 2002 9:49 AM
Once upon a time.....Art was blood, sweat and tears...and oils...on canvas.....and to 'copy' it required.....blood, sweat and tears...and oils...on canvas.
Forgery/copyrights...theft [in that sense] was somewhat 'limited'.
Along came digital art.
Blood, sweat and tears was still involved in the creation......a right-click save-as was all that was needed to 'copy' it. Even a brain-dead drooling moron could 'replicate' a [digital] Picasso.
Every man and his dog could involve themselves in the unlawful 'manufacture' and distribution of another's property.
Same applies to Music.
Once, all you had was memory....not too good...then vinyl...expensive to duplicate [pressings] then tape/cassettes...much easier...spelling the beginning of 'real' bootlegs....then CD's...and burning one was about AUS$20,000.....wait a while for PC burners....ah....real bootlegging with 'quality'...then file-sharing....and it's time for that brain-dead drooling moron to be able to join in on copyright abuse.....just search, click and save.
It's all about the magnitude and ease of the 'crime'....
It's more a sad indictment on the morals of present day society that they are willing to seek justification where there is none.
The price of a CD may be too high. Don't buy them....just like I won't buy a new car...the price is too high...
Forgery/copyrights...theft [in that sense] was somewhat 'limited'.
Along came digital art.
Blood, sweat and tears was still involved in the creation......a right-click save-as was all that was needed to 'copy' it. Even a brain-dead drooling moron could 'replicate' a [digital] Picasso.
Every man and his dog could involve themselves in the unlawful 'manufacture' and distribution of another's property.
Same applies to Music.
Once, all you had was memory....not too good...then vinyl...expensive to duplicate [pressings] then tape/cassettes...much easier...spelling the beginning of 'real' bootlegs....then CD's...and burning one was about AUS$20,000.....wait a while for PC burners....ah....real bootlegging with 'quality'...then file-sharing....and it's time for that brain-dead drooling moron to be able to join in on copyright abuse.....just search, click and save.
It's all about the magnitude and ease of the 'crime'....
It's more a sad indictment on the morals of present day society that they are willing to seek justification where there is none.
The price of a CD may be too high. Don't buy them....just like I won't buy a new car...the price is too high...
Frogboy
Reply #28 Friday, September 6, 2002 10:37 AM
Reply #28 Friday, September 6, 2002 10:37 AM
Here's the thing that seems to get overlooked:
If Shawn (Napster) had made ihs program and just released it then that would have been one thing. We could then debate the evils of piracy or the evils of the record companies or whatever.
But Napster tried to turn his program into a get rich quick (for himself) scheme. Napster was a for profit corporation. A company who hoped to profit because their program made it easy for users to loot the intellectual property of others.
To me, it just serves as yet another example of terrible ethical behavior being rewarded by the media and society. The only good thing is that at least here, justice actually came into play and Napster ended up going out of business.
If Shawn (Napster) had made ihs program and just released it then that would have been one thing. We could then debate the evils of piracy or the evils of the record companies or whatever.
But Napster tried to turn his program into a get rich quick (for himself) scheme. Napster was a for profit corporation. A company who hoped to profit because their program made it easy for users to loot the intellectual property of others.
To me, it just serves as yet another example of terrible ethical behavior being rewarded by the media and society. The only good thing is that at least here, justice actually came into play and Napster ended up going out of business.
messybuu
Reply #29 Friday, September 6, 2002 10:59 AM
Reply #29 Friday, September 6, 2002 10:59 AM
That's also my biggest problem with Napster. By their attempts to profit from Napster, by being reluctant to add filters to Napster, and by acting as if people should respect their intellectual property (as seen on the terms of usage on the old Napster site), Shawn Fanning and company made it obvious that it simply wanted to milk the artists for what they're worth while trying to protect their own property. That's hardly altruistic of them, and unless I'm mistaken, Robin Hood didn't help the poor for his own benefit. In fact, I don't believe Robin Hood tried to be like Prince John and company in the original version.
