Judge Shuts Down Napstergreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/napster000727.htmlSwan Song?
Judge Shuts Down Napster
July 27 Napster has hit a sour note in court.
A federal judge in San Francisco shut down the popular music swapping Web site saying the online company encourages wholesale infringement against music industry copyrights.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel noted that 70 million people are expected to be using Napster by years end unless the service is halted.
It is pretty much acknowledged by Napster that this is infringement, Patel said.
Injunction Starts Friday
The injunction will go into effect at midnight Friday, after the nations largest record producers post a $5 million bond against any financial losses Napster suffers from being shut down pending trial.
Napsters attorney, David Boies, said the San Mateo, Calif.-based company will appeal.
I think that a settlement, frankly, is unlikely, Boies said.
The Recording Industry Association of America sued Napster in December, accusing it of encouraging an unrestrained, illegal, online bazaar. Napster argued that personal copying of music is protected by federal law.
The ruling also is a victory for the heavy metal band Metallica.
The group sued the company, claiming more than more than 300,000 Napster users had traded its songs online. Napster responded by blocking access for more than 30,000 people, but new users continued trading the bands music.
This Is Not Sharing
Were elated, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich said. Sharing is such a warm, cuddly, friendly word ... this is not sharing, its duplicating.
Some Metallica fans are furious at their once-beloved band, and a strong backlash looms.
I can imagine there being boycotts, said Jonah Meadows, a Napster user. A lot of people are outraged at Metallica for being so petty about this. So I imagine that could happen.
Elisabeth Prot, a sales executive from San Francisco who uses Napster, said she would look for alternative programs to trade music online and add to her collection of more than 120 downloaded music files.
Im disappointed, she said, but I think that there will soon be another way to download free music on the Internet.
One artist supporting the courts decision is rap singer Wyclef Jean, speaking at a private gig Wednesday in New York, he said was glad to hear the Napster Web site was being blocked.
When an artist gives permission to do that to their music, its cool, Jean said. But if you just take itand you do what you want with it and the artist doesnt have control, I think thats foul.
Wyclef added, he does put MP3 files of his songs on the Web and believes it is important to offer music in that form.
To some supporters, Napster is considered a pioneer in the music industry.
What Napster has really done is educated the marketplace that this is a great application, and this is how people would like to hear music in the future, said Gene Hoffman of eMusic, a Redwood City, Calif.-based company that makes unlimited music available for a fee.
Costly to Music Industry?
The RIAA estimates that song-swapping via Napster by an estimated 20 million people worldwide has cost the music industry more than $300 million in lost sales.
But some research suggests that Internet song-swapping may not be so bad for the music industry after all.
A recent study of more than 2,200 online music fans by Jupiter Communications suggests that users of Napster and other music-sharing programs are 45 percent more likely to increase their music purchasing than fans who arent trading digital bootlegs online.
Clearly, people who are using Napster love music. Theyre probably our best customers, said Hilary Rosen, president of the RIAA.
-- The day (the@music.died), July 27, 2000
Sad day indeed.Rubbing head and exclaims "Oh hell I never liked Metallica Anyhow"
Knowing this comment for sure shall bring opposition, but caring less, wanders onto the next thread.
*tee-hee*
xoxo, sumerous
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), July 27, 2000.
I don't think it's a sad day at all. People were stealing copyrighted works. I agree that Napster offers a new opportunity to distribute music legitimately without the overhead of record companies, etc. but if artists don't want their music distributed that way, people can't just thumb their nose at them and steal their work anyway.In the future, I forsee bands, including Metallica, releasing selected songs, outtakes, and other creations for distribution online through services like Napster. It certainly makes sense. But to simply allow people to download entire albums against the wishes of the artist is another matter.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 27, 2000.
Well then they gonna have to go after ALL the rest of the sites too eh? What next? I see it just around the corner taxation of the net.What does one have to do with the other? Think about it. As for Metallica, I hate their damn music anyhow, and as for napster, shoot, it took over 2 hrs to download there anyhow.
Things that make hmmm go hmmmm?
xoxo, sumer
-- consumer (shhhhhh@aol.com), July 27, 2000.
As it should be. This is a clear violation of intellectual property rights that apply to photography, writings, and works of art.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 27, 2000.
Helllloooooo!!!We pay for our internet use it is NOT our fault we can obtain freebies is it? I think not.
I enjoy much info on the net, and music as well. I would purchase music before I transferred it to a disc. But I would'nt mind a 'free' sample to listen to. My gosh, they let you listen in the darn stores!!!!
just mho.
xoxo, sumer
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), July 27, 2000.
noooooooooooooooooo!ok...i have about 22 hrs to download 2000 songs. I'd better get crackin! =o)
-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), July 27, 2000.
