From: owner-full-fledged-strangers-digest@smoe.org (full-fledged-strangers-digest) To: full-fledged-strangers-digest@smoe.org Subject: full-fledged-strangers-digest V4 #22 Reply-To: full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org Sender: owner-full-fledged-strangers-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-full-fledged-strangers-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk full-fledged-strangers-digest Monday, February 19 2001 Volume 04 : Number 022 Today's Subjects: ----------------- RE: Napster [David Blanar ] Napster-Pretty Long [diamondmask@juno.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 14:51:30 -0000 From: David Blanar Subject: RE: Napster Great points all the way around. Thanks everyone. Still, isn't Jonatha the definitive type of artist hurt most by Napster? She's not with a major label, paying for everything herself. She bears the costs of marketing, packaging, touring/promotion and distribution, primarily through deals with Borders, etc. Any lost revenue in sales will hurt her directly. I care about Jo and her ability to produce music, the last thing I want is for her to be unable to do so. It's easy for me to gloss over the fact I need not purchase these artists' work; we rationalize it in many ways (ie. money not going directly to artist anyways, work is difficult to get otherwise, etc.) but the reality is: Napster has reduced my CD budget to a fraction of what it once was. The CDs I purchase are few and far between now. It's this hard, cold fact which stirs a twinge of sympathy for Jo, et al. There's the exposure argument ("But Brenda would never have heard of Jo w/o Napster") which only works if it translates into an eventual purchase. For me, this translation is rare, even though I'm exposed to LOTS of great stuff. It just is. I read an interesting article, which I'll share with you all: http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010208.html The author talks about generating revenue on the back end to compensate artists, with added costs to the hardware and CD-R media. I'm extremely skeptical of this working, but it's an interesting solution. Regardless, the genie is out. I downloaded a program called 'Bear Share' yesterday ... oh mercy, what an amazingly powerful tool. Maybe I'm a little behind the curve on that one, but I forsee this miniscule 1 MB application changing my life. I've had it for 24 hours now and it's already affected me. Kind of like Radiohead's 'Kid A'. Wow. I bought *that* one. Cheers all. dkb ps. Welcome back Jim! We missed you! - -----Original Message----- From: Jim DeFord [mailto:jimdeford@home.com] Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 3:54 AM To: full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org Subject: Re: Napster Very well said and I agree wholeheartedly, Roderick. I definitely prefer to buy my CD's and own the full version of the music. These share-servers have been helpful in collecting (ahem) unauthorized releases and out of print music. I personally don't collect a lot of this stuff, but I got pretty active when I discovered several hundred bootleg Beatles songs out there. But, that's a whole nuther thread. ;-) Here's the latest and greatest on Napster: They soon will institute software that will 'add-on' to all MP3's 'traded', code that will prevent the downloader of said MP3's from burning them to a CD. Until some hacker writes a removal patch about 15 minutes later! ;-) - -Jim At 02:50 PM 2/17/2001, Roderick Montgomery wrote: >On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Jim DeFord wrote: > >> Roderick Montgomery said: >> >When you purchase a CD, you do not own the music therein -- you are >> >licensed to hold, but do not own, the music. Playing your CD for a >> >non-paying friend is completely legal, so how is playing it through your >> >computer to a distant friend any different? The friend does not get to >> >enjoy the product you purchased, only the music -- which is art anyway. >> >> I find that a weak argument, but don't flame me yet, Roderick. ;-) > >Funny, I agree with you -- but it's a weak assertion in the first place to >equate the sharing of art with the theft of it. Any rebuttal of such a >preposterous claim would sound equally strange. > >I further agree that Napster in particular (it brought simple file sharing >to the masses) has only boosted sales... except, of course, for music that >is out of print or otherwise unavailable. Just as the MPAA fought VCRs and >then realized a HUGE new market in video sales, the RIAA will eventually >find that the customer is right on digital media, too. > >I admit that I'm different from other consumers, but I buy a CD for many >reasons beyond its musical content -- I'm a liner-note addict, I >appreciate good cover design, and I enjoy knowing that I'm supporting the >artist (along with the music finance and marketing industry that brought >it to me). An MP3 offers none of those things, but might drive me to go >purchase the entire package as has happened many times before. > >Buying a CD, particularly an autographed one, provides me a souvenir, a >tiny tangible token of that artist -- and most would admit that today's >listeners are sold an "image," a "package," not just the recorded music. > >rm >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Roderick Montgomery rod@dinkdonk.com >the fool stands only to fall, but the wise trip on grace... [Sarah Masen] >------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---------------------------------------------------------- >HELP! owner-full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org >Send mail to full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org - ---------------------------------------------------------- HELP! owner-full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org Send mail to full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org **************************************************************************** This email and any files or other attachments transmitted with it are confidential and may be legally privileged and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication represents the originator's personal views and opinions, which do not necessarily reflect those of rivals.net or its subsidiary companies. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and should delete this message and any attachments from your system and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please telephone or email the sender, or email postmaster@rivals.net - ---------------------------------------------------------- HELP! owner-full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org Send mail to full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:56:54 -0800 From: diamondmask@juno.com Subject: Napster-Pretty Long When you download from Napster, you're downloading right from a private citizen's computer. The person must have Napster running at the same time. Napster connects all these computers through servers. They don't make the MP3's, they don't direct where they go, they don't download MP3's, they offer a way to access one file in another's computer to download or upload. If the MP3 file isn't in C:\program files\Napster\Music, it doesn't exist to the download user. (I don't know where it would be for a Mac user) To me, what Napster is in trouble for is offering the service of a server and software. It's the public that do the actual making and moving of the MP3's. But, you can't go after 50,000,000 users. It's the people breaking the laws, not Napster. Ok, aiding and abating I guess. The simple fact is that the labels blew it, and this is the only way they know how of stemming it. Instead of sitting down with Napster and trying to work out some sort of deal that's fair for all, they decided to go with the courts. They could have had software and servers in place in a couple of weeks. Instead, they pissed and moaned and let multi-millionaire rock stars do their PR work for them. Not that I don't think they (the artists) should be getting a piece of the pie. So should the labels. They just blew it because they are so big, with so many layers, they couldn't react, or really, really just didn't understand the power of the internet. And I think in this day and age,you'd have to take a hard look at your corporate leaders when they can let something so simple and elegant cold cock them so blatantly. They choked, and are using the courts to get back control. But it's too late. They may close down Napster, or make it a arm for the labels, but when someone finally comes out with a company that offers what Napster does, with artists that want to be on it, (the end users pay a fee), that the public wants to download. Perhaps at some point, you pay $10, download an entire CD worth of music, tracks you choose, with artwork and lyrics, the artist gets say $5, the server people get $2, and the label, (if there still is one) gets $4. No shipping and handling, no sales tax, no running to the store to find what you want, fewer CD's and their packaging made, and the artists can track what songs are most popular, and those which just don't get downloaded. And maybe fine tune their art to produce more "downloads" instead of knocking something out to put 12 songs on a CD. I think the possiblities are pretty exciting, and once the labels have their collective orgasm over the obvious ruling to come, maybe some people with some insight and wisdom can prevail and actually turn this into a good thing for all concerned. The compression technology will have to get better. I was reading an article with Neil Young who is very excited about DVD's and the way you can burn them with lots more information than current CD technology. (I don't know exactly what he was talking about, but he hates CD's and loves DVD's) I think it's a shame it went through the courts, cause that only lengthened the time we'll have to wait for something better. I have a feeling it's already out there, but they're just waiting to let the dust settle over Napster. Instead of wasting time devising encoding software that will be defeated, put the energy into developing the internet side of the business. Here's a question, if I download a recording of an artist from a live situation, one where the recordist had permission to record, is that breaking the law to you purists? Say, a John Gorka tune recorded at a feed store in Nebraska. (It could happen) But like it's been mentioned here, the thing with JB's new CD, website/Borders, is the very kind thing consumers are tired of. Yes, you can go get the bonus tracks from Napster, but you can't add them to the $20 CD you've already payed for. Even if they make them available on her web site, unless you burn them to a CD, you'll have to be at your computer to listen to them. If this deal was in the works as the CD was released for sale on the Web site, we should have been given the same deal. Autograph or no. john in sumner wa ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. - ---------------------------------------------------------- HELP! owner-full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org Send mail to full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org ------------------------------ End of full-fledged-strangers-digest V4 #22 ******************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This has been a posting from full-fledged-strangers-digest For help send e-mail to owner-full-fledged-strangers@smoe.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------