WOM
Reply #30 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:16 AM
Reply #30 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:16 AM
It seems that when you set up a company for the sole purpose to make money by ripping other peoples property off, it has to be wrong. The artis's here get upset when other people take their skins and redoing or reuse them and put there name on it and no one is making money.UM! Stealing is stealing. They did it so I can do it isn't a very good argument. I just don't buy music much anymore.
bakerstreet
Reply #31 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:43 AM
Reply #31 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:43 AM
Frogboy: and somehow making an app that millions of people want to use isn't fundamental economics? How can you fault a natural law that you, yourself profit from? He saw a demand, and offered a supply. What MessiahWWKD doesn't see is that economic truths are *as natural* as pink monky asses; they are just as sublimated and just as instictual. They are why communism failed, and we still thrive. If Mr Fanning hadn't chose to make Napster, someone else would have answered the call. Demand is *always* answered.
You can logically ponder ethics until you are blue in the face, but the *reality* is that either,
a) people don't see this as stealing, or
they don't care.
If millions of people walked out without paying at wal-mart tomorrow, there would be nothing you *could* do about it, and the government would find someway to blame wal-mart within minutes. These are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all... heck, you really can't even make them mad for long... The entertainment industry is thriving amidst unchecked file sharing, even having record breaking years.
Is this worth the destruction of our freedom? Is this worth creating precendents that can be used to shamelessly invade our privacy with little more than MP3 sharing as an excuse?
After more of these laws pass, *evil* people will be able to abuse them to do far worse than ripping mp3s.
You can logically ponder ethics until you are blue in the face, but the *reality* is that either,
a) people don't see this as stealing, or
they don't care.If millions of people walked out without paying at wal-mart tomorrow, there would be nothing you *could* do about it, and the government would find someway to blame wal-mart within minutes. These are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all... heck, you really can't even make them mad for long... The entertainment industry is thriving amidst unchecked file sharing, even having record breaking years.
Is this worth the destruction of our freedom? Is this worth creating precendents that can be used to shamelessly invade our privacy with little more than MP3 sharing as an excuse?
After more of these laws pass, *evil* people will be able to abuse them to do far worse than ripping mp3s.
bakerstreet
Reply #32 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:48 AM
Reply #32 Friday, September 6, 2002 11:48 AM
ugh, my typing *demands* an edit feature... where is the supply? you could limit it to ten minutes or whatever...
messybuu
Reply #33 Friday, September 6, 2002 1:53 PM
Reply #33 Friday, September 6, 2002 1:53 PM
>Frogboy: and somehow making an app that millions of people want to use isn't fundamental economics? How can you fault a natural law that you, yourself profit from? He saw a demand, and offered a supply. What MessiahWWKD doesn't see is that economic truths are *as natural* as pink monky asses; they are just as sublimated and just as instictual. They are why communism failed, and we still thrive. If Mr Fanning hadn't chose to make Napster, someone else would have answered the call. Demand is *always* answered.If millions of people walked out without paying at wal-mart tomorrow, there would be nothing you *could* do about it, and the government would find someway to blame wal-mart within minutes. These are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all... heck, you really can't even make them mad for long... The entertainment industry is thriving amidst unchecked file sharing, even having record breaking years.Is this worth the destruction of our freedom? Is this worth creating precendents that can be used to shamelessly invade our privacy with little more than MP3 sharing as an excuse?After more of these laws pass, *evil* people will be able to abuse them to do far worse than ripping mp3s. <
People like to compare Napster and company to a hydra that grows new heads after one is destroyed, but from what I see, it's more like a boulder. When Napster existed, the boulder was a mountain. When Napster was destroyed, the boulder split into several pieces. It still exists, but rather than in one large form, it is in many smaller forms. If this process is continued, eventually the pieces could become small enough that it won't be much different in scale than copying tapes for friends.
People like to compare Napster and company to a hydra that grows new heads after one is destroyed, but from what I see, it's more like a boulder. When Napster existed, the boulder was a mountain. When Napster was destroyed, the boulder split into several pieces. It still exists, but rather than in one large form, it is in many smaller forms. If this process is continued, eventually the pieces could become small enough that it won't be much different in scale than copying tapes for friends.
messybuu
Reply #34 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:22 PM
Reply #34 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:22 PM
Oops!... I did it again! Let's try this...
Frogboy: and somehow making an app that millions of people want to use isn't fundamental economics? How can you fault a natural law that you, yourself profit from? He saw a demand, and offered a supply. What MessiahWWKD doesn't see is that economic truths are *as natural* as pink monky asses; they are just as sublimated and just as instictual. They are why communism failed, and we still thrive. If Mr Fanning hadn't chose to make Napster, someone else would have answered the call. Demand is *always* answered.