Well then they gonna have to go after ALL the rest of the sites too eh?Perhaps. Hopefully, it won't come to that, but if people keep stealing copyrighted materials, then they will have to pay the consequences.
What next? I see it just around the corner taxation of the net.
I don't see how distributing music relates to taxation of the net.
What does one have to do with the other? Think about it.
I thought about it and I still have no idea what one has to do with the other.
We pay for our internet use it is NOT our fault we can obtain freebies is it? I think not.
Who is saying that it's your fault that we can obtain "freebies?" And how does paying for our internet use justify stealing copyrighted works?
I enjoy much info on the net, and music as well. I would purchase music before I transferred it to a disc. But I would'nt mind a 'free' sample to listen to. My gosh, they let you listen in the darn stores!!!!
Nobody's objecting to making samples available. I even suggested something of the sort in my last post. Most music sites such as Amazon and CD-Now offer short samples for most of the newer CDs out there in RealAudio and MPEG Audio formats.
This is a far cry from allowing people to download entire CDs against the wishes of the artist who created the work.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 27, 2000.
consumer........If you had ever done the work of a musician, you might think differently in this matter; there are countless hours, often years, required for very little or no pay whatsoever. This is a career path of delayed gratification in the extreme. Granted, it is a lot of fun along the way, but when the time comes for payoff for all the sacrifices made on the way up, I don't think I'd stand still for having all the work just given away and undermining my earnings. These guys often have families to concern themselves with, not to mention, nobody is paying retirement for them, unless they ante up a percentage on their own.
.....Imagine going to work for six years, perfecting your skills in a given field; you're doing without much of what you see all of your friends having, keeping your eyes on that prize. When your skills have been perfected, and you're worthy of being paid for what you do, you find no market any longer because someone found out what you were capable of and built a machine that could do the very same thing. Nothing left for you to do.
-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), July 27, 2000.
I've already downloaded about 1200 songs and will probably get a few hundred more before midnight tomorrow. The hardest part is thinking of more songs I want that I don't already have, but I'll be pretty happy with my collection by the time they shut down.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 27, 2000.
The hardest part is thinking of more songs I want that I don't already haveYou may want to focus on the artist rather than on the song. In your case, start downloading songs from artists that are lesser-known, and therefore more likely to have invested amounts of money that are much larger than the return they have received. That way, you can create CDs of their music and give them away for free, thus ensuring that the artist will remain in debt indefinitely, never seeing a dime from their work. Then, once they've died of starvation or committed suicide, you can dance a little jig on their graves.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 27, 2000.
That's pretty cynical hmmm, with no basis in reality, but that is par for the course for you. Learn the facts before you spout your negativity and false accusations.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 27, 2000.
I dunno, Hawk........I kind of see this as sanctioned theft... Nice to see ya, BTW...
-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), July 27, 2000.
I just had a suprisingly heated discussion with a teenager about this today. I told him that as a wannabe writer, he should be extremely concerned about intellectual property and copyrights.His empassioned take was 'aw, it's proabably an 80 year old judge, who doesn't know anything about technology'. This is an intelligent kid, but his viewpoint is colored by current personal benefits from digital trading.
-- flora (***@__._), July 27, 2000.
Metallica is the only band I'm aware of that told Napster they did not want their songs shared through this technology. I've never downloaded a single Metallica song. What right does the court have to shut down the exposure to a marketplace that many new bands want, when apparently no other groups have told Napster they don't want to be included? The greedy record companies are the ones who are bribing the judge to shut it down, even though many artists still want to use it.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 27, 2000.
Hawk........In that case they should be allowed to remain in operation, but only distribute music by those artists that voluntarily relinquish rights. I don't see why any artist would wish to do so though.
-- Patrick (pmchenry@gradall.com), July 27, 2000.
"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work." -- Lou ReedHawk,
I gotta say I wholeheartedly agree with Lou's sentiment.
Patrick,
There is upside potential for artists to use the medium for promotion.
I've turned up a column which you both might find of interest:
http://www.riaa.com/Guest_Column.cfm
-- flora (***@__._), July 28, 2000.
Did you get permission form the musicians that recorded every tape or album you've shared with friends?If they don't want to be on Napster, all they have to do is send them a request in writing. So far, most artists don't seem to mind the extra exposure. They are establishing a much larger group of fans and will soon be able to use this technology to charge for their music on a per-song basis, instead of people feeling ripped off when they pay for $15 for 10 songs and they only want 2 of them. The record industry is trying to shut it down because it will put them out of business. Artists can record their own music in MP3 format and distribute them for 100% profit, instead of paying the record labels 95% to mold it in plastic and shrink wrap it.
Those who are smart and really want to maximize their profits will embrace this technology.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 28, 2000.
"...will soon be able to use this technology to charge for their music on a per-song basis..."You got it, that's the point. It's only a matter of time & legality. Don't you find the concept of intellectual property rights to be an interesting one these days?
