why do people rely on napster so much? "oh my god, napster is going to be shut down", "oh goodie, napster lives on", who cares? well i know some of you do. i am sure there are many here who downloaded mp3's way before napster came around, ftp anyone?
[ 02-21-2001: Message edited by: cornbread ]
why?
-
mooseboy8X
- Regular Member
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: berkeley,ca,usa
what a foolish statement. napster is the biggest online storage of mp3s anywhere. the more users they have means the greater array of mp3s. i have found mp3s of duke ellington, ben webster and a whole lot of other jazz musicans. its almost impossible to find jazz music anywhere on the web besides there. not to mention all the popular stuff. its a service where some1 lik seedofchaos can tell every1 about some no name european band and then in a matter of seconds every1 can access and judge their music. ftp will never have all the different types of music that can be found on napster. have u ever heard of king sunny ade?? go download some of his music. have u heard of sergio menedez and brazil 66? u may know a popular song of theirs but nothing else. napster gives people a opertunity to find and sample new types of music. i would have never previously purchased a pantera cd. i really didnt know what they were about 7 or 8 months ago, but after napster gave me a chance to sample their music, maybe i will be tempted to go out and purchase 1 of their cds. not to even mention all the rare recordings that can be found on napster. all the underground rap and unrelased songs now have an opertuniy to be heard by potential fans. it is true that online music sharing will never go away. but it will be hard to find all the asortmints that are on napster.
=====================
THE ORIGINAL NEWBIE PUNK
THE SAGA CONTINUES....
=====================
THE ORIGINAL NEWBIE PUNK
THE SAGA CONTINUES....
=====================
Why all the nap-bashing? sure you can find music elsewhere, and always will. but any p2p w/ a million tracks and tons of great ping rates is worth my time.
Sure, some people love napster the same way they love AOL, jjust because they don't know anything else or anything better. but so what? you should get off your high-horse about that, not everyone will know as much as computers as you.
a lot of other people, including ones that use ftps and other progs, support them because shawn fanning created Peer-to-peer file sharing. The guy was only 18 when he conceived and designed it, you've got to give him his props for that. so before you start talking about how napigator beats it, keep in mind who made all this possible.
right now nap is at critical mass. technically i like some other progs better (cute mx), and winmx owns because you can connect to nap + everything else at once. but napster is the best simply because of the number of people on it. kill the nap servers and then tell me how much better winmx is.
you've been posting a lot about how they "sold out". i don't catch your drift. most people would have folded after the first threat, napster not only started this whole ball, but they've fought in court to protect this technology. the only reason those other p2p's haven't been shut down is because there's no legal precedent yet, the lawyers are waiting to define the law with napster, then they'll hunt doen everyone else, just like they hunted down mp3 websites.
will you still be able to find hidden servers to connect your p2p too? sure you will, just like you find ftp sites. but i think its cool that one guy turned out the biggest killer app of the broadband age in his dorm room. and i think its cool that for a whole year and a half, 50 million people had a big party online and threw the industry on its ears. it was right out in the open, everyone from 40-year-old business execs to clueless friends to your grandma was in on the action. there'll always be cats stealing music in the dark. the record companies tolerate you. but it wasn't until napster that piracy became so easy that the record companies started to rethink their strategy. pretty soon emi will re-release everything they ever put out, even stuff that was too obscure to be profitable to re-release as a cd, and it'll be available for like 4 bucks months. napster accomplished that, not the guy who knocked off audiognome.
Sure, some people love napster the same way they love AOL, jjust because they don't know anything else or anything better. but so what? you should get off your high-horse about that, not everyone will know as much as computers as you.
a lot of other people, including ones that use ftps and other progs, support them because shawn fanning created Peer-to-peer file sharing. The guy was only 18 when he conceived and designed it, you've got to give him his props for that. so before you start talking about how napigator beats it, keep in mind who made all this possible.
right now nap is at critical mass. technically i like some other progs better (cute mx), and winmx owns because you can connect to nap + everything else at once. but napster is the best simply because of the number of people on it. kill the nap servers and then tell me how much better winmx is.
you've been posting a lot about how they "sold out". i don't catch your drift. most people would have folded after the first threat, napster not only started this whole ball, but they've fought in court to protect this technology. the only reason those other p2p's haven't been shut down is because there's no legal precedent yet, the lawyers are waiting to define the law with napster, then they'll hunt doen everyone else, just like they hunted down mp3 websites.
will you still be able to find hidden servers to connect your p2p too? sure you will, just like you find ftp sites. but i think its cool that one guy turned out the biggest killer app of the broadband age in his dorm room. and i think its cool that for a whole year and a half, 50 million people had a big party online and threw the industry on its ears. it was right out in the open, everyone from 40-year-old business execs to clueless friends to your grandma was in on the action. there'll always be cats stealing music in the dark. the record companies tolerate you. but it wasn't until napster that piracy became so easy that the record companies started to rethink their strategy. pretty soon emi will re-release everything they ever put out, even stuff that was too obscure to be profitable to re-release as a cd, and it'll be available for like 4 bucks months. napster accomplished that, not the guy who knocked off audiognome.
