What do you think of the napster issue? I think the RIAA need to go take a Jump :D

Well from the law side they ARE breaking copyright laws.....................................

So I mean its no better than a warez site to me :)

I have to agree with Daniel on this.
We does everyone think they deserve free stuff all the time when artists and companies invest so much into it?

How are they breaking the Law? Its the people using it who are doing it. Wouldnt they have to shut down the Blank tape making industry too? I make copies of the Tapes and listen to them.

Wouldnt the Internet have to be shut down coz of warez? Shut down ICQ, because ppl transfer songs or software over using its file transfer feature??

Napster is just a medium of file sharing, they are not promoting the distribution of illegal or copyright Mp3z, are they??

I am totally deaf and I dont know anything crap about Music so I would say it sucks :D

Even if they won the lawsuit and napster was shut down there are alternatives like opennap and gnutella. It will just promote these services to grow and since they are not centralized it will be hard to shut down.

Tcoy

Anyhow, it is a stupid lawsuit, because it has been proved several time that mp3 substantially _increase_ the income of recording company. People listen to a few mp3s, like the music and buy the cd for when they are not in front of their computer.

Without mp3, you never hear from the group and never buy it. consider this... Sony is seeling online its music through napster, guess why? Because they like warez? (yah right)

All in all, the end composer isn't making more or less cash than before, only the big recording label is.

Originally posted by Félix C.Courtemanche
Without mp3, you never hear from the group and never buy it. consider this... Sony is seeling online its music through napster, guess why? Because they like warez? (yah right)


I dint know this? sony? napster? eh?


All in all, the end composer isn't making more or less cash than before, only the big recording label is.

Good point, plus, its free advertising for the BIG companies? Dun u think?

Free advertising or not, it's there right to say whether they want there songs on there or not. All napster would have to do is block certain mp3s from showing up. Like "METALLICA". If someone typed in that or another keyword and metallica was found in the title somehow, then it could just not show up. I don't think it would be that hard for them to do. It may take a bit longer for the searches and bog the servers down a little more, but that's the price of trading illegal files right? I did use the software (in fact I deleted it before looking on the boards today), but from downloading some of the songs I decided to get the cds for them. I also learned that a couple of the cds I wanted didn't have any other songs but the main one that I liked so I knew to buy the single. In fact if it weren't for online mp3s I wouldn't have found one of my favorite groups, OLIVE!!!!!

Anyhow I'm done with the whole napster thing. It's easier to just look up the sites for individual artists or get clips from cd now. Plus I just got my credit card thing so it's not such a hastle to lift my rear out of the chair and actually leave my computer to get cds. ;) (yes I'm that attached)

The cds are much more convenient since they play basically everywhere and the quality is great. However, IF someone were to invent a cd player that played normal cds and cds containing mp3 files they could make a lot of money and the music industry would have a lot of changes to make fast. I thought I saw a cd player like that in the ads made by phillips or one of them, but I might be mistaken.

Originally posted by kunal
How are they breaking the Law? Its the people using it who are doing it.

Now I've heard enough!!

If I unlocked the door to the Federal Reserve Bank and let other people in to take money that didn't belong to them, am I innocent?

You can't say that they are necessarily breaking the law, but they are not without fault either. You can't give people access to copyright violations and claim innocence when you know what it is being used for.

Just my 3 cents....

Exactly, as hosts if we willingly open a or host a warez site and do not stop it we get sued for it! So whats the difference here?

The biggest difference is it isn't stored on Napster's servers. The files are stored on each users computer. Napster just allows people to view other people's stuff. Napster however is contributing to illegal program sharing (warez) as well. People are 'wrapping' the files up as mp3s and then 'unwrapping' them after downloading. If one of you has napster I'd suggest looking up adobe or some other popular software on it and you'll probably notice some huge mp3 files that just happen to have the name of the software. Maybe they should have something started where artists can submit their approval for song sharing and with it some keywords can be released and people can get those songs. Of course napster wouldn't go for that because they know people would choose an alternative to napster if it happened.

So why not shut down the BIG Gun making companies? Kids are getting shot in schools by the guns they make? The TOS of Napster states that, it to be used for distribution of legal stuff only, and not illegal music piration. Napster, or the Gun making company is not responsible for the person using the gun or napster, or are they?

We are giving internet access to the people who wanna run warez sites? is that right? Shut down each ISP, who lets MP3 files get transfered.

We are talking about the basic functionality of the Internet here. What people are trying to do here, is take control of the internet! The thought is scary. They start with free file sharing software, then they goto Search engines and start filtering the sites that get listed. Next they goto any website that critices the government or one man or one corporation and shut it down?? The Internet is the last "REAL" freedom of speech arena left in the world. If they get control of this medium also, no-one will know what freedom speech is!