-- flora (***@__._), July 28, 2000.
did you g3t permissIon fRo/\/\ teh musicians thatr recroded evary tape ro alubjm Youve sharrd with d00sd!?!?!?!? LLOLO!!!!!!!!!111~~ IF THEY DO'TN WANT TO BE ON NAPSTER,, AL7 TEH AHVE tO DO IS SEND TEHM 4 rEQUEST IN WRITINMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!~~~~~~~ ,,, soo ffar, most artistz dont seem T oM1nd teh extra exposrue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 tehy r establIshing a mcuh largar group 0ffans and wioll sOon be 4ble to use this t3chnology to ch4rge fro their Music on ap aR-song basis, instead of dO0dez efeling riopped0ff wehn tehy p4y fro $15 fro 10 osngs anmd tehy onLy wzant 2 of tehm tHe Record 1|\|dsutrY si trying to shtu iT down becauz iT willl put the/\/\ 0ut of business!!!!!!!!!!!!111~~~~~~ ARTISTZ C4N REC0RD ETh1R OWN MJUDSIC IN MP3FORMAT AND DISTRIBUTE THWEM FoR 100% PROFIT, INSTEAD 0F PATInG THE ECROD LAB3LS 95% O MOLFD IT INLPASTIC AND SHR1NKJ WRAP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11~~~~~~~ olololololololo.... THOS3 WHO RR SMART AND REALLY WAnT TO MAXIMIZET HEIR PROFITZ WiLl EMBRACE THIS TECHNOL0GY DONT RIPE ME OFF
-- nobody (nowhere@no.how), July 28, 2000.
Did you get pehmisshun f'm de musicians dat recordid ebehy tape or album you'be sharid wid friends, duh...uh...? If dey don't want t' be on Napsteh, all dey habe t' do is send dem a rekest in writigg. So far, most artists don't seem t' mind the, uh, extra exposure. Dey are establishigg a much largeh group of fans 'n will soon be aggle t' use dis technology t' charge f' deir music on a peh-song basis, duuhhhh, instead of peoble feeligg rippid off when dey pay f' $15 f' 10 songs 'n dey on want 2 of dem. De record industry is tryigg t' shut it down cuz it will put dem out of bidness. Artists can record deir own music in MP3 f'mat 'n distriboot dem f' 100% profit, uh, instead of payigg de record labels 95% t' mold it in plastic 'n shrink wrap it. Duh. Dose who are smehts 'n real want t' maximize deir profits will embrace dis technology.
-- nobody (what hawk@really.soundslike), July 28, 2000.
Ju git permisshun fo'm th' moosicians thet reco'ded ev'ry tape o' album yo've shared wif friends? Eff'n they doesn't be hankerin' t'be on Napster, all they hafta does is send them a requess in writin'. So far, most artists doesn't seem t'mind th' extry exposure. They is establishin' a much larger group of fans an' will soon be able t'use this hyar technology t'charge fo' their moosic on a per-song basis, instead of varmints feelin' ripped off when they pay fo' $15 fo' 10 songs an' they only be hankerin' 2 of them, dawgone it. Th' reco'd indestry is tryin' t'shet it down on account o' it will put them outta business. Artists kin reco'd their own moosic in MP3 fo'mat an' distribute them fo' 100% profit, instead of payin' th' reco'd labels 95% t'mold it in plastic an' shrink wrap it. Them who is smart an' pow'ful be hankerin' t'maximize their profits will embrace this hyar technology. -- Hawk (flyin@howdy-doo.agin), July 28, 2000.
-- nobody (what hawk@really.soundslike), July 28, 2000.
Did you get pewmission fowm the musicians that wecowded evewy tape ow awbum you've shawed wif fwiends? If they don't want to be on Napstew, aww they have to do is send them a weqwest in wwiting. So faw, most awtists don't seem to mind the extwa exposuwe. Dey awe estabwishing a much wawgew gwoup of fans and wiww soon be abwe to use this technowogy to chawge fow theiw music on a pew-song basis, instead of peopwe feewing wipped off when they pay fow $15 fow 10 songs and they onwy want 2 of them. De wecowd industwy is twying to shut it down because it wiww put them out of business. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! Awtists can wecowd theiw own music in MP3 fowmat and distwibute them fow 100% pwofit, instead of paying the wecowd wabews 95% to mowd it in pwastic and shwink wwap it. Dose who awe smawt and weawwy want to maximize theiw pwofits wiww embwace this technowogy. -- Hawk (fwyin@hi.again), Juwy 28, 2000.
-- hehehe (what hawk@really.soundslike), July 28, 2000.
