My take on Metallica vs. Napster

[AlphaIVT]

This is Vectorz|Sigma| from [clan du jour] CS B7 dust 24/7. Hi, I am --------AlphaIVT--------

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Recording off the radio and editing everything you don't want is a lot more work then going on Napster and typing the name of the song.

BTW, on Napster you'll find many servers that have entire albums.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

I can't tell the difference between CD and MP3...

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Oh yeah, Radio quality, especially when recorded, really suffers when compared to MP3s or CDs.

 

[stomp]

The RIAA has the means of finding out what username and IP has what songs (the entire direct connection between pirating users allows this quite simply)... they can then get their ISP to close their accounts, pretty simple in a complex way (time is the only issue).

... shouldn't they be after the suppliers rather than the makers of the truck that transports the goods? oh but wait, this truck maker made it easy to load stuff onto which makes them the problem. what happened to the individual? Oh I forgot, let the individual off because its too much work to actually track down the obvious... sheesh.

 

[apoppin]

I can hear the difference 64, 128, even 190 are all inferior to CDs on a good system.

But thanks for the info about complete albums. That really isn't fair.

EDIT: Maybe not brodcast quality radio - its cut off over 15Khz. However, Internet Radio has the ability to stream quality audio.

How much work it takes is not the issue. It's all about what is considered pirating music.

 

[Deeko]

Most of the people who download from Napster probably wouldn't be the cd if they couldn't download it. So they really aren't affecting CD sales at all, cause even if there wasn't a napster, it's not like they'd buy the cd.

 

[stomp]

If a person decides to throw an entire album on their system, then they exist... but good luck finding any decent full albums because age group associated most with napster listen to crap.

 

[ParasiticFly]

Down with Metallica.

Up with Napster.


I personally buy more CDs now that I can listen to them on mp3 before buying.

A preview if you will. I do this, as do my friends. Infact the artists are getting more money from me. They shouldnt be bitching at people like me, they should be thanking.

And if I DL a song or three from an album and dont like it... screw them for making songs that suck.

BAH!

 

[apoppin]

I couldn't find ANY complete albums on Napster. (Where?)

What you are talking about EngineNr9, must be the rare exception rather than the rule.

If Napster encourages people to download individual songs - which is advertising for the artist - I am all for it since it is little different than radio. If they allow whole downloads of albums to avoid buying it, I am against it for it is taking money out of the artist's pockets.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

I don't know what albums you're looking for, but new albums can be found relatively easy. And even if you can't find the Album on one server, you can pickup the individual songs from multiple servers easy.

It doesn't matter if it's one song or the whole album though, the point is the artist's are getting no material compensation.

 

[apoppin]

It does matter if it is one song or an entire album.

One free song will like encourage people to want to hear more and BUY the album (that's how it works on radio). Giving the entire album away will take money out of the artist's pockets.

However, Smashing Pumpkins and now The Offspring are giving away two of their albums in their entirety on the 'net. THEY disagree with you.

EDIT: From what I see of Napster, I find only the popular songs are readily available (just like radio).

 

[Eli]

I am so sick of this argument I could puke. Come on people, use your freakin brains! Napster is WRONG. It is taking MP3 in the wrong direction. Now, I don't like paying 15$ for CD anymore than anybody else does, but who are we to say that it's a ripoff? The best thing we can do is not buy! That will force them to lower their prices.


If any of you that say "down with Metallica! Use Napster!" understood anything, you wouldn't be saying that! Napster is evil. Napster can never, and will never survive in it's current form.


What if someone came out with a program that had an index of every single book ever written, where you could download the book in PDF form, to read on your computer? Do you think authors would just sit there and say, "hey cool"? I don't think so! Wake up people.


It's realitivly understand, being a aspiring musician myself.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

One free song will like encourage people to want to hear more and BUY the album (that's how it works on radio). Giving the entire album away will take money out of the artist's pockets.

Still no compensation for that one song.

If they like the song, what's to stop them from getting other songs from the album?

Nothing.

Point is null.