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
ok, you pay your 4 bucks or whatever it will be. although i will not be paying for it. if the record companies would drop their prices down to say... 8 bucks, i could live with that. another thing, napster still has to sign the other companies(sony, timewariner, columbia, etc)before they can charge a price. because if they go pay, and haven't signed sony or whoever, napster will be in even more trouble than they are in now. i do agree it is good for new artist, but imo that is about all. i better not borrow a cd from my friend and copy that, i could get in "trouble". i better not tape that tv program, or i could get in "trouble" 
.
.-
mooseboy8X
- Regular Member
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: berkeley,ca,usa
imo ftp sucks. napster imo is way better win mx or cute mtx. all the mtx's or whatever theyre called. alot of ftp site have upload/download restrictions. not to mention user limit retricioons and d/l banndwith caps. napster by far is the easssiest file sharing system that has ever been invented. there probably never be the awesome selection of mp3s like on the napster servers.even the largest ftp sites dont have dozens of recorded live songs at rock concerts on clubs. not to mention freestyling dubs.napster simply cant be beat. if scour where still around that would be a leading contender, but i dont think all the users of napster will automatically jump to cute mtx or mirc because of lack of ease of use.
=====================
THE ORIGINAL NEWBIE PUNK
THE SAGA CONTINUES....
=====================
THE ORIGINAL NEWBIE PUNK
THE SAGA CONTINUES....
=====================
I don't give a $hit either way!If I want some music,I will order from some online store,or usually I will just walk into some store and buy it,HELLO!The only reason people got so excited abot napster was that they could get something for nothing,for some reason people think it's cool to get stuff free,when they should be paying for it.
-
mooseboy8X
- Regular Member
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2000 12:00 am
- Location: berkeley,ca,usa
crazyman, exactly what is your argument here? first you roll your eyes at people worried about getting in "trouble". then you flip around and say you'll just buy the music. whats your beef with the Nap, man? Its a great program, not to mention the OG prog that started it all. so whats not to like?
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
hey, have you heard "untitled"? its yet another non-label smashing pumpkins song, recorded a couple months ago. i think it might one of the best songs they ever did, totally classic pumpkins.
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
Napster = Good
RIAA = THE DEVIL
Personally, I love Napster, and if anyone else can show me an easier to use File Sharing program than Napster, then show me, cuz I've never seen one, and I've tried literally dozens, and they're all just a cluttered mess of windows. CuteMX and WinMX and all the others are good FS programs, but none of them, I REPEAT, none of them will be as simple to use or as popular as Napster. You wanna look for movies or warez, then those other proggies are just fine, but for MP3's Napster Rules All.
RIAA = THE DEVIL
Personally, I love Napster, and if anyone else can show me an easier to use File Sharing program than Napster, then show me, cuz I've never seen one, and I've tried literally dozens, and they're all just a cluttered mess of windows. CuteMX and WinMX and all the others are good FS programs, but none of them, I REPEAT, none of them will be as simple to use or as popular as Napster. You wanna look for movies or warez, then those other proggies are just fine, but for MP3's Napster Rules All.
owned by pac0z atm
AMEN my brother, AMENOriginally posted by Brent:
I only started using napster about a year ago, I've been collecting MP3's for YEARS before that, there are other ways
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
whoops. I meant, "thats what i think is really motivating cornbread." sorry, crazyman. wrong username!Originally posted by Brent:
I only started using napster about a year ago, I've been collecting MP3's for YEARS before that, there are other ways
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
Originally posted by jayyy:
Piracy of what? the property of whom?
The argument behind shutting down napster is that record companies are like pharmaceutical companies: the actual product is worth pennies (cd's, a chemical in a capsule), but that we should pay 20 bucks a pop for the research that went into it. if we don't, these companies won't have the funds to do further work to provide us with more of the same.
I say that argument is bull****. Record companies take everything and contribute nothing. I'll hose them any way i can.
for the most part, bands these days write their own songs. the music itself is part of the culture, all record companies do is market and distribute it. in itself this would be fair, but keep this in mind when i break down what they do and what they take.
when your band, which wrote, conceived and performed the music that will entrance millions signs a record contract, you make your work the legal property of, say sony. they own the copyright in every respect, you could turn on the tv only to hear your song in a pringles commercial. you have absoloutley no say. years later, you could even be sued for sounding like yourself on an new album, thereby infringing on the label's "copyrighted property" as John Fogerty of CCR was a few years back.
Are bands compensated for this? less so than any professional in the modern western world. A band is lucky to make 50 cents for every record they sell. a dollar is a rockstar, prima-donna rate. what's given to the cream of the crop with power and leverage.