Heeee heeee heee!!Insanity runs rampant, I won't even need to use any bullets.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 28, 2000.
hmm@hmm.hmm, as usual I do not disagree with you in principle. But mass mp3 swapping is a can of worms that can't be closed. Have any of you used Gnutella yet? Instead of speculating over whether file sharing helps or hurts record sales, I'll simply write that the courtroom can not and will not stop twenty million people who want to trade songs over a vast inter-network.
-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), July 28, 2000.
"His empassioned take was 'aw, it's proabably an 80 year old judge, who doesn't know anything about technology'."Flora, his viewpoint may be "colored" but he's also correct. The judge's wording of her decision showed how little she understands about the very simple concept of Napster (i.e. users connecting through web servers to share songs located on their own hard drives).
-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), July 28, 2000.
That's pretty cynical hmmm, with no basis in realityHey, it was just a suggestion.
Metallica is the only band I'm aware of that told Napster they did not want their songs shared through this technology.
Dr. Dre also has a lawsuit against Napster and a coalition called Artists Against Piracy has been formed to support the RIAA lawsuit which includes Alanis Morissette, Garth Brooks, Christina Aguilera and Sarah McLachlan.
What right does the court have to shut down the exposure to a marketplace that many new bands want, when apparently no other groups have told Napster they don't want to be included?
But obviously there are other groups that don't want to be included, as I've pointed out.
If they don't want to be on Napster, all they have to do is send them a request in writing.
Metallica did just that, but, as pointed out in the article above, that didn't stop people from stealing their copyrighted work.
So far, most artists don't seem to mind the extra exposure.
I'm not sure which artists you're referring to. I mentioned a few that clearly do mind, do you have a list of artists that don't? Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are artists that don't mind, especially if they are not well known. Clearly, Napster offers them a great advantage in this case. However, I don't see any indication that "most" artists don't mind the exposure.
They are establishing a much larger group of fans and will soon be able to use this technology to charge for their music on a per-song basis, instead of people feeling ripped off when they pay for $15 for 10 songs and they only want 2 of them. The record industry is trying to shut it down because it will put them out of business.
It's certainly a sensible idea, if the technology is used for that purpose. However, that's clearly not what it's being used for.
Artists can record their own music in MP3 format and distribute them for 100% profit, instead of paying the record labels 95% to mold it in plastic and shrink wrap it.
And I see nothing wrong with this. The problem occurs only when music that was formerly distributed for a price (under the "old" system) is given away for free in violation of the artists copyright. Like I said, I forsee a future where Metallica creates music and distributes it on MP3 or some other digital format to be distributed online. That's entirely different that someone making one of their CDs available against their wishes, and a few hundred people downloading it. Those who are smart and really want to maximize their profits will embrace this technology.
However, embracing the technology does not necessarily mean that artists should simply allow their work to be stolen from them.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 28, 2000.
Lol! You've GOT to be kidding!I've downloaded songs from HUNDREDS of different artists through Napster, and there are THOUSANDS available through this technology that have filed no complaint against the service. You mentioned FIVE artists that want to shut it down! Why don't we just call in the Nazis to take away everything that is good because a couple of people don't like it!
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 28, 2000.
From Gnutella:I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.
Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.
--Ian Clarke
-- MP3 Afficionado (boycott@metallica.now), July 28, 2000.
I've downloaded songs from HUNDREDS of different artists through Napster, and there are THOUSANDS available through this technology that have filed no complaint against the service.They may not even be aware that their copyrighted work is being stolen. Not filing a complaint is not necessarily a vote in support of the service or their methods.
You mentioned FIVE artists that want to shut it down!
I mentioned five artists by name that do not want their copyrights violated. So far, you have mentioned none that have voiced their support of distributing their coprighted work through the service. Also, I would venture a guess that the artists I mentioneed are not interested as much in "shutting down" Napster as ensuring that their work is not stolen through it.
Why don't we just call in the Nazis to take away everything that is good because a couple of people don't like it!
I don't see the connection between artists trying to ensure that their copyrighted work is not stolen from them and Nazis taking away "everything that is good."
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 28, 2000.
I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.
It would appear then that the Gnutella poster is likening copyrighted music created by a band or an individual to the invention of fire. Do you agree with this premise, MP3 Afficionado? Do you feel that bands must, as a rule, create music and then simply distribute it at no cost? Does the same apply to books and movies as well?
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 28, 2000.
Oh, and for the MP3/Napster addicts out there, never fear. Judges can't shut down the net. Can't use Napster? No problem. Try Scour or iMesh.I predict a slew of Napster-like applications and sites will pop up overseas in the near future.
Take that, tin-heads.
-- MP3 Afficionado (boycott@metallica.now), July 28, 2000.
It would appear then that the Gnutella poster is likening copyrighted music created by a band or an individual to the invention of fire. Do you agree with this premise, MP3 Afficionado?No, I don't agree with this premise. Apples and oranges. I posted Ian Clark's comments as food for debate.
Do you feel that bands must, as a rule, create music and then simply distribute it at no cost? Does the same apply to books and movies as well?
