From: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org (oppositeview-digest) To: oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Subject: oppositeview-digest V2 #29 Reply-To: oppositeview@smoe.org Sender: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-oppositeview-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk oppositeview-digest Friday, June 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 029 Today's Subjects: ----------------- OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] [David Gilliver ] Re: OV: Napster [doug brown ] Re: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] [Darren Holmquist ] OV: Re: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] ["Susan & C. Reid Gardner" ] OV: I must be stupid . . . ["Kristy McDonald" ] Re: OV: I must be stupid . . . [doug brown ] OV: Are you for real?? ["Kristy McDonald" ] OV: mp3s and stuff [Leah D Schenkenberg ] OV: Cost of CD's ["Jane Armstrong" ] OV: Cost of CD's ["Jane Armstrong" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:08:27 +1000 (EST) From: David Gilliver Subject: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, oppositeview-digest wrote: > LOT of us like single songs from certain bands. I love old Nik Kershaw, and > David Bowie, but do you think I can find a copy of "Let's Dance"? (FYI - it > is no longer printed in North America). I have pulled a lot of my favourite Secondhand shops rule. Try somewhere like www.secondspin.com, they're brilliant. > 80's tunes off the net like Nik and some Duran, Del and Madonna just to name > a few. I've also sampled tunes that we don't have here in Canada yet > (Madison Avenue for one!). BTW Madison Avenue are Australian, but obviously so, like Savage Garden. Yes, I'm Australian. And yes, I like a bit of sarcasm. > My question is . . . what do you think?? I'd just like to hear a few other > opinions. Metallica believe that by downloading songs (or in some cases, > people are pulling whole ALBUMS), we the listening public are taking food > off their plates and money from their swiss bank accounts. Should the too > rich enetrtainnent industry (at least here in N.A) shut their collective > hole, or do they have a real arguement. Yes, they have a real argument. The community of geeks on the website Slashdot (http://slashdot.org) recently interviewed Lars from Metallica about this very issue and he quickly conceded their lawsuit had nothing to do with money. The key issue for them was control of their own work. It's probably best if you read the whole discussion, just poke around in the interview section on the site, you should find it fairly easily. Personally, I believe mp3 technology is brilliant, I've tried lots of new stuff using it and bought a lot of albums I wouldn't have bought otherwise. Even if I manage to download an entire album and then decide I like it, I still prefer to have the portability, packaging and sound quality of the actual CD. One analogy I like is that public libraries never killed the market for books so why should giving away songs stop people from buying them? Even if you think mp3 technology is evil, how can it possibly be stopped? Unlike CDs or other technological advances in music, its success is not due to corporate marketing - it's completely a grassroots thing. People latched onto it because it was good and not because some company told them it was good. I think there is a fair chance of shutting down Napster because there is one company at the heart of it that the lawyers can attack. However, new technology that has been inspired by Napster, such as Gnutella, can't be stopped. Where Napster was for mp3 files, Gnutella is for anything. Where you had to sign up with Napster to use it, Gnutella only requires that you have the software. Where Napster had some centralised servers controlling everything, Gnutella is completely distributed. Arrest the people who wrote Gnutella and someone elsewhere in the world will take the code and continue developing it. Those who already have it will keep using it. Has anyone been following the controversy surrounding Springsteen's new song, "American Skin"? First "Born In The USA" was misunderstood by everyone because they didn't actually listen to the lyrics and then 16 years later, it's happening all over again. Utterly ridiculous. The new song is actually quite impressive - you can download an mp3 of an audience recording at http://joosse.org. Just watch the size of it, it's 8Mb. later! David ===================================================== DAVID GILLIVER david@lovetown.net webmaster of the official Stephen Cummings website & the Hothouse Flowers fan website http://www.zip.com.au/~pranksta ===================================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 06:51:21 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: Napster Are people really this stupid? These musicians gave up their jobs and took years of dealing with agents and labels and lousy contracts and spent way too many late nights pushing their music to make those songs and you think it's ok to STEAL them? Well if this is the way you feel could you please come and clean up my apartment for free and buy me a new TV? - --- Kristy McDonald wrote: > Okay . . . I did a bit on the air last night about > Napster. A story came > over the wire in which it described planned action > by the american recording > industry to shut Napster down. This all comes on > the heels of the Metallica > fiasco. > > Personally, I believe that there is a place for > Napster. Let's face