Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: wiesbaden Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 919  
Subject: free recording Date: 10/4/2000 5:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I dont what all the fass is about if you have a radio and tape any song nobody says anything now what is the diffrent if I loaded down or tape from the airwaves can anyone explain ?????
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jamestox Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 457 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/4/2000 9:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<I dont what all the fass is about if you have a radio and tape any song nobody says anything now what is the diffrent if I loaded down or tape from the airwaves can anyone explain ?????>

1. Radio stations pay fees to agencies that license the recordings for public performance - the artist gets money from the airplay.

2. If you tape a radio station, you have a right to listen to the recording, a questionable right play it for a friend in your room, and cannot legally play it for others where there is a possibility you may get money for it. Either way, the artist doesn't get anything for the work he did.

3. Giving a friend a copy of ANY recording, whether taken from radio or a CD you own is distributing that music without permission - thus in violation of the artists' right to get money for the copy you made. Again, the one who did the work didn't get money.

4. Many performers that have excellent work are the "little guys" that don't pull in multimillion dollar contracts - these are the ones hurt the most when music is "shared" without repayment.

5. The issue is whether the ARTIST has the right to control the copies of the work he has done and sees the fruit of his work. With Napster, he has neither.

That clear it up?

J.T.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RapierDuck One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 459 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/4/2000 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

4. Many performers that have excellent work are the "little guys" that don't pull in multimillion dollar contracts - these are the ones hurt the most when music is "shared" without repayment.

5. The issue is whether the ARTIST has the right to control the copies of the work he has done and sees the fruit of his work. With Napster, he has neither.

That clear it up?

J.T.

Not really. The little guy remains little because he is never heard on the radio. That is a decision not made by the public. That is censorship.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: KindBud Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 480 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/4/2000 2:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
5. The issue is whether the ARTIST has the right to control the copies of the work he has done and sees the fruit of his work. With Napster, he has neither.

I should point out here that copyright law, for the two hundred years preceeding the 1976 Copyright Act, limited an artists monopoly on their work to only 17 years. This used to be seen as an equitable compromise between the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and the artist's need to make a living.

Since 1976, copyright effectively extends well past the lifetime of any author (75 years past his death, if I recall correctly). In the case of corporate owned material, the copyright effectively lasts forever.

Guess who the lobbyists in favor of the 1976 Copyright Act were? The RIAA and MPAA and their member companies. Why haven't you heard any discussion about the Napster case in the context of historic copyright law in the mainstream media? Because all the media outlets are owned by the member companies of the RIAA and MPAA. That's why news refers to Napster and 2600 as "pirates". In no way is sharing MP3 files comparable to murder and larceny on the high seas.

Everything you think you know about these issues has been spun by the owners of the news outlets you read and listen to and watch, and those owners happen to be the plaintiffs in the Napster and 2600/DeCSS cases.

Question everything you hear and read about this topic.



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jamestox Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 512 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/5/2000 11:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<Not really. The little guy remains little because he is never heard on the radio. That is a decision not made by the public. That is censorship. >>

It may be true that the "little guy" may not be heard on the radio. Here where I live, we do have a weekly radio show featuring only local groups (mixed, pop, rock, country - but ALL local) that have quality rivalling some of the best currently on the top airplay stations... but they are in the 96% of the "undiscovered" groups/artists that will probably never "make it big." They release CD's on local or regional labels - many times getting a second mortgage on the house to do the mastering and printing - then go into deals with local music stores to stock and sell their work. THEIR WORK. THEIR MONEY.

Let's say that the small group Concrete Block goes this routine...and I thoughtfully put the music on Napster for the rest of the world to hear so they can make more sales of the first (and as it turns out - only) printing for Concrete Block Wall-The CD. Three cuts, "Bricks & Mortar," "Wall-Fall," and "Sunset at the Top," become signature songs that start showing up in local MP3 players and computers - with the bulk of the 5000 printed CD's remaining unsold.

Casual questioning of local college students reveal that they got the recordings a variety of ways: some were dubbed from a purchased CD onto MP3 for portability, some were recorded off friends' CD's onto cassette ("shared"), and a large number were downloaded. Based on the popularity of the songs, the CD copies to MP3 number about 100-300 sold CD's, cassette dubs could account for 700-900 sold CD's, with about 1700-2000 downloads accounting for 800-1000 sold CD's (because fewer will take the time or effort to mail the $15 asking price to Sally and Teresa Block for a copy). That's LOCALLY. Nationally, they probably could have easily sold out the entire stock of CD's from exposure on Napster and various college stations that liked their radical style. But no-one bought the CD. They downloaded the three cuts instead. If the CD had sold 2000 copies, the band could've broken even. Sadly, they sold only 522 CD's.