No, I don't feel that bands should distribute their works at no cost. That's not the point of the controversy with Napster. The artist and the record company still make money with MP3 swapping over the net. In fact, there's growing proof that this kind of swapping actually increases sales of legal CD's. Some analysts have reported as much as 45% over the past year. The largest age group buying CD's, and also swapping over the net, are teens. They also happen to be the age group with the least amount of money to "waste", or disposable. A trend that's been found to happen on Napster is that a kid will sample a song by a new artist, recommended by another teen on a chat room. If he likes the song, he'll sample another MP3 from that artist/band. If he likes them both, he'll buy the CD.
There's also a number of artists who praise Napster for having faciliated their exposure; they got to be known faster, easier and cheaper than if they had to promote themselves the conventional way with tours and promotions.
-- MP3 Afficionado (boycott@metallica.now), July 28, 2000.
"aqua", it's not necessary that the judge know the technology involved, all she has to know is the law. And the law is quite clear on copyright violation, which is the issue at hand. (Her age doesn't matter a whit either.)
And that's what this is all about -- violation of copyright. The technology, IMO, is simply incidental. Doesn't matter how the material was stolen; all that matters is that it was stolen; and that is the point of law in this case.
Think back to the advent of the VCR and the resulting to-do over the implications of that technology. (And think back even further to "cassette recorders"; yeah, my age is showing.) With every new technology, the same issues seem to arise. Isn't this situation similar? Like cassettes and VCRs before, it will no doubt work itself out in due time. But until it does, no one has the right to steal another's work without paying for it.
"MP3 Afficionado", why do you feel that artists should just give away their work (or in this case, allow their work to be given away)? Do you work for free? If not, why do you assume that anyone else should?
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 28, 2000.
Hawk and Cin: hope you got reaaaalll busy...For the rest, I still stand firm. :-0 and look at the responses!!!
xoxo,sumer
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), July 28, 2000.
No, I don't feel that bands should distribute their works at no cost. That's not the point of the controversy with Napster.Of course it is. Bands are upset because their coprighted works are being distributed without their permission.
The artist and the record company still make money with MP3 swapping over the net. In fact, there's growing proof that this kind of swapping actually increases sales of legal CD's. Some analysts have reported as much as 45% over the past year.
I'd be interested to know who has reported this.
The largest age group buying CD's, and also swapping over the net, are teens. They also happen to be the age group with the least amount of money to "waste", or disposable. A trend that's been found to happen on Napster is that a kid will sample a song by a new artist, recommended by another teen on a chat room. If he likes the song, he'll sample another MP3 from that artist/band. If he likes them both, he'll buy the CD.
If true, then this is certainly a plus for the band. And as I have said previously, I forsee a time when bands make selected songs available via MP3 for just this purpose. The problem arises when the bands entire album collection is made available via MP3, allowing this same kid to simply download the entire CD, and every other CD from that band, rather than purchase it.
Not only that, but as Hawk pointed out, many people don't want the entire CD, but rather only want a few songs from it. The future of MP3 holds great promise here since it can facilitate the purchasing of individual songs rather than entire CDs. As it stands now, however, it facilitates the stealing of individual songs, against the artists wishes, allowing the user to compile his or her own CD of favorites, all at no cost. In this situation, there is no reason why the user would purchase the original CD.
There's also a number of artists who praise Napster for having faciliated their exposure; they got to be known faster, easier and cheaper than if they had to promote themselves the conventional way with tours and promotions.
This also makes sense. And for these artists, distribution of their work via Napster is a great idea. However, this does not justify people stealing work by artists who do not want it distributed via the service.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 28, 2000.
"MP3 Afficionado", why do you feel that artists should just give away their work (or in this case, allow their work to be given away)? Do you work for free? If not, why do you assume that anyone else should?Patricia, I answered that question to Hmmm. And you make the case for Napster quite nicely yourself with your analogy with VCR's and cassette recorders. There's really not much difference with VCR's and Napster, except that Napster makes it much easier to find a larger group of people to swap with. The law that applies to VCR's and video's applies to Napster as well (making copies and distributing them for profit is illegal, but not illegal for personal and non-profit use.) Napster indicates this in it's entrance screen. The responsability ultimately falls on the individuals to abide by this law.
As with VCR's, there's always a small percentage of dubious people who will brake that law. Some do burn MP3's onto CD and resell them for cheap or gain from them in other ways. But the great majority don't.
-- MP3 Afficionado (boycott@metallica.now), July 28, 2000.