Does a dollar an album sound reasonable to you? well wait, first you have tyo spend that dollar to pay for your album (millions) and video (multiple millions) -even though the label owns the copyright on your work, and treats you like an employee TLC sold about 17 million records between their first two albums, and made about 56 cents per cd total. After literally 117 million dollars of sales, they made the equivelanty of $50,000 a year each. Kurt Cobain of nirvana had a legendarily good record contract. he passed up the big up-front advance for a better cut of teh royalties on Nevermind, therby saving a fortune. His cut of the 52 million the album made Geffen? One million dollars.
the record industry is glamorous, so we're used to seeing these people in expensive videos. but on a relative scale of value generated to profits earned, they make less than anyone in the free world. eminem generated 172 million in profits this year, but he only recently became a millionaire. (his last album sold 3 million copies!) Authors, in contrast, keep the copyright to their work, and incur no "expenses" to pay with those hefty advances you read about.
That major label contract is nothing but a loan, for which you must sign over your life's work for scraps of meat. many bands get on a major label only to wind up hundreds of thousand of dollars in debt to their label. even bands with gold records. Labels incur none of the risks because the band foots the bill, yet they take all that profits if that band proves to be successful.
does that justify for stealing thru napster. no. but record sales are at a record high right now, record companies generate more than ample profits to compensate their workers. maybe the digital age will usher in a new way for artists to reach fans and cut out these middlemen.
and as for this billion napster is paying, how much of that do you think will reach starving artists. the smart money is on none of it. After all, none of teh mp3.com money reached them. thats why courtney love is suing her label
listen,I agree with the "piracy" thing,would you still feel that way if you were a music artist,or producer,or record company?in the mind of someone who owns the rights to anything,it's the same as copying a rembrant painting and selling it as the original,whats the difference,they go after poeple that sell counterfit "tommy " or "levis" don't they,whats the difference?would'nt you go after someone who was taking free what you designed and have the rights to? when you designed it to sell and make your living off of it? if you look at companies like disney licensing is huge,and they sure don't let anybody unauthorized use a picture of mickey mouse.they own it.thats fair.
and to mooseboy,no I don't mind paying someone for something they have that I want.thats what this free economy is based on.
[ 02-21-2001: Message edited by: crazyman ]
Dalnet an IRC network at any given time will have more mp3s available then Napster. IRC in genreal, Dalnet, Efnet, Undernet, etc will have more mp3s available at any given time then napster will ever dream of haveing and is in no danger of being shutdown. As for stealing music from the artist, I bought their tapes, I bought their cd's I paid to go to their concerts and paid for their merchendise. Now I get a little something in return.
It's Because Light Travels Faster Then Sound That Some People Appear Bright Until They Speak
Jayyy,
This is the first time I have read a post of yours where I must say you are way off...
You can JUSTIFY all you what. It is almost the same as computer software piracy. It is theft.
OK so TLC only got 56 cent per CD. If you d/l the bugger off of nap-whatever, they don't even get the 56 cents! Why do you think bands tour? They make money playing dates. The Rolling Stones made little on the "Steel Wheels" disc, but made 44 million playing arenas promoting the CD. I have friends who make a living as small time bands touring the US... With little money made on CD sales.
Promotion (AKA shoving the sh!t down our throats) does cost quite a bit of money. Who would know the Smashing Pumpkins without it?! This is the service that the record companies provide. Does their service come at a usuary fee.... I would say yes. Then again, what product that we use doesn't?! Nikes are made of less than a dollar of materials by a 8 cent an hour Indo-Chinese and cost us over a 100 dollars US (The same can be said of the whole clothing industry).
If there were a way to download (pirate) food, there would be a justification why the thief was entitled to it.
I do not judge the pirates... I have done some myself (I have a HUGE mp3 collection... I also have a large paid music collection). But guys... call it for what it is!
This is the first time I have read a post of yours where I must say you are way off...
You can JUSTIFY all you what. It is almost the same as computer software piracy. It is theft.
OK so TLC only got 56 cent per CD. If you d/l the bugger off of nap-whatever, they don't even get the 56 cents! Why do you think bands tour? They make money playing dates. The Rolling Stones made little on the "Steel Wheels" disc, but made 44 million playing arenas promoting the CD. I have friends who make a living as small time bands touring the US... With little money made on CD sales.
Promotion (AKA shoving the sh!t down our throats) does cost quite a bit of money. Who would know the Smashing Pumpkins without it?! This is the service that the record companies provide. Does their service come at a usuary fee.... I would say yes. Then again, what product that we use doesn't?! Nikes are made of less than a dollar of materials by a 8 cent an hour Indo-Chinese and cost us over a 100 dollars US (The same can be said of the whole clothing industry).
If there were a way to download (pirate) food, there would be a justification why the thief was entitled to it.
I do not judge the pirates... I have done some myself (I have a HUGE mp3 collection... I also have a large paid music collection). But guys... call it for what it is!
"Forever with you. Forever without you...."
