My take on Metallica vs. Napster

[Vector Sigma]

For all you Metallica fans out there that also support what Napster is trying to do: http://www.vectorsigma.com/napster.html

Enjoy!

 

[Vector Sigma]

Messed up the link. Here it is again: http://www.vectorsigma.com/napster.html

 

[harpomx]

heh, did you see the commercial about napster that Lars did during the MTV music awards?
And napster founder dude came out with a Metallica T-shirt on... classic.

 

[Vector Sigma]

Yeah it was pretty funny, but so was the skit Lars and Marlon Waynes did.

 

[harpomx]

must have missed it. damn.

 

[Harvey]

VSigma -- From your page:

<< The record industry has been ripping off consumers for more than a decade, by charging 15 dollars for a CD that costs around 5 cents to print. As soon as they take care of the consumer, then we can start worrying about Metallica. With that said, I give you &quot;Napster of Music&quot;. I think you all know the tune. Enjoy. >>

What a pile of BULLSH8!!! :Q

As I have previously posted on this topic, do you think your favorite artists should flip burgers all day to make their rent, then come home and jam in their garage all night, just to entertain you? Here's a clue -- To get good enough to play at the highest levels, you have to make your music (or any other art form) your number one focus, day in and day out. That means either some part of your art form has to pay the bills, or you have to get a freaking job.

Of course, that's before you get to the fact that the nickel it costs to make the CD doesn't include the money it takes to promote the record, or pay the staff or the phone bills or the shipping, or any the any of the other expenses of running an international business operation.

Regardless of what you think the record companies have done, it is still no excuse for you, or anyone else, to rip off anyone, including the record companies, and especially the artist who created the music you claim to appreciate so much. Your whole rap is just a lame attempt to justify your theft. :|

 

[yakko]

Also refering to the same qoute as Harvey.The comsumer is not being ripped off.I you think fifteen dollars is to much then don't buy it.Otherwise shut up with your whinig.

 

[CyberSax]

Hell yeah. Don't think you're some kind of fscking hero by using Napster. If Martin Luther King had gone around beating up old ladies who sat in the front of buses, the Civil Rights movement wouldn't have gotten very far. Likewise, if you feel the need to protest against &quot;high CD prices&quot; a boycott would be more appropriate. Theft is theft punk

 

[Raspewtin]

I honesty wonder if most artists gave damm about their fans before their fans could easily steal all their music. I think most fans are just &quot;returning the love.&quot;

 

[desy]

Napster is theft but so is RIAA, so you condone their theft at charging more than they were legaly legislated to pay? and then when the courts do nothing other than shrug their shoulders at the half billion they stole from the consumer? I think you forget civil disobedience is about the only way the avg consumer can protest against their high prices, remember the Boston Tea party? Napster is the tool people are using and I do think it will hopefully level the playing field where electronic distribution means cheaper music and a helluva lot more variety than listening to the same song played 8 times a day on the radio or getting stuck with Warners flavour of the month bubblegum band.
Just as 8 track was replaced by casette and casette by CD and new medium will replace it. Its a paradygm shift and it will all shake out sooner or later.

 

[apoppin]

Harvey, don't you work for the entertainment industry?

 

[Harvey]

apoppin -- <<don't you work for the entertainment industry?>>

Only indirectly. I design audio electronics (signal processing, etc), mostly on the studio level. I also used to be a professional musician / singer / songwriter.

desy -- Thanks for another long-winded rationalization for theft. If you steal the music from Napster, you can be sure the writers and performers aren't getting paid for their creative output. The record companies and publishers are also entitled to their profits from their investment in manufacturing, distributing and promoting records and for promoting other uses of the intellectual property of the music, itself.

Regardless of whether you think the RIAA (the record companies) are over-charging, or whether they are ripping off the artists (both of which are true to one extent or another), your so-called &quot;civil disobedience&quot; is still ripping off the same people as the record companies.