I mentioned five artists by name that do not want their copyrights violated. So far, you have mentioned none that have voiced their support of distributing their coprighted work through the service.-- (hmm@hmm.hmm)
Here is Napster's list:
Chuck D
Limp Bizkit
The Offspring
Ben Folds Five
Sunny Day Real Estate
Social Distortion
Face to Face
Get Up Kids
Less Than Jake
Nextmen
The Coup
Cypress Hill
Dr. Octagon
Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins)
DJ Keoki
The Pilfers
Elwood
Anti-pop Consortium
The Grateful Dead
Eve 6
Mix Master Mike
Marianne Faithfull
Link
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
Call it anal, but that just makes me want to download metallica and dr dre. I'll bet others feel the same way. =)
-- cin (cin@cinn.cin), July 28, 2000.
LOL!! "Marianne Faithful"?? (Is she still around?!?!) Well, OF COURSE she'd be *for* it; unless you're kind of on the "older" side, who the hell even knows who she is? (And "The Grateful Dead"? Sorry, but unless I see a *signed agreement*, I find that very hard to believe.) But take a look at the majority on that list; who the hell are these people and/or what have they come up with lately? Of course they'd be *for* it. They need the exposure.
MP3, you and I posted about the same time, so I didn't see your response. I don't think I made any such "case" for Napster. What they are doing is *illegal*. Period. There is *no debate* there. An artist creates a work; in this case, a "for-profit" work. People are stealing that work because Napster has enabled the process.
Actually, "hmm" said it much better than I could; I agree with all of his/her sentiments. I also think vehicles such as Napster do, in fact, benefit those such as the Marianne Faithfuls or "unknowns". But unless these artists have signed an agreement allowing their music to be distributed in the manner in which it is currently being distributed, no one has the right to steal it; and that is exactly what is happening.
Perhaps it's just my perspective; many years ago, I worked as the Chapter Coordinator for the American Society of Magazine Photographers in NYC. I saw way too many outright violations of artists' copyrighted materials. Photography is just as expensive a "hobby-turned-career" as is music; there is literally thousands of dollars worth of equipment involved. There are untold hours of creation involved.
Why would anyone berate these people simply because they don't want to GIVE AWAY their work for nothing? I don't understand this at all.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 28, 2000.
So, you think that Limp Bizkit, Ben Folds Five, Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins), and Cypress Hill are unknowns?You need to get out more...
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
Jim, "So, you think that Limp Bizkit, Ben Folds Five, Billy Corgan (Smashing Pumpkins), and Cypress Hill are unknowns..."
Please re-read what I actually wrote: "But take a look at the majority on that list; who the hell are these people and/or what have they come up with lately?"
Note the use of the word **MAJORITY**. Aside from Limp Bizkit and Ben Folds Five, what HAVE Billy Corgan and/or Cypress Hill really done lately? Yes, a few years ago they were at the top; but now? So you can see how they would benefit from a Napster-type situation. And (again) if the artist AGREES to the practice, then there is absolutely no problem whatsoever.
I don't "need to get out more". Please don't turn this into a pissing contest; it's a discussion. Perhaps you can address the illegality of stealing a copyrighted work, which is the actual point here.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 28, 2000.
(And "The Grateful Dead"? Sorry, but unless I see a *signed agreement*, I find that very hard to believe.)Well, I can't produce something like that but John Perry Barlow is very supportive of Napster.
NAPSTER'S ENORMOUS MUSIC ROOM
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
OK, and I happen to agree with Mr. Barlow. But (and once again it comes down to the point I made earlier), if the ARTIST does not agree to have his/her/their music distributed in this manner, they have the legal right to say so and the further legal right to do something about it.
If the artists' can find a better way to distribute their music (i.e., no record company), more power to them.
But it needs to be THEIR choice; NOT Napster's and NOT the audience's.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 28, 2000.
...what HAVE Billy Corgan and/or Cypress Hill really done lately?Well, I don't know about Corgan but Cypress Hill has *(Rock) Superstar*. I can't find any statistics on it's popularity right now but *I* think it's pretty good. It's also featured in an ad on MTV (touting a Sony product, perhaps).
I don't "need to get out more". Please don't turn this into a pissing contest; it's a discussion.
Sorry, I should have added an emoticon at the end of "need to get out more". I'm not trying to make this a pissing contest - just a bungled attempt at humor. ;-)
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
But (and once again it comes down to the point I made earlier), if the ARTIST does not agree to have his/her/their music distributed in this manner, they have the legal right to say so and the further legal right to do something about it. I>Actually, I agree with you on that point. I was simply providing "Hmmm" with the names of artists who support Napster.
-Jim (who is now going back to bed to try and get rid of this cold or flu bug.)
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
&%$&*$% HTML!
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 28, 2000.
It appears that an appeals court has given Napster an "emergency stay."Napster's Emergency Stay
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 28, 2000.
How different is this when cassette players came out, and we were all taping each other's albums and taping songs off the radio? I still have cassettes I made in the 70s, complete with DJ's talking and all. (True nostaligic value)Ben Folds Five should support Napster. I didn't realize how great they were till I started downloading some of thier songs I hadn't heard before. Went out and bought one of their albums, and keep watching for them to tour around my parts. Their my new favorite band..due 100% to having heard them on the net.