I agree with JustinK, Napster can filter group names, or song names.

If the artist doesn't want their song distributed they can tell napster, and it's taken care of.

Lawsuit just makes them more, more, and more popular.

IMO big lawsuits are a great way to promote any kind of business :) (I'M serious)

They don't do a very good job of taking care of things if an artist doesn't want their stuff listed & downloaded. I just had my friend look up metallica on it since they were the big one and he was able to list 100 songs and download one without a problem. That doesn't seem like much of an effort to keep an artist's song from being sent off everywhere.

[Edited by JustinK on 10-16-2000 at 06:44 PM]

I'd take the philosophically neutral ground and say that Napster's a symptom, not the direct cause of illegal music pirating (which is where this discussion's heading into).

Let's face it : MP3s of recording artists have been around well before Napster and Gnutella arrived : Napster has simply made it easier to swap the stuff.

For example, back in 97/98, I could quite simply rip off my favourite Smashing Pumpkins song (Bullet with Butterfly Wings for example) and record it as an MP3. However, if my friend wanted it, then I'd have to split it across floppy disks or tell him to wait. Napster's just gotten rid of that slow process, and as a result it's been made the scapegoat.

I'm not saying that illegal music pirating should be legal (none of that), but I'm just pointing out that Napster is a symbol and a pointer for where the Net is going and what it can do now and in the future.

I'm sorry, but this is one area I feel strongly about. Napster is not breaking any laws, and thus should not be even approached with lawsuits. I'll note that I am a musician, and that while I understand the position of the bands involved in these lawsuits, I believe they are VERY misguided.

If you think Napster should be shut down, then you also believe that ICQ should be sued, as it provides a means to transfer illegal files. USENET should be scrapped as it does the same. My internet provider should be sued and shut down as they provide me internet access and an email account with which I can send and receive illegal files. As a matter of fact, if I didn't have internet access, I couldn't use napster, thus I couldn't send or receive illegal files. And the backbone that carries the data is as much to blame since if that didn't exist, Billy from Kentucky wouldn't be able to send me his files.

So who's to blame? One party, and ONE part ONLY. The users who copy the music onto their hard drives. No one else. They should be sued (if anyone, since as it has been discussed it only increases sales of the albums).

I fail to understand how Daniel says, "they ARE breaking copyright laws", nor how WeinBar can claim, "You can't say that they are necessarily breaking the law, but they are not without fault either. You can't give people access to copyright violations and claim innocence when you know what it is being used for...".

I think the entire internet would have to be abolished to truly stem the flow of illegal music, and I'm not sure you guys would be in favor of that?

If illegal drugs were to be carried on public buses, would the answer be to ban public buses? Or sue the bus company? Do hookers comit illegal acts in Motels? Should we close down Motel 6 and every other motel to stem this activity? They charge by the hour out here. You can't tell me they think someone who books a room for an hour, just wants a quick nap.

I'd like someone to convince me otherwise, but unless you can address why ICQ (and any other file sharing program), USENET, my internet provider, and the major backbones, aren't just as guilty, I will support Napster.

[Edited by Chicken on 10-16-2000 at 07:18 PM]

I agree with you there...
Add to the list all free web hosting services out there, everything on the internet.

On the other hand, this topic brings in the idea of copyright... this _clearly_ shows that what was once required so that the group made money is now required so that the recording company make money (the group doesn't really make a lot of cds, mainly from concerts).

In the end, copyrights were created to let artists create BECAUSE they would get paid... not to protect them really. Now, that we see it is useless, artists will still compose music even without a copyright, I don't see the point in all these laws.

I like to do a comparison between big software companies (microsoft) and an open source company. Which one is the bigger? Microsoft, it has been there longer. which one is growing REALLY fast and does REALLY good products that are REALLY safe and REALLY strong? Open source.

but... one is free and the authors don't get the copyright pay! Even though they release their _code_, they still keep doing it, and are often PAID to do it. (btw, these copyrights are somewhat interesting in the european countries, but totally ridiculous in canada for example)

We need to stop thinking of getting a reward for every action we take, ever move we do. Why is money so important for all of you? Do you really need that fourth car?

I know this is not directly related to mp3s and napsters, but I feel that the napster issue is just the tip of something much bigger coming. I just hope that some huge disc company will not forbid everything again and just keep making more cash on our and our artist's back.

Chicken and Felix said exaclty what I wanted to say! Napster is not the culprit here, its the people using it. And if the big corporates are allowed to get control of Napster, the Internet as a whole, will be next on the list. You might think this is a lil paranoid, but it isnt. This is what is happening. Open your eyes! See what is happening!

I agree that Metalica and other groups, should have the right to choose between the songs they wont transfered on icq and the ones they dunt. I just think Napster dint get enough time, to do so.