The band continues to play regional clubs to make ends meet and pay the bills on their session. They also are asked when they will cut another CD. Their answer? "Considering just how much money we lost on 'Wall', I don't think we can afford to make another one." Six months later, the band folds. The sisters had to take on second jobs to keep the bank at bay and could no longer spend the time to play the clubs.

Nobody can know whether, in two years, they would've gotten a Grammy, a major contract, a concert tour to Europe, or continued to play regional clubs in the Midwest. I'm a drummer (and many are the jokes regarding whether drummers are musicians) and have played paying gigs, non-paying gigs, and "kitchen parties." I have many musician friends that face Sally and Teresa's difficulties on a regular basis. Don't try to tell me that free distribution of original music doesn't hurt the artist.

J.T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: archangaeli Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 548 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/5/2000 8:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
J.T., Thanks for an excellent post, but I think you make some fundamental assumptions that need to be examined.

The first complication with your basic scenario is that it is very likely to be applicable to a label contract in a pre-Napster world. Their first album will not make enough to cover Concrete Block's expenses and they will end up in debt to the Label, even though the Label itself made a profit. The debts then obligate them to make another album for the Label, again with little profit. This happens all the time, as I am sure you are aware, but look to TLC (who declared bankruptcy), Prince, Courtney Love, Elton John and others for examples or testamonials of this soul-destroying proces.

Your second assumption is that downloads, dubs, and mp3 rips represent instances where commercial CDs were not purchased. This is known as the myth of lost sales. In reality this turns out not to be the case. Instead, exposure on Napster or through sharing dubs, etc. has the same effect as exposure on the radio and actually increases the sales of commercial CDs.

People who are captivated by Concrete Block's sound will want to have the entire album, and not just the 2 or 3 songs widely available on Napster. The assumption that every song from their album will be avaliable on Napster is also in error. This is the myth of the complete tracklist. In reality, sharing of the most popular track will be plentiful, but over half of the cuts will be only sparsely available.

My final criticism of your scenario is a harsh and cruel one but reflects a resentment widely felt by purchasers of commercial music. Although you do not state this directly, the implication remains that a Concrete Block album with only 3 good songs on it is still worth $15 dollars. If their musicianship and message are compelling, Napster will improve their album sales. If they are hanging their commercial prospects on a single viable hit, Napster will hasten their demise by informing the listening public. This is less of an intellectual property issue and more of a 'truth in advertising' problem.


As a vocalist (who also get no respect: as in "the musicians are here, now where are the singers?") I also know musicians who face Sally and Teresa's difficulty; who are tickled to sell a few CDs at a concert or festival venue and would rather self-produce than become Label-slaves. Are you saying that none of your musician friends has expressed such a sentiment? Napster is their ally and a return to the RIAA overlords is not what will help Artists.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Axecell One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 549 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/5/2000 9:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Arch -

Napster is not an ally to any musician. Napster has created and supports a program which does nothing short than encourage the distribution of an artists music without their consent. This violates copyright law.

I agree with your statements that mp3's, and music downloads do not hurt an artist. They only hurt an artist when a piece of their music is distributed against their expressed consent. Grateful Dead, for example, may have allowed fans the ability to record their shows, then to freely distribute those tapes. That is their choice. Their lawyers will attack and sue anyone who attempts to gain any money in any way using their art or logos.

TLC, Prince, Elton John, et al. who may have run into problems dealing with major record companies are situations which play no bearing on Napster. The fact is, each of those artists would sue anyone who attempts to distribute their work against their wishes.

Any self-respecting artist would feel the same way. This is all a part of (here's that ugly word) capitalism and the ability of individuals to make a living on their own abilities. TLC was making money until they made "Waterfalls." They overspent on that video.

BTW, there is no law that says you or anyone else can't make copies of music which you have bought. Whether those copies are made with cassette, CD-R, or mp3 ... it doesn't matter. You can. You may not make a hundred copies and give them freely to a hundred different people. An artist which would like to self produce may do so. They may even allow people to share and download some or all of their music. It's their choice ... not yours.

That is all ... keep up the great discussion!!!

Cheers,
Axecell

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jamestox Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 551 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/6/2000 12:41 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I disagree on a few of the points, including that of the Label contract (which label in this case is owned by the group itself - I apologize for not making that point clearer; that dealt with the comment in the preceeding paragraph concerning the second mortgage).
The CD is a result of the group's own funding and not a contract with a commercial recording label. The so called "vanity press" approach, if you will. A number of local groups in my area produce in this fashion. As you can see, Concrete Block is quite a bit "smaller" in scope than the groups you have mentioned. The complication that you mentioned has and no doubt will continue to occur - greed is part of the human nature.