I understand the grips of those bands which do not wish to participate, and fine,..don't allow their songs to be available, but leave Napster up for the rest of those bands that do want us to hear them..is that possible? PS - Metallica sucks (bwhahahaha)
-- Spinoff is a Hell Hole :-) (Survivable@times.but), July 29, 2000.
Most of the people complaining about Napster don't understand what is happening. For the most part, it isn't the artists that want to shut it down it is The Recording Industry of America. They do not want to invest the money into a technology that will lower their profit margins. They make most of their money on the packaging, not the music. Most of the artists are sitting back right now thinking... "hey, if this thing takes off and people agree to buy my songs for a reasonable price, I won't need my record company anymore"!If it hadn't been for some bright young individuals with the brains and the guts to push the envelope of technological innovation, the recording industry would have NEVER allowed this to happen, and the consumers would miss out on a revolution of convenience and savings. There are always some people who object, and negotiations to be worked out, but good inventions do not happen unless you MAKE them happen. I applaud the inventors of Napster for having the guts to create and deploy an excellent technology.
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 29, 2000.
"aqua", it's not necessary that the judge know the technology involved, all she has to know is the law. And the law is quite clear on copyright violation, which is the issue at hand. (Her age doesn't matter a whit either.)Exactly Patricia, she must know the law. And she also must understand how the law is applicable in this case. Did you actually read her decision? Have you ever used Napster? Judge decided to allow chatrooms to stay up and file trading of artists who chose to not be protected under copyright law continue. Now, considering all of the mp3s are user provided, can you figure out the problem with this? Incidentally, I don't care about her age. Read further up the thread and you'll see I was quoting.
And that's what this is all about -- violation of copyright. The technology, IMO, is simply incidental. Doesn't matter how the material was stolen; all that matters is that it was stolen; and that is the point of law in this case.
This may be a cut and dry issue of copyright violation, in your opinion, but 1) it technically isn't, IMO; 2) there is no cut and dry fix to stop file sharing short of pulling the plug on the Internet. Have you considered that technology may not be "simply incidental"? If you really think it is, one-to-one file sharing should not bother you.
-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), July 29, 2000.
Wow! Napster is smokin tonight! Almost 1 million files available right now. Thank you Creedence Clearwater Revival, just got all your oldies but goodies!
-- Hawk (flyin@hi.again), July 29, 2000.
Here's what's in the wings if Napster does get shutdown sometime in the near future.http://live.altavista.com/scripts/editorial.dll?ei=2034782&ern=y
Napster alternatives booming
Napster's court-ordered shutdown is proving to be a boon for other music-sharing sites.
Ben Charny
07/27/00
The 21 million-plus Napster users expecting to find themselves homeless on Friday have already begun migrating to Napigator, Angry Coffee and Gigabeat, music-sharing sites that have seen huge spikes in traffic and downloads.
Late Thursday, two popular sites, Gnutella and Scour posted notices on their Web sites saying extensive traffic had forced them to shut down.
"We're getting pounded right now," with twice the normal traffic, said Chad Boyda, co-owner of Thirty4Interactive LLD. The company offers Napigator, a program that lets Napster users access scores of other servers offering free music.
Before U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's Wednesday ruling that Napster Inc. must block all major-label music on its site by Friday, Napigator provided users with a list of about 100 servers located worldwide that had been set up by individuals or small companies located on four of the world's five continents. By 11 a.m. Pacific time Thursday, Boyda said, 20 new ones had joined the list.
In the hours after the ruling, Boyda said, there were about 100,000 downloads of the Napigator software. That figure marks a huge leap: From February through the days before the judge's ruling, there were about 600,000 total program downloads, he said.
'Movement of users'
"The record industry has just shot itself in the foot," Boyda said. "It just started this movement of users."
So far, Boyda has been able to handle the huge traffic flows with a few tweaks of the existing hardware. But "who knows what's going to happen Friday," when the shutdown order can take effect, he said. "And then Monday?"
It may force the company to invest in another server to handle the expected crush, he said.
Adam Vincent Powell, co-founder of Angry Coffee Inc., said the site had already seen traffic soar by a fifth in the first few hours of Thursday morning. About 36,000 people also visited the Web site's page that lets them use Angry Coffee's music-finding Web crawler.
"We're perfectly positioned to be the next Napster, and we're not going to complain," Powell said. "But obviously, we see what goes with that crown. We can't turn back on this one. The consumers have spoken. This is what they want."
Gigabeat, another music search service, was said to be overwhelmed as well.
Shane Ham, technology policy analyst for the Progressive Policy Institute, says other sites, including Gnutella, Scour and FreeNet, will also be destinations for many Napster users searching for a new home.