However, Smashing Pumpkins and now The Offspring are giving away two of their albums in their entirety on the 'net. THEY disagree with you.

Who cares, that's obviously THEIR prerogative.

 

[apoppin]

<< Still no compensation for that one song. >>


So what, it's cheap advertising.

As far as Smashing Pumpkins and the Offspring having their &quot;perogative&quot; - obviously THEY think Napster will BENEFIT them. They are also artists and they are NOT stupid.

It is the RIAA that is against Napster. Obviously, Napster needs to be rethought. But the RIAA has shown themselves to be inflexible and rather lazy and greedy. They like the status quo and that obviously needs to be rethought also.

EDIT: Eli, as an aspiring musician you have a much better chance with Napster than you do with the RIAA.

 

[Eli]

I don't care........ Napster is still wrong. It wouldn't be so bad if you had to pay a small fee to get on and download the songs. Metallica's main gripe with Napster, according to the Napster Chat I attended with them, was that Napster didn't ask Metallica's permission to have their songs traded.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

So what, it's cheap advertising.

It really doesn't matter what you think, because it's not how you make a living. Let the people who make a living from their music decide that.

As far as Smashing Pumpkins and the Offspring having their &quot;perogative&quot; - obviously THEY think Napster will BENEFIT them. They are also artists and they are NOT stupid.

So what? Like I said, it's their prerogative. Other artists obviously don't feel the same way, and they should be able to decline to participate in Napster.

 

[apoppin]

Don't forget, it also doesn't matter what YOU think.

The artists - except for a select few RIAA puppets (Metallica/Dr. Dre) - are not against Napster. MANY artists are supporting Napster (because they are badly treated by the RIAA).

RIAA is suing Napster. And it has not been decided in court yet.

My opinion is that Napster needs to be rethought. So does the RIAA and their blatant ripoff of both the artists and the consumers.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

So what, until artists come out and say they like it/don't like it people should be allowed to continue to steal from them? Hell, even the artists who come out and say they're against Napster still have their work distributed over the service.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

My opinion is that Napster needs to be rethought.

It certainly does. It has great potential, if a system can be worked out so that profits can be made from the distribution of songs in such a manner. In the meantime, don't try to justify blatant theft.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Argh, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I use Napster myself! I'm just disturbed when people try to justify it.

I can't justify it, I just do it. I buy CDs occasionally, and I don't think my using Napster has affected that, and I understand that that's the case for most people here defending it, but clearly it's not true for everyone. There are a lot of people who really do abuse the service. That's why Napster honestly isn't fair.

 

[toph99]

personally, i have 80-some songs. i have bought many(lost count) cd's ever since i got napster, because people suggested some bands which i have never heard of and wasn't gonna pay $20 cdn just to hear if i like them or not. this way i can see if i like them or not
i have gotten cd's by KMFDM, Skinny Puppy, Apoptygma Berzerk, The Cure, Cruxshadows etc. which i wouldn't have gotten if i hadn't heard them before. i also get the odd song if i only like the one song, and have no intention of buying a whole cd just for that song. but thats my opinion

 

[Harvey]

<<Let the people who make a living from their music decide that.>>

<<Napster needs to be rethought.>>

<<It has great potential, if a system can be worked out so that profits can be made from the distribution of songs in such a manner.>>

That's it in a nutshell. As a technolgy, Napster is neither good nor bad. It's just another means of distributing music. The artists who create that music and those who perform legitimate functions in promoting and distrubting need to be paid for thier work, or they won't be able to keep it up for long. Also, no alleged ripoff of either the artists or the public by RIAA justifies another ripoff by anyone else. If that's the case, it's just one more thing that needs to be fixed.

You pay for your computer hardware, and you get the benefit of using the hardware. If the people who manufactured, distributed and sold it didn't make a living at it, you wouldn't have the hardware you're using to read this thread. Why should it be any different for the people who provide your music?

 

[markjrubin]

Ummmmmm, did anybody even read his song? I think it's pretty dern funny.

Mark

P.S. He paid me to say that.