The second assumption is based on real life, and while perhaps not as easily documented as Block's example, is again indicative of human nature; there are folks I refuse to loan CD's to simply because I KNOW they intend to copy them. If I have their assurance they will not copy, I loan. If they like what they hear, I cheerfully share the information on where they can get their own recording.

The third assumption, I admit, is more tenuous - it is based primarily on the pro-Napster traffic in this discussion board. In fact, the "2 or 3 cuts" statement is widespread throughout the pro- contingent. And I will grant you, aside from the "best of" CD's, it's usual for me to have only a few favorite cuts per CD release. I do wish groups would polish or edit the material more to the way I want it, but I've come to the appalling discovery that my taste isn't the same as everyone else's :) . Consider also, that it sometimes isn't readily apparent just WHICH song on the CD will become the hit, thus it's often difficult for the group to decide what should be on the program. (In a gig I once played, the hit of the show turned out to be the last song - mainly due to a bit of schtick our group put together literally at the last minute of rehearsal! The same song on a CD would probably be boring.) As for advertising, in Block's case, the main ad would be their club performances, the posters above the CD rack, and maybe a mention in the local underground rag - plus word-of-mouth.

Oh, yeah. I don't know of very many groups who wouldn't like a solid contract with a major Label, lots of airplay, and buckets of money in royalties. The problem is, if they don't get a return on Napster exposure and they haven't the weight to land a Label contract, Napster hasn't helped any.

A more productive discussion might be how to put together the advantages of the Napster exposure with a means of returning a "share" (if you pardon the pun) directly to the Sally's and Teresa's. It may be possible to work within the confines of copyrights and royalty payments to artists (with a modest cut to the provider - agreeable to the artist, of course). Such a system would satisfy distribution, profits, and artist control of material rights. Any ideas?

Yours was a most well-reasoned and intellegent discussion on the topic; I am honored to have exchanged ideas with you and look forward to reading more of your posts!

J.T.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: hangtown Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 661 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/30/2000 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RapierDuck:

Not really. The little guy remains little because he is never heard on the radio. That is a decision not made by the public. That is censorship

In this country, we like to try to invoke the word "censorship" whenever we think it suits us. NOT playing certain songs is not censorship... it's the freedom of those paying the bills to decide what they want to play. If every station had to play ever song to avoid being censors (by your definition), the radio wouldn't be worth listening to (come to think of it, it's already not).

If I owned a radio station, I would have the right to decide whether or not I want to pay to carry Howard Stern, for example. If I don't, is that censorship?? No, it's my decision not to play certain material that is my right to make, cause I pay the bills.

The word censorship is used very freely in this country without understanding of its meaning. We haven't seen it here like they have elsewhere.

Scott

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hangtown Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 662 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/30/2000 9:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
jamestox:

1. Radio stations pay fees to agencies that license the recordings for public performance - the artist gets money from the airplay.

2. If you tape a radio station, you have a right to listen to the recording, a questionable right play it for a friend in your room, and cannot legally play it for others where there is a possibility you may get money for it. Either way, the artist doesn't get anything for the work he did.

3. Giving a friend a copy of ANY recording, whether taken from radio or a CD you own is distributing that music without permission - thus in violation of the artists' right to get money for the copy you made. Again, the one who did the work didn't get money.

4. Many performers that have excellent work are the "little guys" that don't pull in multimillion dollar contracts - these are the ones hurt the most when music is "shared" without repayment.

5. The issue is whether the ARTIST has the right to control the copies of the work he has done and sees the fruit of his work. With Napster, he has neither.

That clear it up?


You completely left out the real differences between Napster and copying tapes for buddies, which is similar to the difference between snail mail and email, or having to phone or write computer component manufacturers for drivers instead of downloading them off their web site - widespread immediacy (is that a word?). For example, you can log onto Napster right now, and quickly (assuming a cable connection, for example) download all the new U2 songs from their Anything You Can't Leave Behind album, or whatever it's called, without having to personally know anyone who owns it and is willing to share it. You don't even have to have friends and you can own their entire album.

Like it or not, Napster threatens the music industry's conventional mode of operation because of the power given to the little guy. No one has to depend on bootleggers (who usually charge full price for their lesser quality product anyway) or wait for buddies to record it (usually with poor sound quality) or whatever. Now they fire up Napster, spend a few minutes grabbing tunes, burn a cd, and they are out the door.