Late Thursday, both Gnutella and Scour posted notices on their Web sites saying that extensive traffic had forced them to shut down.
Ham said he even thinks newer sites will pop up, now that they can use the judge's ruling as a "road map" for how to create a legal music-sharing site.
Barriers to entry
But whether these sites will ever echo Napster's growth is questionable, experts said. Ease of use is the biggest deterrent.
"Gnutella is being developed pell-mell over the Internet by the open- source community," Ham said. "When you have a software protocol that only hackers are willing to improve, then only hackers are going to use it."
Rick Dube of Webnoize said he thinks some hardcore Napster users will continue on regardless of the program glitches and bugs at other sites.
"The minute they make it illegal, people can't wait to break in," he said. "It could grow just because of people downright frustrated with it all."
-- (Other@lterna.tives), July 29, 2000.
How different is this when cassette players came out, and we were all taping each other's albums and taping songs off the radio? I still have cassettes I made in the 70s, complete with DJ's talking and all. (True nostaligic value)In principle, it's not much different. However, in practice, the difference is mainly in scope. You may have been able to tape the albums of about 10 or 20 friends back in the 70's. Today, you can share your collection and access the collections of thousands and even millions of people.
Ben Folds Five should support Napster. I didn't realize how great they were till I started downloading some of thier songs I hadn't heard before. Went out and bought one of their albums, and keep watching for them to tour around my parts. Their my new favorite band..due 100% to having heard them on the net.
You can also hear samples of their albums at amazon.com and cdnow.com, all without spending a dime. This is not to say that they shouldn't support Napster, but Napster isn't the only place where you can hear bands on the net.
I understand the grips of those bands which do not wish to participate, and fine,..don't allow their songs to be available, but leave Napster up for the rest of those bands that do want us to hear them..is that possible?
I don't see why not. However, it means more work for the people at Napster. Work which will have the effect of greatly reducing the number of people who use the service.
Most of the people complaining about Napster don't understand what is happening. For the most part, it isn't the artists that want to shut it down it is The Recording Industry of America.
This could be true. As I have said, the artists don't appear to want the service shut down, they simply want to prevent people from stealing their copyrighted work. The RIAA may indeed want the site shut down entirely.
They do not want to invest the money into a technology that will lower their profit margins. They make most of their money on the packaging, not the music. Most of the artists are sitting back right now thinking... "hey, if this thing takes off and people agree to buy my songs for a reasonable price, I won't need my record company anymore"!
There is no evidence that most of the artists either support or don't support Napster. It is likely that most are unaware that their work is being distributed through the service.
The problem with the "thing" taking off is that, currently, the "thing" is allowing people to steal artists work without paying for it. How will this be converted into a business model whereby people will suddenly pay for the music? Will Napster start charging people for transfers and then reimburse the artist? I can imagine there would be an uproar against Napster were this to ever happen. People are doing it now because it's free. Why would people agree to buy their songs for a reasonable price when they can simply get them for free as they do now?
there is no cut and dry fix to stop file sharing short of pulling the plug on the Internet.
This much is true. File sharing has gone on for ages and will continue, whether it's through a service like Napster, through IRC, or in Usenet groups.
Have you considered that technology may not be "simply incidental"? If you really think it is, one-to-one file sharing should not bother you.
In my case, one-to-one file sharing is different in scope, just as taping music was in the 70's. Making a directory available of thousands of copyrighted works available to millions of people is quite different than any other type of "file sharing" that has been encountered to date.
Wow! Napster is smokin tonight! Almost 1 million files available right now. Thank you Creedence Clearwater Revival, just got all your oldies but goodies!
That's great. So when are you going to send the band members what you think is a "reasonable price" for their work?
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 29, 2000.
In my case, one-to-one file sharing is different in scope, just as taping music was in the 70's. Making a directory available of thousands of copyrighted works available to millions of people is quite different than any other type of "file sharing" that has been encountered to date.I agree. That is exactly why I can't view technology as "simply incidental".
-- aqua (aqu@fin.a), July 29, 2000.
Once again, I have to agree with "hmm"; can't say it any better than that. And while I don't really want to see the site completely shut down, is there a workable arrangement that can be made whereby the artists are compensated for their work? (I don't really give too much of a care about the record companies; they have been raping the artists for way too long.)
"That is exactly why I can't view technology as "simply incidental"."
Yes, well, sometimes my fingers work faster than my brain :-). Obviously, I hadn't thought that one completely through. My bad.
And Jim, if you're reading this, hope you're feelin' better.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 29, 2000.
I am feeling better, Patricia. Thanks.
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 29, 2000.
I ran across a pretty good article on using Napster clones and how they compare with the original.Shut Down? A Napster FAQ
-- Jim Morris (prism@bevcomm.net), July 29, 2000.