it - a > LOT of us like single songs from certain bands. I > love old Nik Kershaw, and > David Bowie, but do you think I can find a copy of > "Let's Dance"? (FYI - it > is no longer printed in North America). I have > pulled a lot of my favourite > 80's tunes off the net like Nik and some Duran, Del > and Madonna just to name > a few. I've also sampled tunes that we don't have > here in Canada yet > (Madison Avenue for one!). > > My question is . . . what do you think?? I'd just > like to hear a few other > opinions. Metallica believe that by downloading > songs (or in some cases, > people are pulling whole ALBUMS), we the listening > public are taking food > off their plates and money from their swiss bank > accounts. Should the too > rich enetrtainnent industry (at least here in N.A) > shut their collective > hole, or do they have a real arguement. > > Being a Nik Kershaw fan, I like the green grass > exactly where I am, thanks - > but I could do without all of this %^&$(%* rain!! > > Kristy in Canada __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 08:00:38 -0700 From: Darren Holmquist Subject: Re: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] In my view, Napster is no different than a Used CD shop. The artist(s) have already been paid for their work once. The originator paid for the cd in order to upload it to Napster, or to sell it to a Used CD shop (if not, then he DID steal it). Darren ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:07:24 +0100 From: Eddie Armstrong Subject: RE: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] Sorry to be brutal Darren, but your argument is crap. When you sell a used CD to a Used CD Shop, you give up the rights to listen to it any more, simply because you do not have it anymore. By making an MP3 available to everybody on Napster, you are effectively saying that you own the copyright to the music and are entitled to say who can and can't listen to it for free. If you do not own the copyright to that music then you are breaking the law in most countries. Not quite the same thing... Eddie (Sorry to get on my high horse - just had to deal with something similar from one of our clients. They assumed that, because they'd been on one of my company's courses, that they were entitled to make copies of our course notes and pass it around amongst dozens of his colleagues. We soon put him straight...) > -----Original Message----- > From: Darren Holmquist [SMTP:darren@bendcable.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 4:01 PM > To: oppositeview@smoe.org > Subject: Re: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] > > In my view, Napster is no different than a Used CD shop. The artist(s) > have already been paid for their work once. The originator paid for the > cd > in order to upload it to Napster, or to sell it to a Used CD shop (if not, > > then he DID steal it). > > Darren > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:39:38 +0100 From: hilary_gray@sandwich.pfizer.com Subject: RE: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] I think there's a relatively simple way of solving this one - legalise it! I don't have the figures to hand, but don't the record company and artist get a relatively small cut from the shop price of a CD (none if it is second hand). So surely if the record companies themselves run sites like this for songs in downloadable form at a small price each (and I'm talking a few pence/cents) then hey presto. The record company and artist get a cut, consumers get to 'taste' an artists work for a fraction of the price in the shops and more people get to hear the music. I'm sure a high volume of low prices will more than compensate for all those people out there buying second hand CDs or taping their friends CDs etc. A lot of small bits of something is better than a large bit of nothing. I would imagine for the next few years at least that the vast majority of sales will still be on CD/tape etc, but this way the industry can get itself sorted out before the technology overtakes it. It's blindingly obvious to me, or am I being overly simplistic? As for the argument over whether it is morally right to have free access to copyrighted work, well this isn't just restricted to Napster. You can download pictures, books, tv episodes etc etc. Napster has just cornered the publicity. In the non-web world you can scan pictures, photocopy magazines and books, tape tv, pirate films, copy CDs etc etc. It's going to happen whether it's right or wrong, we just have to find a pragmatic solution where most of the people win most of the time. Hilary PFIZER CENTRAL RESEARCH - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message and any attachment has been virus checked by the Pfizer Research Sandwich Data Centre. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:50:54 -0500 From: "Jen Woyan" Subject: Re: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] I know the Courtney Love article I forwarded yesterday was a bit long, but if you read all of it, it gives some interesting suggestions on how the copyright issue can be held stabile in light of these new technologies and it also allows us to see that the issue isn't as black & white as some might like us to think. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html We've had copyright threads on this list before and I'm always fascinated by the varied scope of the general public's understanding of copyrights in general. On the one hand, Eddie is completely right, especially as it applies to his industry. But unfortunately, artists are dealt with differently, for whatever reason, by the media, the general public, and even by their so-called peers. Look at the recent lawsuits of writers against newspapers for not compensating freelancers for content they place on the publication's websites, for one non-music example. To make matters worse, the US government (I'm actually looking into international copyrights now on this subject) is doing more than muddying the waters in this whole debate by fucking with the applicability of copyrights of artist's materials (changing recording artists' product into "work for hire", etc.) - it just gets curiouser & curiouser. And after following this topic closely for over a year for various reasons, no one on ANY side seems to be coming up with any viable answers and/or solutions. It's disheartening at best. I will write more on this at another time, but now I gotta run... Cheers, Jen in Chicago - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eddie Armstrong" To: Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 11:07 AM Subject: RE: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] > Sorry to be brutal Darren, but your argument is crap. When you sell a used > CD to a Used CD Shop, you give up the rights to listen to it any more, > simply because you do not have it anymore. By making an MP3 available to > everybody on Napster, you are effectively saying that you own the copyright > to the music and are entitled to say who can and can't listen to it for > free. If you do not own the copyright to that music then you are breaking > the law in most countries. Not quite the same thing... > > Eddie > > (Sorry to get on my high horse - just had to deal with something similar > from one of our clients. They assumed that, because they'd been on one of > my company's courses, that they were entitled to make copies of our course > notes and pass it around amongst dozens of his colleagues. We soon put him > straight...) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Darren Holmquist [SMTP:darren@bendcable.com] > > Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 4:01 PM > > To: oppositeview@smoe.org > > Subject: Re: OV: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] > > > > In my view, Napster is no different than a Used CD shop. The artist(s) > > have already been paid for their work once. The originator paid for the > > cd > > in order to upload it to Napster, or to sell it to a Used CD shop (if not, > > > > then he DID steal it). > > > > Darren > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:42:13 -0400 From: "Susan & C. Reid Gardner" Subject: OV: Re: mp3 stuff [No Dels content] Jen Woyan wrote: > We've had copyright threads on this list before and I'm always fascinated by > the varied scope of the general public's understanding of copyrights in > general... To make matters worse, > the US government (I'm actually looking into international copyrights now on > this subject) is doing more than muddying the waters in this whole debate by > fucking with the applicability of copyrights of artist's materials (changing > recording artists' product into "work for hire", etc.) - it just gets > curiouser & curiouser. And after following this topic closely for over a > year for various reasons, no one on ANY side seems to be coming up with any > viable answers and/or solutions. It's disheartening at best. All I've had experience with is a visual artist's copyrights, and its about as confusing a situation as the music world seems to be. Basically an artist owns the copyrights to their created images unless they in writing turn those rights over to someone else. But not too many years ago I encountered a company that printed reproductions who claimed that the minute they made reproductions of an image they then owned the copyright to that image! I also had a photographer "friend" who blew me away when he insisted that since he shot negatives of my artwork that he then owned those negatives and could do any darned thing he wanted to with them (selling prints of them, etc etc). Needless to say I found another photographer (this wiener did insist that I actually buy my negs from him even tho I'd paid up front for having them made. Idgit.) And that reproduction-printing company no longer gets my business either. As far as copyrights go, I still own the copyrights to my images according to the updated rules I've read. The business end of artistic creativity is such a convoluted mess that sometimes one just wants to lock oneself in the studio... TTFN Susan who would draw daily forever even if she never set foot in a gallery again ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 12:42:41 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: OV: More fun OT reading! Another fun article to show your son or daughter who wants to be a rock star (unless they are also supermodels). http://www.atlantic-satellite.com/major_la.