That's the difference.

Scott

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RapierDuck One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 668 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/31/2000 8:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RapierDuck:

Not really. The little guy remains little because he is never heard on the radio. That is a decision not made by the public. That is censorship

In this country, we like to try to invoke the word "censorship" whenever we think it suits us. NOT playing certain songs is not censorship... it's the freedom of those paying the bills to decide what they want to play. If every station had to play ever song to avoid being censors (by your definition), the radio wouldn't be worth listening to (come to think of it, it's already not).

If I owned a radio station, I would have the right to decide whether or not I want to pay to carry Howard Stern, for example. If I don't, is that censorship?? No, it's my decision not to play certain material that is my right to make, cause I pay the bills.

The word censorship is used very freely in this country without understanding of its meaning. We haven't seen it here like they have elsewhere.

Scott

Once upon a time there was a Radio Free Europe. One of the Soviet objectives was to jam RFE to prevent people from hearing Western Views. Sound familiar? When you are the only game in town, the music industry and its control of WHAT you HEAR, that is censorship.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hangtown Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 670 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 10/31/2000 10:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RapierDuck:

Once upon a time there was a Radio Free Europe. One of the Soviet objectives was to jam RFE to prevent people from hearing Western Views. Sound familiar? When you are the only game in town, the music industry and its control of WHAT you HEAR, that is censorship.

Wrong. In that case, the Soviets were jamming the radio. In this case, the people running the radio stations choose NOT to air stuff that they think isn't mainstream or popular. However, anyone in town with dissenting tastes is free to run their own radio station, provided they have the money to do so. The US government is not going to shut someone down who plays previously unheard of college bands or whatever. However, advertisers may not choose to air their ads with that station.

People who don't know what freedom is are in danger of losing it. Comparing the inability of some no-name punk band to get on the air to that of censorship by governments of what is put on the radio is absurd. You'd make a great politician. You know how to play the violin and make people cry without bothering to confuse them with the facts.

Scott

Print the post Back To Top
Author: RapierDuck One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 671 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 11/1/2000 3:59 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
RapierDuck:

Once upon a time there was a Radio Free Europe. One of the Soviet objectives was to jam RFE to prevent people from hearing Western Views. Sound familiar? When you are the only game in town, the music industry and its control of WHAT you HEAR, that is censorship.

Wrong. In that case, the Soviets were jamming the radio. In this case, the people running the radio stations choose NOT to air stuff that they think isn't mainstream or popular. However, anyone in town with dissenting tastes is free to run their own radio station, provided they have the money to do so. The US government is not going to shut someone down who plays previously unheard of college bands or whatever. However, advertisers may not choose to air their ads with that station.

People who don't know what freedom is are in danger of losing it. Comparing the inability of some no-name punk band to get on the air to that of censorship by governments of what is put on the radio is absurd. You'd make a great politician. You know how to play the violin and make people cry without bothering to confuse them with the facts.

Scott

Trying to be subtle Scottie. Guess I need the truck.

Music is art. You don't withhold art or decide what is to be seen and by whom, do you?

Make all the money you can selling product but no playing hide the music. That's not nice.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: hangtown Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 673 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 11/1/2000 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
RapierDuck:

Trying to be subtle Scottie. Guess I need the truck.

Music is art. You don't withhold art or decide what is to be seen and by whom, do you?


I got your point, but your assertion that not playing certain music is hiding it or is witholding art is absurd. Give me a break. Let's say I hold a photo contest at work. 30 employees bring photos. A panel chooses a winner and displays the top 5 on the intranet. Are we censors??

It's impossible, unnecessary, and would be extremely annoying if the radio stations and/or the government were responsible in this country for making sure everyone producing "art", or whatever passes for their idea of music, were able to get it aired. How much air time do you figure is available, and what moral law says everyone HAS to be heard??

Actually, your policy borders on socialism. You want someone else to do your job for you, rather than earn the right to be heard. Pay your dues. If you're worth listening to, someone might give you a break. If not, now you know what millions of small business owners go through who have great ideas but don't catch a break. It's how capitalism works. It's a chance you take. If you want guarantees, then make paying taxes or dying your goal in life, not being heard on the radio. Grow up. Take responsibility. Do your own damn work and quit crying about how unfair life is.

Anyone who displays art or who puts music on the air or shows movies or television programs has a right to decide what content they give their listeners or viewers, and it's not censorship. It's the right of any business owner to choose the path they feel meets the needs of their customers best. If you don't like it, don't support those businesses. But don't whine and cry because they think your music or your art is a waste of time.