Ok fine. I agree that the companies hose the artists and have for years.By jayyy
Does a dollar an album sound reasonable to you? well wait, first you have tyo spend that dollar to pay for your album (millions) and video (multiple millions) -even though the label owns the copyright on your work, and treats you like an employee TLC sold about 17 million records between their first two albums, and made about 56 cents per cd total. After literally 117 million dollars of sales, they made the equivelanty of $50,000 a year each. Kurt Cobain of nirvana had a legendarily good record contract. he passed up the big up-front advance for a better cut of teh royalties on Nevermind, therby saving a fortune. His cut of the 52 million the album made Geffen? One million dollars.
So lets do what to get even? Pirate all the music we want? If so, the bands get how much cut?....humm Zilch.
My bigest problem with Napster, or any other file sharing program is simple.
I've posted this before but it's worth a repeat.
Let's take one popular album. Say Pink Floyd, Wish You Were Here, on MFSL gold.
I convert it to a great LAME encoded mp3 album.
Now I connect to Napster and share it with a potential 64 million users. It just isn't the same as sharing a tape with your buddy.
Now I won't say it dosn't have it's uses. How about old boots or radio show. Maybe even a rare lp that's out of print and will never be issued on cd.
By the way, this isn't directed just at Jayyy. I happen to know he also buys CD's of his favorite music.
The one thing that Napster IS going to do, is force the price drop of CD's. How soon? Who knows? I do know I can usually find what I'm looking for on sale when it's released at Circuit City, CostCo, Fred Myer ect ect. The deals are there if your willing to look for them. Harder to find stuff? Well wait for the bargin time at CDNOW or Best Buy ect ect.
If your still not willing to pay for your music, then you are truly getting what you pay for. MP3's at 128 bit rate arn't CD quality. Nor will they EVER have any collectability.
Just my 2 cents again.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, and prejudices to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own for the children and the children yet unborn and the pity of it is that these things cannot be confined to the Twilight Zone.
-
striderf1
I really must agree with heaven_no on this topic. bands dream about "making a record deal", because that will promot their music a lot more than napster will. and even if they can get better promoted on napster, their will be no one to buy albums and people probably wouldn't go see them in concert, so the cycle gives them ZERO money and they have to get other jobs to support themselves and they break up eventually. thats just one senario, but the record companies are needed, and they need to make a profit too. I mean, after all, they are human too, and they want to maximize on profit. trust me, if you were the CEO of virgin music you would charge the f$$$ out of your cd's so you can make more money. I really don't think their is anything wrong with what the RIAA or the record company's are doing, but that doesn't mean that I like it. The one aspect that is good about napster is that you can get unreleased music, which is the reason why I hope napster stays up, so I can unreleased stuff (and remixs of songs etc) that you can't find anywere.
this napster thing is really wierd to judge, because their are great things about napster, that if napster is changed the great things will also change and not make napster great, but you have to understand the RIAA's point of view: theres a whole bunch of people that are taking our buisness away, and we don't want to start losing money.
but in the end, I say "live on napster, live on".
this napster thing is really wierd to judge, because their are great things about napster, that if napster is changed the great things will also change and not make napster great, but you have to understand the RIAA's point of view: theres a whole bunch of people that are taking our buisness away, and we don't want to start losing money.
but in the end, I say "live on napster, live on".
Posted by Brent:
I only started using napster about a year ago, I've been collecting MP3's for YEARS before that, there are other ways
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
I have to disagree with both of you guys on this one...
I've been on the Web since Mosaic was being beta tested.
I'm still young, but I've "been there and done that"
Comparing FTPs to Napster is like comparing an OC-48 to a T1 !!!!!
Sure, a T1 will get the job done, but It just can't compare to the vastness of an OC-48.
I still use Napster occasionally to download a particular song I heard on the radio, heard in a movie, or wherever...
It is VERY CONVIENIENT to get all forms of music...
With an FTP your just limited to downloading whatever the person wants to hear...not what YOU want to hear, imho.
I could care less how many non net-savy users Napster has...the more music the better.
Just because something becomes popular doesn't mean it has to automatically suck.
Posted by -Knine-
Dalnet an IRC network at any given time will have more mp3s available then Napster. IRC in genreal, Dalnet, Efnet, Undernet, etc will have more mp3s available at any given time then napster will ever dream of haveing and is in no danger of being shutdown. As for stealing music from the artist, I bought their tapes, I bought their cd's I paid to go to their concerts and paid for their merchendise. Now I get a little something in return.
************
First of all your facts are WAY off based...
Napster has more online users at all times than Efnet and Dalnet combined...Not to mention the fact that most of all IRC users go on to chat and not to trade files.
The largest channels in IRC rarely balloon past the 2 thousand mark...Not to mention MOST of the people in the channels are leeching, so you get an even smaller number of available servers...I almost forgot to mention you have to wait in Queue lines on almost all large servers!!!
Give me a break Knine...
[ 02-21-2001: Message edited by: fanta ]
I only started using napster about a year ago, I've been collecting MP3's for YEARS before that, there are other ways
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
*******Originally posted by cornbread:
AMEN my brother, AMEN
I have to disagree with both of you guys on this one...
I've been on the Web since Mosaic was being beta tested.
I'm still young, but I've "been there and done that"
Comparing FTPs to Napster is like comparing an OC-48 to a T1 !!!!!
Sure, a T1 will get the job done, but It just can't compare to the vastness of an OC-48.
I still use Napster occasionally to download a particular song I heard on the radio, heard in a movie, or wherever...
It is VERY CONVIENIENT to get all forms of music...
With an FTP your just limited to downloading whatever the person wants to hear...not what YOU want to hear, imho.
I could care less how many non net-savy users Napster has...the more music the better.
Just because something becomes popular doesn't mean it has to automatically suck.
Posted by -Knine-
Dalnet an IRC network at any given time will have more mp3s available then Napster. IRC in genreal, Dalnet, Efnet, Undernet, etc will have more mp3s available at any given time then napster will ever dream of haveing and is in no danger of being shutdown. As for stealing music from the artist, I bought their tapes, I bought their cd's I paid to go to their concerts and paid for their merchendise. Now I get a little something in return.
************
First of all your facts are WAY off based...
Napster has more online users at all times than Efnet and Dalnet combined...Not to mention the fact that most of all IRC users go on to chat and not to trade files.
The largest channels in IRC rarely balloon past the 2 thousand mark...Not to mention MOST of the people in the channels are leeching, so you get an even smaller number of available servers...I almost forgot to mention you have to wait in Queue lines on almost all large servers!!!
Give me a break Knine...
[ 02-21-2001: Message edited by: fanta ]
-
striderf1
Striderf1,
I agree that popularity and quality are exclusive.... There are plenty of unpopular bands that really suck! I really like Tool and Godsmack and they are quite popular.
I will say that the best thing about MP3's and the popular outlets, is in finding nearly impossible to locate music.
I feel for the bands who now know the sting that software writers have felt.
I agree that popularity and quality are exclusive.... There are plenty of unpopular bands that really suck! I really like Tool and Godsmack and they are quite popular.
I will say that the best thing about MP3's and the popular outlets, is in finding nearly impossible to locate music.
I feel for the bands who now know the sting that software writers have felt.
"Forever with you. Forever without you...."
-
striderf1
its just a highschool football term, if you don't get it thats ok.Originally posted by cornbread:
dont you get it? never mind. still lmao
yea, heaven no, if you want to check out a good band that never really got popular, check out the band POD (or P.O.D.) they have at leaste 5 or 6 really good songs, all avalible on napster. download hollywood, southtown, rock the party, whatever it takes, and school of hard knocks (although this songs is only OK, it their big attemt to become popular).
and heaven no, what are some good godsmack songs? I only have voodoo, but I like it.
*edit: I especially like "hollywood", its original and its got style and pizzazz.
[ 02-21-2001: Message edited by: striderf1 ]
haha, what is your opinion? you came in talking about how napster sucks and how they "sold out" by putting links to cd now and working with the record companies on like 3 threads. then you got in a conflict w/ mooseboy and jumped on the "you should pay for it and support the artists" bandwagon.Originally posted by cornbread:
you have your opinion, and i have mine, so relax. i motivate myself. i see that i am not the only one with this opinion about napster either. again, just relax, lmao.
either opinion is valid, but based on that and mixed in with your support of just plain old making mp3's 1337 again, i don't think i really understand what your opinion is.
btw, i'm pretty chill, son. maybe you should relax yourself
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
excuse me? where in any post did i say that "you should pay for it and support the artist?" i believe you are mistaken there! if that was the case, why in the earlier thread did i say i would not pay? get you facts together. i did say it(napster)was good for new artist starting out in the business, but i will never agree to pay for napster. i also said if a cd was around 8 bucks i could deal with that, but not when they are 15-20 bucks. thats why i will continue to downloading mp3's for free, or borrow a cd from a friend, and other waysOriginally posted by jayyy:
like 3 threads. then you got in a conflict w/ mooseboy and jumped on the "you should pay for it and support the artists" bandwagon.
.Heaven_No and Downhill:
I concede that napster is piracy, and in all likelihood will be considered stealing by law when this case is over. so sure, we can cut the bs and call a spade a spade here.
And I certainly respect the principles your views are based on. I hope you don't regard my post as a crticism to that.
but theres a difference between theft in principal and theft in practical, monetary terms. allow me to explain.
Heaven_No, i think you made an analogy between Nike's chinese labourers and recording artists. I think its a very poor analogy to defend copyright protection with.
suppose bootleg shoes are circulating throughout new york. hell, i'm sure they already are. suppose nike, hypothetically, lost millions, even billions.
it still strikes me as baseless to object to the bootlegs with a plea of sympathy for the workers. unless the piracy leads to financial ruin for the company, and both nike and the big 5 labels are about as far as one can get from such a state, workers will still be pushing out the product and underpaid at the same rate.
my argument is that:
a)There is no tangible evidence record companies have lost money over napster- record sales are at an all-time high. the only place sales have dipped are on college campuses, by about 5%, and studies show this trend began before napster went online.
what contributes to the resurgence of music sales the past two years? a lot of factors, i suppose. invariably, one has to consider napster. indeed, it is the biggest change in the musical climate the past 20 months. so far it has proved far from detrimental to the industry's health.
b)The billions handed over in settlemets to teh record companies by napster and mp3.com will not affect the livelihood of artists in any way, whatsoever. unless, of course, courtney love wins her lawsuit.
again, a spade is a spade, agreed. but i've worked as a musician myself. for an up and coming band, mp3's and the internet are an incredible boon. the promotional value is immeasurable. while it is piracy (in a graver way for us music nuts who collect thousands of mp3's, i concede), napster is basically the ultimate radio. it enhances the listening experience and stimulates the musical economy the same way it stimulated every other economy. ask yourself- how many bands have you been introduced to through napster. i can think of dozens (and those are just the ones i've really come to love! w/out napster, i wouldn't even know who they are! so how much profit is lost off hearing and storing their music? i'll buy cd's as a result, and if any of these bands come to town i'll go see them. but w/out napster, their profit potential off of me would be 0, because i wouldn't know who they were!
sure, artists receive a small amount of royalties for airplay on the radio. but it would be incredibly narrow to think that this is the principle benefit. the real benefit is exposure. it leads to cd sales, concert tickets, t-shirts and leverage for artists to command higher fees for tv appearances.
don't take that as merely a rationalization. all i'm trying to do is point out that the amount money napster supposedly robs from artists is questionable at best, b), it is difficult to muster much sympathy for Universal Records when literally none of those settlements will reach artists anyway, and c), that napster services, with or without royalties, could well be opening tremendous possibilities for profit for artists. a spade is a spade, but i think these points can be conceded.
I concede that napster is piracy, and in all likelihood will be considered stealing by law when this case is over. so sure, we can cut the bs and call a spade a spade here.
And I certainly respect the principles your views are based on. I hope you don't regard my post as a crticism to that.
but theres a difference between theft in principal and theft in practical, monetary terms. allow me to explain.
Heaven_No, i think you made an analogy between Nike's chinese labourers and recording artists. I think its a very poor analogy to defend copyright protection with.
suppose bootleg shoes are circulating throughout new york. hell, i'm sure they already are. suppose nike, hypothetically, lost millions, even billions.
it still strikes me as baseless to object to the bootlegs with a plea of sympathy for the workers. unless the piracy leads to financial ruin for the company, and both nike and the big 5 labels are about as far as one can get from such a state, workers will still be pushing out the product and underpaid at the same rate.
my argument is that:
a)There is no tangible evidence record companies have lost money over napster- record sales are at an all-time high. the only place sales have dipped are on college campuses, by about 5%, and studies show this trend began before napster went online.
what contributes to the resurgence of music sales the past two years? a lot of factors, i suppose. invariably, one has to consider napster. indeed, it is the biggest change in the musical climate the past 20 months. so far it has proved far from detrimental to the industry's health.
b)The billions handed over in settlemets to teh record companies by napster and mp3.com will not affect the livelihood of artists in any way, whatsoever. unless, of course, courtney love wins her lawsuit.
again, a spade is a spade, agreed. but i've worked as a musician myself. for an up and coming band, mp3's and the internet are an incredible boon. the promotional value is immeasurable. while it is piracy (in a graver way for us music nuts who collect thousands of mp3's, i concede), napster is basically the ultimate radio. it enhances the listening experience and stimulates the musical economy the same way it stimulated every other economy. ask yourself- how many bands have you been introduced to through napster. i can think of dozens (and those are just the ones i've really come to love! w/out napster, i wouldn't even know who they are! so how much profit is lost off hearing and storing their music? i'll buy cd's as a result, and if any of these bands come to town i'll go see them. but w/out napster, their profit potential off of me would be 0, because i wouldn't know who they were!
sure, artists receive a small amount of royalties for airplay on the radio. but it would be incredibly narrow to think that this is the principle benefit. the real benefit is exposure. it leads to cd sales, concert tickets, t-shirts and leverage for artists to command higher fees for tv appearances.
don't take that as merely a rationalization. all i'm trying to do is point out that the amount money napster supposedly robs from artists is questionable at best, b), it is difficult to muster much sympathy for Universal Records when literally none of those settlements will reach artists anyway, and c), that napster services, with or without royalties, could well be opening tremendous possibilities for profit for artists. a spade is a spade, but i think these points can be conceded.
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
To defend my IRC craft the average channel that specificaly shares Mp3 files has at least 30 people servering mp3s with a list in excess of 20GB. The network I am on now has 2 people with over 100GB of Mp3s. 5 to 10 people with a min of 40GB and several 20GB and under. Dalnet has over 100 channels specific to Mp3 tradeing. 30 times 100 is 3000 people shareing mp3s averageing 20GB each is 60,000GB of Mp3s. This is a concervative figure but you can expect on the larger networks over 100,000GB of Mp3s combined between all people shareing Mp3s. Majority of people shareing mp3s are no slower then DSL or cable. I currently serve 1 Mp3 per person at a time no more then 5 total uploads at one time. Each person can queue up to 15 Mp3s at a time and the average wait per queue is 3 to 4 seconds. depending on your own download speed. I am no where near the fastest server. I have found that on napster the library of Mp3s is well over 100,000GB and there is alot more diversity on napster. I have found more rare imported Mp3s on napster then IRC. Napster is by far easier to get your mp3s from where as IRC you could find yourself searching several networks and 100's of channels to find the Mp3 you are looking for depending on how rare it is. I do think there is a little more diversity in the Mp3s being shared on IRC, but that my own bias opinion. I don't damn napster, used it alot, its search feature by far works better then what is capable on IRC. But as I said i am bias as I have been useing IRC for over 5 years. You use whats easy for you. I don't care to see Napster go it had its place. Just when stuff comes along that makes things simple like this you get alot of lamers and that sucks.
It's Because Light Travels Faster Then Sound That Some People Appear Bright Until They Speak
Jayyy,Originally posted by Heaven_No:
..... This is the service that the record companies provide. Does their service come at a usuary fee.... I would say yes. Then again, what product that we use doesn't?! Nikes are made of less than a dollar of materials by a 8 cent an hour Indo-Chinese and cost us over a 100 dollars US (The same can be said of the whole clothing industry).
If there were a way to download (pirate) food, there would be a justification why the thief was entitled to it.
I think you took what I said out of context. The analogy was that the raw materials and labor that go into the products we consume are often insignificant when compared to the final price. That is why I used the term usuary when describing the practice.
Knock off Nikes are quickly dispatched when found and the peddlar is arrested.... I am often fascinated why watch makers don't do the same. I guess they realize that some folk are not going to buy a $10000 Rolex and could give a rat's heinie if they buy a $10 fake.
Actually, preteens and teens are the one of the largest purchasers of music. If they can spend an allowance on cd's of steal them, guess what they will do?
Also, not all labels are huge. Smaller indies take a beating. How about the town music store? Scooter's (The local Flemington NJ store) has taken a beating. The owner showed me a correlation with Napster's rise and his demise. The net stores effected him only a bit. The expendiance of a store purchase appeals to his young customers.... Getting the music free is even more appealing.
shant,
david
"Forever with you. Forever without you...."
Jayyy,Originally posted by jayyy:
Heaven_No and Downhill:
I concede that napster is piracy, and in all likelihood will be considered stealing by law when this case is over. so sure, we can cut the bs and call a spade a spade here.
And I certainly respect the principles your views are based on. I hope you don't regard my post as a crticism to that.
but theres a difference between theft in principal and theft in practical, monetary terms. allow me to explain.
Heaven_No, i think you made an analogy between Nike's chinese labourers and recording artists. I think its a very poor analogy to defend copyright protection with.
suppose bootleg shoes are circulating throughout new york. hell, i'm sure they already are. suppose nike, hypothetically, lost millions, even billions.
it still strikes me as baseless to object to the bootlegs with a plea of sympathy for the workers. unless the piracy leads to financial ruin for the company, and both nike and the big 5 labels are about as far as one can get from such a state, workers will still be pushing out the product and underpaid at the same rate.
my argument is that:
a)There is no tangible evidence record companies have lost money over napster- record sales are at an all-time high. the only place sales have dipped are on college campuses, by about 5%, and studies show this trend began before napster went online.
what contributes to the resurgence of music sales the past two years? a lot of factors, i suppose. invariably, one has to consider napster. indeed, it is the biggest change in the musical climate the past 20 months. so far it has proved far from detrimental to the industry's health.
b)The billions handed over in settlemets to teh record companies by napster and mp3.com will not affect the livelihood of artists in any way, whatsoever. unless, of course, courtney love wins her lawsuit.
again, a spade is a spade, agreed. but i've worked as a musician myself. for an up and coming band, mp3's and the internet are an incredible boon. the promotional value is immeasurable. while it is piracy (in a graver way for us music nuts who collect thousands of mp3's, i concede), napster is basically the ultimate radio. it enhances the listening experience and stimulates the musical economy the same way it stimulated every other economy. ask yourself- how many bands have you been introduced to through napster. i can think of dozens (and those are just the ones i've really come to love! w/out napster, i wouldn't even know who they are! so how much profit is lost off hearing and storing their music? i'll buy cd's as a result, and if any of these bands come to town i'll go see them. but w/out napster, their profit potential off of me would be 0, because i wouldn't know who they were!
sure, artists receive a small amount of royalties for airplay on the radio. but it would be incredibly narrow to think that this is the principle benefit. the real benefit is exposure. it leads to cd sales, concert tickets, t-shirts and leverage for artists to command higher fees for tv appearances.
don't take that as merely a rationalization. all i'm trying to do is point out that the amount money napster supposedly robs from artists is questionable at best, b), it is difficult to muster much sympathy for Universal Records when literally none of those settlements will reach artists anyway, and c), that napster services, with or without royalties, could well be opening tremendous possibilities for profit for artists. a spade is a spade, but i think these points can be conceded.
these are just some tidbits
I can personally say that napster has introduced me to ZERO bands. I knew what I was looking for before I hit the search button. This forum has introduced me to more bands as did internet radio.
The record companies, as I already said, does a bang up job getting you to know the artists. It is an education that you pay for.
I already said that bigger bucks go to the band while they tour. However, They are still being denied their 50 cents a disc that is pirated.
I would agree that some d/led stuff did have me buy it later. Not from Napster though. They were d/l from news groups of specific genre. That is how I learned of the artist.
shant,
david
"Forever with you. Forever without you...."
-
striderf1
what sucks about the whole napster deal, is that if you take away napster, you take away the users and all the stuff you can't get in a store, but if you keep napster free, over time you will drive out smaller labels and it will take a toll on music sales and that will in turn negativley effect music itself. this is really a no win situation.
-
striderf1
but napster lets you hear music that you normalls wouldn't hear. I agree w/ you on everything you said, except that napster does give definete benefits to the user for listening to new music.Originally posted by Heaven_No:
I can personally say that napster has introduced me to ZERO bands. I knew what I was looking for before I hit the search button. This forum has introduced me to more bands as did internet radio.
I understand the argument that the final cost is more than that of the physical product. thats the argument some economists have made in the music industry's case. but i say that argument is bunk because the bands produce the product regardless of whether or not money is involved, and the label pays its expenses thru the bands miniscule royalties even as it profits off (literally) 90% of the sale price of the album.
Retailers get almost as screwed as artists. i have a friend who wons a record store too, and he sure isn't happy about napster! but he has a bigger problem, though its one he's come to accept since he started: he only makes a dollar or two for every album he sells. in cnadian funds, the wholesale albums cost 11-12 dollars canadian. w/ wal-mart selling them almost at cost or below ($13 each), even staying relatively competitive leaves his profit margin razor, razor thin! he's actually branching out into clothes now, where the mark-up is at least 200%, Music and Menswear, quite a store!
so my question is this: if retailers only make 2 bucks on the sale of a $13 dollar cd, and if the artist only makes 56 cents (after they pay all of the label's opertaional costs, i might add), who the hell is making the rest of the money? why? by what justification?
once again, this does not justify piracy. but when people want to defend artists, they defend these scumbags just as much! more so, because the record companies make all the cash from the settlements anyway! it boggles my mind. doesn't anyone see tyhe hypocrisy in them claiming napster robs artists? why do people villify napster, but not feel even the slightest outrage over this?
Retailers get almost as screwed as artists. i have a friend who wons a record store too, and he sure isn't happy about napster! but he has a bigger problem, though its one he's come to accept since he started: he only makes a dollar or two for every album he sells. in cnadian funds, the wholesale albums cost 11-12 dollars canadian. w/ wal-mart selling them almost at cost or below ($13 each), even staying relatively competitive leaves his profit margin razor, razor thin! he's actually branching out into clothes now, where the mark-up is at least 200%, Music and Menswear, quite a store!
so my question is this: if retailers only make 2 bucks on the sale of a $13 dollar cd, and if the artist only makes 56 cents (after they pay all of the label's opertaional costs, i might add), who the hell is making the rest of the money? why? by what justification?
once again, this does not justify piracy. but when people want to defend artists, they defend these scumbags just as much! more so, because the record companies make all the cash from the settlements anyway! it boggles my mind. doesn't anyone see tyhe hypocrisy in them claiming napster robs artists? why do people villify napster, but not feel even the slightest outrage over this?
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.
I only started using napster about a year ago, I've been collecting MP3's for YEARS before that, there are other ways
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
"Would you mind not standing on my chest, my hats on fire." - The Doctor
my guess is thats whats really motivating crazyman.Originally posted by Brent:
personally I hope Napster does shut down, then all the idiots who can't figure out how to get MP3's won't have them, as it should be and use to be, then once again aquiring MP3's will be considered l33t
Funny is when a fat lady walks around while someone plays the tuba. Once you've seen that, you'll never laugh at anything else. Except maybe a skeleton dancing around while someone plays the xylophone, which is almost exactly the opposite of a fat lady walking around while someone plays the tuba. Well, a skeleton is the opposite of a fat lady. But is a xylophone the opposite of a tuba? History will decide.