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:11:46 -0700 From: "Kristy McDonald" Subject: OV: I must be stupid . . . Are people really this stupid? These musicians gave up their jobs and took years of dealing with agents and labels and lousy contracts and spent way too many late nights pushing their music to make those songs and you think it's ok to STEAL them? Well if this is the way you feel could you please come and clean up my apartment for free and buy me a new TV? Well, Dear Doug, let's get something straight . . . I am NOT stupid. On the contrary. I work in radio and see stations pay money to the recording industry for playing songs that have been released to radio. Do we see the irony? The recording industry pays the artists after they have taken their cut of the royalties collected from radio. Bottom line - the ARTIST is getting money for the sale of CD's, tours, merchadise, images, interviews and THEY get paid when WE (radio) play their songs and send their singles and CD's to #1! Hello? It's called publicity. Artists are supposed to pay to publicise. That's the way of the world. I shouldn't be paying to publicise them. But that gets away from the Napster debate. If I post songs, I am assuming (naievely, perhaps) that Joe Brown in Miami likes a song by Tal Bachman. He only likes one song though. So he can download the song and be happy. From my point of view, I shouldn't have to spend an average of $20 on a CD to get the one song I like and 9 others I don't. When the recording industry finds a way to print a CD for me at point of purchase with a medley of tunes that I can pick and chose from, I'll be at the front of the line. That would be awesome. Also, I'm not posting entire albums. I'm sharing songs that I like that I think others will like in return for dowloading something of theirs. Looking at this from another vantage point, Metallica has made the point that they see people downloading entire CD's from Napster, and they claim this costs them money. Have I downloaded CD's? Hell yes. Perfect example - Toni Childs. I can't find her old CD in Canada for love or money. So I dowloaded 8 of 10 songs. Plus I found some stuff that has appeared on soundtracks I never knew existed. NOW I'll try and find those soundtracks so I can BUY them, or at least listen in store to see if I like them. Would I download the new Hanson CD? NO!!!! The CD is readily available at my local record store on sale for $14 and I like the tunes. I suppose my convuluted point is that if there is an artist you can't buy anymore, why not share on Napster? I don't seee a problem with that. I also don't see a problem with 13 year old Tessa making a medley of Britney/BSB/N'Sync/Hanson because she likes all 4. Chances are that Tessa has already bought the CD's and paid her heroes for their time. Seeing that I have already BOUGHT the CD's (or cassettes) that contain a lot of the music I download anyway, I have paid my share and made artist X some money. I don't feel guilty for looking for the material on the web. I am NOT stealing, and I don't have a guilty conscience nagging me. Next time you post, please post nicely. I may be blonde, but my IQ doesn't equal my shoe size. Kristy in Canada P.S. - Musicians are like actors and athletes - they give up their lives to make it in music, and when they make it it was all worth it. Same goes for almost any career when you fight your way up the ladder. The difference is that when I hit my pinnacle. it's unlikely I'll draw $30 million over 5 years. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:25:25 -0700 (PDT) From: doug brown Subject: Re: OV: I must be stupid . . . Let me tell you a story. I met the manager of the best CD/record stores in lovely Rochester, NY last month at a wedding. She's been been the manager of the stores for about 15 years. She told me that, BECAUSE OF NAPSTER, she had ordered 1/2 the number of CDs for the new Phish album that she normally would have ordered. She said that she knew as soon as it was out it would be all over Napster and many of the people that would have otherwise would have bought the CD would just wait and download it instead. Yes, this is how big the problem is. So dearie you just go right ahead and keep trying to justify it to yourself but it's called STEALING and it's ILLEGAL. Oh, and this IS me being nice when it comes to people trying to kill off what little is left of the music biz. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:40:18 -0700 From: "Kristy McDonald" Subject: OV: Are you for real?? Doug - does the word ECONOMY mean anything to you?? That may be ONE reason your friend ordered less product. Want another one? How about MEGASTORES? Tower, Virgin, HMV . . . they are all working against your local Joe record stores in reaping their share of the entertainment pie. Napster may be well liked and well used, but it'll never put large conglomerates out of business. And like I said . . . 90% of what I download is already sitting in my stack of vinyl, OR it's out of print. Maybe some of these shops should get into bed with both the recording industry AND Napster and find a happy medium. Oh, that's right. If they did, you'd have nothing to complain about. FYI - They're not Phish, but the Hip have a new album out here in Canada. It's all over the net and I've heard some of it. REGARDLESS of whether the album is all over Napster, I'm gonna go and buy it! Take heart, there are people like me out there who'll actually work the system in the right way and NOT abuse it. One more thing - have YOU used Napster for hard to find bootlegs? Maybe you should. There are some awesome live and rare Del tunes out there. Yours in Delmania, Kristy in Canada ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 00:32:18 -0500 From: Leah D Schenkenberg Subject: OV: mp3s and stuff About 85% of all my MP3s are live tracks and bootlegs. If artists would make them available to more than the first 500 people who get the bonus sampler CD or release the tracks on more than just the African cut 3 maxi cd promo radio live in Nairobi limited edition cardboard sleeve single and give me a chance to pay for them, I probably