Although it might be true that people would rather steal something than pay for it, I see nothing in the economic law about that being a good thing. If people stopped paying for music, the only new music that'd be shared would be music by artists who simply do it for the love of music and will make the sacrifices necessary to make music (i.e. money and time). Notice how we never hear of those people? Even pirates who hate everything and anything about the RIAA seem to be more interested in record industry artists than independent ones. Even on IUMA(http://www.iuma.com), the artists do want people to purchase their CDs. As for demand, there's demand for many things, including child pornography. Does that mean that one shouldn't try to stop the activity simply because people do it?
If millions of people walked out without paying at wal-mart tomorrow, there would be nothing you *could* do about it, and the government would find someway to blame wal-mart within minutes. These are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all... heck, you really can't even make them mad for long... The entertainment industry is thriving amidst unchecked file sharing, even having record breaking years.
If millions of people started to break the speed limit tomorrow, there would be nothing you could do about it. After all, these are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all. Therefore, the only solution is to ban all speed limits and allow people to drive as quickly as they desire.
Is this worth the destruction of our freedom? Is this worth creating precendents that can be used to shamelessly invade our privacy with little more than MP3 sharing as an excuse?
Nobody here is saying that our privacy should be sacrificed to keep piracy down. In fact, I believe it'd be better to attack the one who creates the facilities for piracy, such as Napster. Besides, as KaZaA (http://www.kazaa.com) proves, P2P file-sharing services don't care about your privacy.
After more of these laws pass, *evil* people will be able to abuse them to do far worse than ripping mp3s.
People like to compare Napster and company to a hydra that grows new heads after one is destroyed, but from what I see, it's more like a boulder. When Napster existed, the boulder was a mountain. When Napster was destroyed, the boulder split into several pieces. It still exists, but rather than in one large form, it is in many smaller forms. If this process is continued, eventually the pieces could become small enough that it won't be much different in scale than copying tapes for friends.
Frogboy: and somehow making an app that millions of people want to use isn't fundamental economics? How can you fault a natural law that you, yourself profit from? He saw a demand, and offered a supply. What MessiahWWKD doesn't see is that economic truths are *as natural* as pink monky asses; they are just as sublimated and just as instictual. They are why communism failed, and we still thrive. If Mr Fanning hadn't chose to make Napster, someone else would have answered the call. Demand is *always* answered.
Although it might be true that people would rather steal something than pay for it, I see nothing in the economic law about that being a good thing. If people stopped paying for music, the only new music that'd be shared would be music by artists who simply do it for the love of music and will make the sacrifices necessary to make music (i.e. money and time). Notice how we never hear of those people? Even pirates who hate everything and anything about the RIAA seem to be more interested in record industry artists than independent ones. Even on IUMA(http://www.iuma.com), the artists do want people to purchase their CDs. As for demand, there's demand for many things, including child pornography. Does that mean that one shouldn't try to stop the activity simply because people do it?
If millions of people walked out without paying at wal-mart tomorrow, there would be nothing you *could* do about it, and the government would find someway to blame wal-mart within minutes. These are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all... heck, you really can't even make them mad for long... The entertainment industry is thriving amidst unchecked file sharing, even having record breaking years.
If millions of people started to break the speed limit tomorrow, there would be nothing you could do about it. After all, these are voters, tax-payers, and the reason the entertainment industry and the internet exists. You can't jail them all. Therefore, the only solution is to ban all speed limits and allow people to drive as quickly as they desire.
Is this worth the destruction of our freedom? Is this worth creating precendents that can be used to shamelessly invade our privacy with little more than MP3 sharing as an excuse?
Nobody here is saying that our privacy should be sacrificed to keep piracy down. In fact, I believe it'd be better to attack the one who creates the facilities for piracy, such as Napster. Besides, as KaZaA (http://www.kazaa.com) proves, P2P file-sharing services don't care about your privacy.
After more of these laws pass, *evil* people will be able to abuse them to do far worse than ripping mp3s.
