Feelings on Napster?

I am surprised and relieved so many people feel the same way I do about this issue. Mr Gridlock has hit the nail right on the head IMHO. As for the notion that this will somehow lead to the decline of the Western Civilization - Give me a Break! If good sounding recordings were to be given away, with no money paid for that product, who would ever put up the $$$ for studio time, sound engineers, recording facilities, etc, etc - not to mention the musicians. To think that musicians are ONLY motivated by the artistry of their music is naive. From some kids in a garage band to the guy composing on his keyboard, musicians want their music to be heard but they also want to be paid for it if their dream is to do that for a living. Napster could potentially rob them of that dream. They may be able to share their music with a wider audience but if they don't get paid for it how can they keep doing it? Remember, Thomas Edison didn't invent the phonograph to share music with the world - he made it because he saw the potential to make money and sell a product he thought people would buy. He has been right for 100 years now. It's funny how people who advocate Napster are pointing their fingers at the evil, capitalist record companies whose only goal is to make a buck. What do you all think Napster's in it for? And they didn't even help make the product they are offering. That's theft.

Eldragon, funny how two of your examples are artists. The point though is that you're talking about ideas which can always be built upon, so long as there is no patent or copyright infringement. If this weren't the case we wouldn't see much advancement in anything. With your line of thinking (with the exception of Microsoft) we've all stolen someone elses idea - how far back do you want to go? Rome? Greece? Egypt? Babylon?

Issabre, your second post from the top says that you consider yourself to be an artist. You also have lived in Africa and seem fairly educated. If I were playing Sherlock Holmes, I would deduce that you come from a wealthy family and have a MAJOR chip on your shoulder because you had it better than most. My advice would be to either feed this need(chip) and give up all of your worldly posessions. Don't do it all at once however, as you will be able to gain valuable insight into what it feels like to "have it all", then "nothing", and what it feels like to be at all levels in between. You then could write a book about each of those perspectives from a humanistic standpoint, of course. In the end though, no one would buy your book and you'd be broke and cursing Capitalism in addition to all the damned, wayward souls that occupy the USA. You would then realize that nobody bought the book because it was "a downer" and people were actually happy with their lives! You'd further realize that you were WRONG about all of your assumptions in the past! Unfortunatley, you'd still be broke but you could take heart as you experience firsthand the generousity of our society and people who live here. You would not starve and you would not die just for having differing ideas than the people who live around you (like some of those communist places you admire). NOW, get that chip off your shoulder, stick to the thread and discuss some AUDIO related topics. And if you do get rid of some worldly goods - start with your computer - then you wouldn't have to worry about Napster and we wouldn't have to read your rantings!!!

While you may have posted this topic, you do not own it or control it. I last looked at this post when it was about the topic you were presenting for discussion. I read everyone's comments and found them to be interesting. I even threw in my 2c at the time! I checked back a few days later and started reading things like this: "Basically, this combination has resulted in a nation of extreme wealth, little collective conciousness or conscience (america consumes far far more than its porportional share of resources), (in my opinion)a largely miserable society (as evidence in our incredibly high crime rates, suicide rates, incidence of psychological disturbance..etc." Maybe I haven't been caught up in the day-to-day progress of this thread (I am trying to be happy in my work). As I don't know you, my responses intent was to present irony - not a personal attack (did you not find irony in the writing?). If your intent was to get "the juices flowing" by espousing points of view that could be VASTLY different from someone elses - why wouldn't you expect someone to take your bait? Perhaps I did get carried away at the end and I will apologize for that - as soon as I can get upright and pomice the calouses off my knuckles. Thank you for "schooling me" and I apologize for missing all of your jokes in your earlier statements. They must have been riding on an 80kHz wave and went right over my head.

Hi Grumpy, I agree with what you say about swapping CD's between friends, etc. I think the idea here though is that Napster is making a profit. Someone's paying for the server space, the salaries AND their legal fees, right? I read a relevant article in today's paper about this very issue. It was a stance that the Greatful Dead has taken. We all know the Dead have always allowed people to record their concerts and have had one of the most "open" policies regarding music sharing of any established band. I think these brief comments may put the issue in more perspective: "Although the Dead officially remains neutral in the Napster controversy, the service violates a policy the band established a few months before the immensely popular Web site started last year. As digital audio files such as MP3 emerged as a viable format, the Dead reiterated its long-standing commitment to allowing fans to trade recordings of the band's 2,300 concerts. Under the April 1999 policy, though, the Dead declared that "no commercial gain may be sought by Web sites offering digital files of our music, whether through advertising, exploiting databases compiled from their traffic, or any other means." The reason is clear, why should a "service", such as Napster make a buck they didn't earn? They shoudn't, because it's wrong and it's theft. I think justice will prevail in the end but it's a shame Napster will be fighting it in court, paying the attorney's with money they never earned!!!!

Let's make one thing clear. I am not against the concept of a Napster. In fact, I think that's the way we're all headed. Complile a favorite song list, downoad it to a flash chip the size of a pack of gum and throw it into your nearest MP-3 player. This will probably become so seamless it will replace radio some day. I think it is not an argument or an indictment of the technolgy but of the company's practice. This is akin to downloading all movies into a database(via individuals who own a digital copy of it) and allowing you to view on-line. This could well be the case in ten years or less! Is the argument then supposed to be; "Wow I like it on-line, now I'm going to buy a ticket and see it at the theater!" Or "I liked it, now I'm going to buy it on DVD"! I don't think so. Yes, we may be talking about songs right now, but think about the legal precedent it would set! And it wouldn't stop there. Do we really want more specialized laws - or more laws in general? That's what would happen if Napster wins this thing.

Eldragon, Sure the arts are important. But without the patronage of someone (kings, nobles, modern consumers), artists would never be able to afford the supplies they need to create their art.

My point in this discussion is to try and point out a "legal" aspect to the Napster discussion. I think "legally" this is theft and it is wrong. My views are not a knock on artists and as Dekay pointed out with his example, artists do tend to CREATE first and think about money later. But at some point artists DO have to think about money or they will no longer be able TO do their art (provided they are not independently wealthy). So, to repeat again, I think Napster engages in an illeagal activity and actually hurts artists no help them.