would. But if artists are going to make some of their tracks so obscure that one can't buy them, they aren't making money anyway. The other 15% consists of stuff I own on CD or old records in some cases...and there is stuff that I don't own the record for...ex: Ace of Bass (laugh all you want...they were the ABBA of the 90s and really really really really cool when I was in 7th grade). I know I can find their CD, but for "The Sign" and "All that she wants", I'd rather not. If I didn't have Napster, I'd tape it off the radio. And if I didn't have Napster and couldn't tape it from radio, I still wouldn't go out and buy it. Third Eye Blind....their new song is sucking me in....I think I'm pretty much head over heels in love with the last chorus that he sings in the lower voice and the line about "that girl is like a sunburn" at the end, but do I want their CD? Before I spend the money on the outrageous cost of CDs these days, especially because I'm a college student which means I work 40+ hours a week at school, but I have to pay in to do mine, I'm gonna see if I like what else they have. If it' a good CD, I'm gonna buy it, guaranteed. CDs are about packaging, printed lyrics, pictures...not just the tunes that come from the shiny circle thing. If it's not, I'm gonna continue to listen to it on my computer as my own personal radio station. Which is another thing I don't understand...what's the difference between this and me taping it off the radio? before napster, I just did that all the time instead. And if Napster is taken from me, I'll just go back to that. I agree with whoever was talking about mixed cds for single songs, or about paying a bit for Napster who subsidizes the artists. It's all about accessibility. If I could get the rare tracks without going to record fairs in amsterdam and the good singles without buying an album full of crap, I would. But I can't, so I resort to other measures. Leah PS What are opinions of Limp Bizkit now? They are having a free concert tour sponsered by Napster, and they are very pro "it's a great way to preview cds before you buy them"...I tend to think that they have the right frame of mine. ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:02:31 +0100 From: "Jane Armstrong" Subject: OV: Cost of CD's >Before I spend the money on the outrageous cost >of CDs these days, Leah - you should complain! If only we in the UK could buy CD's in the shops at the ridiculously low price YOU pay we'd be laughing all the way to the bank. I was discussing this the other night with someone. It's got to the point where basically you have to pick one or two artists and just buy their stuff and thus miss out on so many great albums you could have bought - or forget about spending money on little things like food. Jane ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Join us for our weekly chat - 9pm GMT Thursdays (now with voice) on http://homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong/chat.html Please note my new URL: http://homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong Del Amitri Pages: http:///homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong/Delpage.html Join The Devlins Mailing List: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/TheDevlins ICQ # 34643730 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:52:47 +0100 From: "Jane Armstrong" Subject: OV: Cost of CD's >Before I spend the money on the outrageous cost >of CDs these days, Leah - you should complain! If only we in the UK could buy CD's in the shops at the ridiculously low price YOU pay we'd be laughing all the way to the bank. I was discussing this the other night with someone. It's got to the point where basically you have to pick one or two artists and just buy their stuff and thus miss out on so many great albums you could have bought - or forget about spending money on little things like food. >CDs are about packaging, printed lyrics, pictures...not >just the tunes that come from the shiny circle thing. This is where I long for the good old days of vinyl - where you could get home and study the sleeve in all it's glory and actually READ the lyrics without the aid of a very powerful magnifying glass. And that smell of brand new vinyl....mmmmm! I recently bought a Rick Wakeman CD - looked at the CD sleeve and dismissed it. A few weeks later I got the same album on vinyl. I spent hours looking at the cover - noticing the little hidden details which just don't reproduce on a small CD cover, like a group of concealed figures and the shadow of a giant pterodactyl. In the 60's and 70's album sleeves were considered Art (with a capital A) and won awards. People would buy extra copies - or nick empty sleeves from the local Harlequin Records (who me?) just to stick on their walls. You could buy books of faithfully reproduced album covers. Nowadays I can't even SEE the sleeve. And that's not just old age...... Jane ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Join us for our weekly chat - 9pm GMT Thursdays (now with voice) on http://homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong/chat.html Please note my new URL: http://homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong Del Amitri Pages: http:///homepages.tesco.net/~jane.armstrong/Delpage.html Join The Devlins Mailing List: http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/TheDevlins ICQ # 34643730 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ------------------------------ End of oppositeview-digest V2 #29 *********************************