People like to compare Napster and company to a hydra that grows new heads after one is destroyed, but from what I see, it's more like a boulder. When Napster existed, the boulder was a mountain. When Napster was destroyed, the boulder split into several pieces. It still exists, but rather than in one large form, it is in many smaller forms. If this process is continued, eventually the pieces could become small enough that it won't be much different in scale than copying tapes for friends.
paxx
Reply #35 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:29 PM
Reply #35 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:29 PM
I agree mostly, but I also disagree in part.
When downlaoding songs for free, you may be indeed robbing the artists out of some revenue, but mainly you are ripping organised crime (record labels) out of a few dirty dollars. Give me the option to download songs and directly pay the artists and I'll do it in a minute.
When downlaoding songs for free, you may be indeed robbing the artists out of some revenue, but mainly you are ripping organised crime (record labels) out of a few dirty dollars. Give me the option to download songs and directly pay the artists and I'll do it in a minute.
messybuu
Reply #36 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:40 PM
Reply #36 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:40 PM
paxx: When downlaoding songs for free, you may be indeed robbing the artists out of some revenue, but mainly you are ripping organised crime (record labels) out of a few dirty dollars. Give me the option to download songs and directly pay the artists and I'll do it in a minute.
MessiahWWKD: When you purchase a CD, an artist receives around 10 cents. When you download a CD off Napster, an artist receives nothing. I don't see how giving an artist nothing is more moral than giving an artist ten cents as record companies do. In fact, some might say that it's worse, especially since the artist signed the contract with the record company, yet made no agreement with the pirates. If an artist doesn't want any revenue to belong to the record company, they can always be independent. Of course, they will have to do the packaging, the advertising, the production themselves. Perhaps record companies actually do provide a service for the artists.
MessiahWWKD: When you purchase a CD, an artist receives around 10 cents. When you download a CD off Napster, an artist receives nothing. I don't see how giving an artist nothing is more moral than giving an artist ten cents as record companies do. In fact, some might say that it's worse, especially since the artist signed the contract with the record company, yet made no agreement with the pirates. If an artist doesn't want any revenue to belong to the record company, they can always be independent. Of course, they will have to do the packaging, the advertising, the production themselves. Perhaps record companies actually do provide a service for the artists.
Tarkus
Reply #37 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:58 PM
Reply #37 Friday, September 6, 2002 2:58 PM
If prices are market-driven, and CDs remain sky high, I think it can be inferred that the recording industry has not been hurt much, if at all, by P2P. They must still be selling so many CDs at the current high prices, that there's no reason for them to lower prices to increase demand. 
The Rated PG
Reply #38 Friday, September 6, 2002 4:26 PM
Reply #38 Friday, September 6, 2002 4:26 PM
bakerstreet- I never put down my opinion down on this thread and the napster thing. I mearly stated the opinion of another.
risk7
Reply #39 Friday, September 6, 2002 4:43 PM
Reply #39 Friday, September 6, 2002 4:43 PM
Maybe they should release the music for free...or very cheap and rely mainly on packing stadiums...like in the old days. Used too be that an artist had too actually have talent to get a label..now its labels in search of mostly gimicks. Most musicians will tell you that they generate the majority of there income from playing live... course that would suck for 85% of the crap released that can't generate an audience...is that a huge loss?
WOM
Reply #40 Friday, September 6, 2002 5:01 PM
Reply #40 Friday, September 6, 2002 5:01 PM
I'am sure nobody here thinks that I'am a saint and if they do they'd better have their head examined. Stealing is stealing no matter on what scale. It all comes down to what you can justify to yourself. I hate MS. I have 2 machines and in the past I'd buy one OS and load it on both machines. With XP you cannot unless you hack in to it or get a bootleg copy. I don't know if it was right to load it on 2 machines but my justification was they are mine and I paid for the software. It's like taking the hard drive out of one machine and putting it into the other. It's mine and I will do with it like I want. I don't go looking for bootleg copies of anything but if a friend says that he has this and do I want a copy, if I do I say yes. Right or wrong, I do it anyway. My little speech.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 3 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Friday, September 6, 2002 4:17 AM
How is monkey anatomy and an uncontrollable desire related? Anyway, how does wanting something so badly that one feels they need it an excuse to steal something? Also, how does stealing drive the economy? One would think if people stopped paying for services and goods and demanded that they all be free, that it would hurt the economy.