That's a great idea. It's like saying that, because some asshole mugs your mother, you're going to get even with the thief by mugging her, too. :|

 

[desy]

As Red said prove to me the artists are getting ripped off when CD sales are up? The point of it is that the whole distribution is going to change we have studios here than can easily put out top 40 caliber music and the bands to boot. With this model they don't have to travel to LA or New York to put in their &quot;dues&quot; to even get noticed by big buisness who just &quot;create&quot; and promote their own BS artists.
A pretty good buisness model is a company who can acheive %10 ROI, what do you think the the music industries is? They are nothing more than middlemen skimming most of the cream and throwing a few crumbs to their &quot;chosen artist&quot; There are many similar industries fashion being another one of them. They have had a stranglehold on artist creativety and backroom dealings far too long. I have a buddy who worked for Sony music and I trust his insight into the music buis and my brother-in-law whos is a member of a band and has put out a couple of Cd's more than yours I'm afraid.
My point is this is short term pain for long term gain I freely admit napster is stealing but the resultant buisiness model should hopefully turn out better for consumers and artists.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

It's pretty simple: By downloading songs from Napster, you are getting a product you are supposed to be paying for.

 

[Duckers]

what happened to the RIAA vs Napster issue?
When are they going to court again?

 

[apoppin]

Just a few questions.

If I download and save audio from Internet Radio, aren't I getting reasonable sound quality? And does this also qualify as &quot;stealing&quot;?

It seems to me, it is pretty unrealistic and rather difficult to download entire albums from Napster. Therefore if we like the artist, and prefer the CD sound 'quality' over mp3, we will purchase the album anyway.

Isn't Napster much like radio in that it is acquainting us with new artists and music?


EDIT: I believe the court case starts next month.

By listening to (and recording from) radio, I am getting music I am not paying for (I NEVER listen to their commercials).

 

[DesignDawg]

I take no stand on this issue.

But God damn, Harvey is a whiner!

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[Harvey]

Hey, D Dawg -- Tough shazitzkies! Can you play any musical instrument more demanding than a radio?

 

[DesignDawg]

Hahahaaa.

You attacked the wrong place, bud. I just so happen to also be quite an accomplished musician, not that I have anything to prove to you. I was just making an observation.

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[Harvey]

Dawg -- That wasn't an attack. It was a question. Believe me, you'd know if it was an attack.

I've been out playing for a living, and what I know is that in the music biz, being good is just permission to be lucky. If you can play, and you think you might want to try to make that your finanacial suuport system, I really can't understand why you would support something like Napster that deprives the artists of payment for their creative work.

If you think that's whining, then I repeat, Tough shazitzkies!

 

[DesignDawg]

OK.

Good to know it wasn't an attack. --Because I have no enemies here. Life is too short to fight with strangers online. Like I said, I was just making an observation.

ALSO LIKE I SAID:
I take no stand on this issue. So you can't rightly accuse me of supporting stealing from musicians either. I may or may not agree with you on this issue. It is an issue I have stayed out of. But what I said is how I would feel no matter WHICH side I was on!

It's just the way I feel.

Ricky
DesignDawg

 

[403Forbidden]

The music company only looses money if a Napster downloader would have bought the CD if they could not download the song.

Now come on, I'd bet that at least 50% of the MP3's people download are for curious reasons...and
many times nostalgia. I for one would not have bought any of the songs I've dowloaded.
So the music company would not have made a dime off me even if napster was banned.

 

[apoppin]

Harvey (and others), I am surprised you did not reply to the issues I brought up regarding Napster and the comparison with recording off radio (which I believe is &quot;legal&quot; to do).

Is the &quot;quality&quot; of sound reproduction an issue? If so, mp3 is not as good as CD quality sound.

Can you download entire albums off Napster? I think not. If not, then you are encouraged to buy the artist's album you like.

How do artists really lose since they are getting so much more exposure? (Even than radio.)

 

[PistachioByAzul]

There's really no comparison...

Recording a specific song off the Radio is hard to do, you have to sit there for a while, and listen to lots of ads (by doing so you basically pay for it). You can't just turn on the radio and record any song you like.


And BTW, yes you can get entire albums off of Napster, it isn't that hard.

 

[apoppin]

When I recorded off the radio, I recorded everything and edited what I didn't want.

I didn't know about recording entire albums off Napster. Now that looks like work.

What about the sound quality issue? CD is so much better than mp3.