Anyone know about the "First Sale" claws? Duster?

I have must have over 400 full original CDs, most bought from the high street since place like audiostreet.co.uk had not been invent yet. I used Napster now and again and I think it's great, I download songs and if I like it then I'll probably go buy the album (if I don't like it I don't listen it again, no harm done), through Napster I can also get bootlegs of my favourite bands (which I have the albums) anyway, Napster is helping music. Radiohead have got the right idea!

Napster rules.

I think the reason the music industry is so scared is because it is so easy to use and they do not have an alternate plan.

So their current ignorant plan is to stop all innovation while they play catchup (my theory ;))

later

David

I am constantly irritated by the legal system's misunderstanding, view and handling of the Internet. For instance, the system does not understand the workings of Napster.

Essentially Napster is a device allowing for the copying and storing of one's music. Generally, the device is similar to a cassette recorder and much like a VCR. These devices fall into the same realm as copy machines, scanners and cameras.

In the U.S. legal system, judicial opinions must be applied by utilizing precedent and precedent provides that such devices are completely legal. Therefore, a court should find that Napster is legal.

Unfortunately, the move to make Napster or any other MP3 storage device/platform illegal sets a poor precedent. Applying a decision prohibiting Napster to other devices would arguably make illegal the copy machine, VCR and other similar devices. It would be a decision inconsistent with the law.

IMO, misapplication of law to the Internet does not include only Napster and copyright law, but also: domain names and trademark law/dilution; carnivore and wire taping; jurisdiction; and cryptography and property.

This is a frustrating topic for me. :angry:

austinsysop its frustrating for me too. I do agree with you.
Also, the carnivore program, is total rape of any net user.

I'm going to have to get me one of these.
Genica Tavarua (http://www.genica.com/Mp3-Tavarua.htm) If anyone can find any others I'd like to know. I'll be able to fit like 10-15 of my cds on one and just take 3 cds with me on trips. :) Now I just need to plan a trip... *drooling*

I finally found use for mp3.com. :) I found out that the thing I saw in the paper awhile back did in fact play cds as well. When I visited the philips site awhile ago I didn't see anything about it and it didn't look like there was any way to open the dang thing so I figured it was just a bigger mp3-only player.

Rush by Philips (http://hardware.mp3.com/hardware/individual/3144.html)

eXpanium by Philips (http://hardware.mp3.com/hardware/individual/2973.html)

Voyager by Encino (http://hardware.mp3.com/hardware/individual/3090.html)

Personally I don't think the Philips ones look too inviting to use. The Voyager looks cooler and the Genica looks more like a normal cd player. Has anyone here used one of these yet? I think i may go with the Genica one if I buy (it's cheaper and I think i'd be more comfortable using it.

[--edit--]

After reading over it more carefully I found that the Genica one doesn't support CD-RW's. :( I only have those so I guess I'm stuck going with the Voyager which actually looks cooler, but of course has a higher price tag to it.

[Edited by JustinK on 10-17-2000 at 08:00 PM]

Napster Good - RIAA Bad!

Uh, oh, I better hide my cd-burner, my tape-deck, and my vcr!!

Check the stats, napster is helping music. And if you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at the RIAA for hogging approximately %80 or more of all cd sales profit. The artists get but a fraction of the profit.

The real reason the RIAA is flipping out over napster is because it threatens their control over the industry! With new technologies like Napster, musicians can bring their music directly to the people and that scares the hell out of the record companies.

The music recording industry needs to see this as an opportunity, a wake-up call, or whatever you want to call it. The same thing happened in the movie industry with the advent of the VCR back in the 70s. It was generally believed the end was near for the theatres and Hollywood as we knew it because people would just pirate their product and pass it around. Guess what? It didn't happen! Instead we have new business opportunities. Case in point: Blockbuster Video. There are many more.

Because of Napster, I actually went out and bought CDs I probably would never have considered before. I promptly emailed executives at Sony, et al to let them know. They really need our help, because apparently they don't know how to sell their product in today's market.

Memo to the RIAA: Call off the lawyers and put your marketeers to work. Buy out the Napster guys and put them to work for *you*. (General Motors and Microsoft have been doing it for years.)

[Edited by alchiba on 10-19-2000 at 12:21 PM]

Originally posted by alchiba
Memo to the RIAA: Call off the lawyers and put your marketeers to work. Buy out the Napster guys and put them to work for *you*. (General Motors and Microsoft have been doing it for years.)

[Edited by alchiba on 10-19-2000 at 12:21 PM]


I couldnt have put it in a better way, myself! :)

I think it might be a pride issue for the RIAA. If they buy out napster it might appear in their little brains that napster won out and they lost.

So instead they continue to attack napster which in the end is only making it more and more popular since it gets more press.

lster

David