Scott

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: RapierDuck One star, 50 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 677 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 11/1/2000 6:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Anyone who displays art or who puts music on the air or shows movies or television programs has a right to decide what content they give their listeners or viewers, and it's not censorship. It's the right of any business owner to choose the path they feel meets the needs of their customers best. If you don't like it, don't support those businesses. But don't whine and cry because they think your music or your art is a waste of time.

Scott


Art < > Business


Scott




Print the post Back To Top
Author: BizDani Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 688 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 11/9/2000 10:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<snip>
Art < > Business
</snip>

That is very true. There is no law that says a person who participates in the “art” of music must also participate in the “business” of music. There are countless numbers of people out there who may or may not become "famous" because they chose to or NOT to participate in the business of music. Either way - it's the artist's choice, both decisions have ups and downs. Just because an unknown listener wants to hear them, doesn't mean they have a right to do so. Until an artist makes his art public (whether sold or not) – it is theirs to enjoy alone or share with the individuals they choose. And that's fine. They choose not to enter the business - No big deal. Most are probably happy with their choice. Maybe they make recordings and give their music away, maybe they don't – maybe you have to go hear them live – or know them personally so you can hear them play on their front-porch. Either way – that is their choice. Most artists who end up in Napster WANT to or have been in the "business" already.

People who get into the music business CHOOSE to get into the music business. And once they offer their art for sale – it also becomes a product as part of an industry. That is a consession made to distribute your art and facilitate better exposure to that art (ahhh the price of fame). Of course you don't have to be in the business to receive rights to decide what gets done with your art (at least initially). But an artist doesn't HAVE to enter the traditional business and make those consessions to have a venue. If an artist wants a venue – they will find a venue. And likewise as an appreciater of art, there are many ways to discover an artist without violating the artist's rights. Napster really provides nothing to the "art side" of things that hasn't already existed for years or that can't still be found legally with a little extra effort. Except of course the convenience of experiencing that art without any effort, which may or may not be a good thing. Conveniences tend to become expectations and often begin to feel like rights – even if they are not.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jamestox Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 691 of 919
Subject: Re: free recording Date: 11/17/2000 2:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<You completely left out the real differences between Napster and copying tapes for buddies, which is similar to the difference between snail mail and email, or having to phone or write computer component manufacturers for drivers instead of downloading them off their web site - widespread immediacy (is that a word?). For example, you can log onto Napster right now, and quickly (assuming a cable connection, for example) download all the new U2 songs from their Anything You Can't Leave Behind album, or whatever it's called, without having to personally know anyone who owns it and is willing to share it. You don't even have to have friends and you can own their entire album.>>

Granted, the immediacy (yes, it's a word) does have an impact- however, whether for good or bad remains to be seen. I believe (in great part based on friendships with primarily folk and historical musicians) that Napster has the POTENTIAL to be a great thing for those who have sharply focused musical tastes, but at the same time, a performer having no control over the distribution of his "performance property", which is what "copyright" is in a nutshell, can ill afford the unrestricted and nonpaid distribution of his work. Whether the copy is from a buddy or off Napster, the affect is the same...there's a piece of that performer's work out there that the performer will never see a return on. Music on Napster is usually on Napster without the performer's permission and without repayment for distribution - and the performer has no "say" or "right" in the matter; no "copy" right.
That's my objection to how Napster does its thing.

<<Like it or not, Napster threatens the music industry's conventional mode of operation because of the power given to the little guy. No one has to depend on bootleggers (who usually charge full price for their lesser quality product anyway) or wait for buddies to record it (usually with poor sound quality) or whatever. Now they fire up Napster, spend a few minutes grabbing tunes, burn a cd, and they are out the door.>>

Hangtown, I agree that Napster threatens the status quo. Most recording companies won't take it lying down, either. If there were some way of accounting for the downloads to interested listeners, with appropriate royalties being repaid to the artists for these downloads, I would cheer Napster to the clouds for opening up a new avenue from artist to listener! The way things currently are, I CANNOT cheer the theft of a person's worth and work. I know too many of those "little guys" that do club gigs, sink money from a second mortgage into cutting a CD (and many of 'em pretty damn good), only to have cuts or the whole thing turn up as "shared goods" on Napster rather than buying one at the club or mailorder from the performer's web page. Immediacy does play a part, as does the ability to hear samples but now, many small artists that have a web page include sample cuts for downloads...thus getting samples out AND maintaining their rights of distribution (to that extent, anyway).

J.T.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (17) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement