Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1.    #1  
    My HS's debate team (of which I'm a member) is gonna be debating the issue of whether or not peer-to-peer file sharing services (such as Napster, Gnutella) should be prohibited. Anyone have any good arguments for either side?
    Life's just a blast, just it's moving really fast, and you'd <BR>better stay on top or life'll kick you in the *** -Limp Bizkit
  2. #2  
    pro: you can share legal stuff, so why ban it?

    Con: you can share illegal stuff, this will result in artist missing their royalties...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  3. #3  
    Aren't you asking us to do your homework? )

    A quick search on the internet will turn up tons of arguments for and against. Check out Salon.com for some interesting articles.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  4.    #4  
    Originally posted by homer
    Aren't you asking us to do your homework? )
    Honestly, I've done a ton of research, and have gotton a lot of good arguments, but what I'm looking for is the type of argument that wins a debate, and the debate's on Sunday so I'm getting kinda desperate
    Life's just a blast, just it's moving really fast, and you'd <BR>better stay on top or life'll kick you in the *** -Limp Bizkit
  5. #5  
    Well try out these .. (You will probably have to find some data to back up the claims .. i have heard of these .. not sure if they are factual..)

    Pro-NAPSTER/Peer-To-Peer Sharing..
    - Music CD sales have been UP since introduction of Napster -- sounds like people hear stuff they like on Napster then buy the entire CD or complimentary CDs ..

    - Distributing your own music via Napster/etc is good as it provides de-centralized distribution (ie, if you had your own website and it went down, no one could get your stuff..)

    - Provides artists with a very popular and free distribution channel for their music


    Anti-NAPSTER/Peer-To-Peer Sharing..
    - Massive Copyright Infringement
    - Potential long term issues regarding profitability for artsts/recording companies (people with high speed connections and high quality mp3's or similar music files can simply download a CD worth of music and burn to a CD-R..)
    - Security issues regarding peer-to-peer sharing aspect (the system accesses files off your computer, so technically a hacker could find a way to gain access to your system..)


    Joe
  6. #6  
    i recently read an article in Red Herring (www.redherring.com) that talked about Infrasearch. It's a search engine that uses the Gnutella code to revolutionize searches on the web using 'peer-to-peer' technology. Which is basically what napster is. Go buy the Red Herring issue with the Top Trends cover (i believe it's the December issue on newstands now). They make a good arguement on this technology and why we shouldn't ban it.

    It can be used for good instead of evil.

    Try going to the Red Herring site and doing a search on InfraSearch.

    Hope that helps!



    UPDATE: found the article on line while surfing...

    http://www.redherring.com/mag/issue86/mag-grow-86.html
    wow, it's been awhile.....things have REALLY changed...why is my Visor Edge still in my hand? Will a Treo fit better?
  7. #7  
    IMO, P2P technology is similar to the "gun issue". The technology itself is neither good nor evil. The use of that technology is what should determine legality or illegality. That's about all I have to say, since I'm morally opposed to doing someone else's work for them.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #8  
    Putting aside the "homework" issue...

    This is basically the road that Senator Orrin Hatch tried to take the RIAA representative down at the hearing a few months back - it's a good argument:

    When you purchase a CD (or software, or movie, or whatever) what are you really purchasing? There isn't anything physical that you are buying (sure, you buy the CD, but only as a vehicle for the song you want). What you are really buying is a "License" to listen to the song.

    When the U.S. Supreme Court a few years back heard the case of Sony vs. VHS, they made this same point, and said that the issue then was one of the limit of the license, and more importantly, what constituted "non-commercial fair use".

    I buy a CD. Listen to it at home. I want to listen to it in my car, so I copy it onto a cassette. Is that fair use? Yes. My wife wants to listen to it, so I copy it onto a cassette for her. Fair use? Yes. What about a friend? What about all my friends? What if I offer to make a copy of the song for free for whoever wants it? Is there a difference between that and offering to play the song to whoever comes into my house and wants to listen to it? What's really the difference between that and having an MP3 file on my computer available for download? There isn't any. You have bought the license to listen to a song, and the license to listen to it (share it) with whoever you want to, as long as you aren't charging them for it - non commercial fair use.

    BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ARTISTS? People cry. How will they get paid for their hard work? Think of your favorite television personality - Jay Leno, Jennifer Aniston, David Letterman, Drew Carey, Jenna Elfman, whoever. When have any of you given any of them money? You haven't. What about a song on the radio? When have you paid to hear it? You haven't. SPONSORS! You yell. Exactly the point. If someone makes a good "product", there will be a way to market it, and they will get paid. Radio has been around for many many years. So has television. It's only the record industry with it's greedy and arcane method of marketing, and the RIAA's staff of attorneys running to court all that time, that has insisted that each and every one of us pay the fee they set to listen to the music we want.

    Should artists get paid? Sure. Should we have to pay for CDs? Of course, there are distribution and manufacturing costs. Should Napster - a service that lets me share my music with you with no reward to anybody - be shut down? Absolutely not. People like Lars Ulrich and Metallica need to spend their time making good music - if it's good, they'll get paid for it one way or another - and not spending the millions of dollars people like me have already given them, running to court to stop progress, innovation, and most of all - CHANGE.
    Hmmmmmmmm......
    <img src="http://www.michaelsmustang.homestead.com/files/bill_icon.gif">
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by mchlwise
    I buy a CD. Listen to it at home. I want to listen to it in my car, so I copy it onto a cassette. Is that fair use? Yes. My wife wants to listen to it, so I copy it onto a cassette for her. Fair use? Yes. What about a friend? What about all my friends? What if I offer to make a copy of the song for free for whoever wants it? Is there a difference between that and offering to play the song to whoever comes into my house and wants to listen to it? What's really the difference between that and having an MP3 file on my computer available for download? There isn't any. You have bought the license to listen to a song, and the license to listen to it (share it) with whoever you want to, as long as you aren't charging them for it - non commercial fair use.
    I may be wrong, but my experience tells me that what you've written above is completely incorrect. When you buy a CD and make a dub of it and give it to your friend, you have broken the law. Making a copy for you to listen to in the car is fair use... assuming someone else isn't listening to your cd at the same time at home.

    It's like software. I buy a program and I can set it up on as many of my own computers as I wish, as this ensures that the software is only being used by the person who bought the licence. I have a laptop and a desktop, no problem. I have a laptop and my friend has a desktop... problem. I do not own the right to licence the software to my friend. The same as you don't have the licence to copy a cd for your friend.

    Do you think that it's legal to buy a book and photocopy it and give it away? No, it is not. You've broken copyright. An artist deserves to be paid for each of the people that benefits from his or her work. The same as you deserve to be paid for the work you do. Whether you think Elton John (or whoever) actually needs the $ is irrelevant.

    Most record labels (certainly the major labels) give a measly 12% to the artist. Now, in the case of people like Elton John, that adds up to a lot of cash (and of course, someone like him can negotiate a higer percentage), but for the VAST majority of artists, this is not very much money. Usually not enough to live on.

    You don't think Lars Ullrich deserves your money, that's cool. I don't think he does either. 'Cause his music is poo. However, if you like his music, you should pay him (by buying a cd) to listen to it. I do not like his music, so will not buy a cd of his. However, I am a music freak and buy, on average, 20 cds a month. So I support the artists who I do enjoy.

    At the same time, I do not believe Napster to be an evil company. Their software is excellent and I use it all the time. However, I use it for research purposes. I do not use it to save money on music (ie, rip off artists). For example, I've been hearing about a band called Clem Snide for about 2 years. I'm in Canada and cannot find their CDs here. So I used Napster so I could hear what they actually sound like. I loved what I heard, I imported the CDs from the states. Same with an Icelandic band called Sigur Ros. Couldn't find them here. Found a track on Napster and ordered the CD from the UK as a result.

    But the people who are going out and downloading entire albums and burning them to CD or just enjoying them on their hard drive... those people are breaking the law. Perhaps you think it's an antiquated law as it does not take into account current technology, but it is still the law.

    Do record labels have a right to sue Napster? Not in my opinion as Napster hasn't done anything illegal. However, does the record label (or artist) have a right to sue each and every Metallica fan who downloaded and kept mp3s off napster without purchasing the cd... yup.

    Just my opinion of course,

    mc.
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by mensachicken
    It's like software. I buy a program and I can set it up on as many of my own computers as I wish, as this ensures that the software is only being used by the person who bought the licence.
    That's not entirely true... you can only install most software on one machine and make a single backup copy. Granted, certain titles allow installation on 2 or more machines, but, typically, the license is for only one installation.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  11. #11  
    I may be wrong, but my experience tells me that what you've written above is completely incorrect. When you buy a CD and make a dub of it and give it to your friend, you have broken the law. Making a copy for you to listen to in the car is fair use... assuming someone else isn't listening to your cd at the same time at home.
    It's been a few months since I've read the text of the American Home Recording Act, but I don't remember any clause that excludes taping for friends as fair use.

    Legality aside, would I have a serious problem with the prohibition of home taping on principle. Any law that proscribes what a consumer can do with the industry's intellectual property implicitly proscribes what he can do with his purchased physical property. If I pay for a CD, then loan it to a friend, that's between me and the friend. I just borrowed a neighbor's vacuum cleaner. I don't think many people would argue that Hoover should be compensated for my use of "their" (actually, the neighbor's) vacuum.

    But the laws on MP3s are different: where the AHRA's fair use clause is somewhat equivocal, distribution of MP3 files over the net violates the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. I don't agree with the law, but it's nearly impossible to argue before a judge that sharing copyrighted files is legal.

    It's like software. I buy a program and I can set it up on as many of my own computers as I wish, as this ensures that the software is only being used by the person who bought the licence. I have a laptop and a desktop, no problem. I have a laptop and my friend has a desktop... problem. I do not own the right to licence the software to my friend. The same as you don't have the licence to copy a cd for your friend.
    Mark's correct in pointing out that you're typically licensed to use commercial software on a single machine. Often, End User Licensing Agreements are even more restrictive. For instance, if you buy an eMachine with Win98 installed, and it crashes beyond the scope of what a recovery disk will patch, you are not allowed to install another copy of Win98 unless you pay for it in full. In any case, you are usually not allowed to share software between your own machines. I have a copy of Final Draft screenwriting software that will only run on a second machine if the CD-ROM is in the drive while you're running the software.

    Do you think that it's legal to buy a book and photocopy it and give it away? No, it is not. You've broken copyright. An artist deserves to be paid for each of the people that benefits from his or her work. The same as you deserve to be paid for the work you do. Whether you think Elton John (or whoever) actually needs the $ is irrelevant.
    I see that as a principle of captalism rather than a principle of ethics. No one complains, for instance, that poets can't make a living at their art. Moreover, the vast majority of musicians aren't signed to a label -- RIAA or otherwise. Capitalism socializes us to look at the successful and ignore the "unsuccessful," so that we tend to forget that none of the musicians we know personally are supported by the RIAA.

    Currently, the artist is valued to the extent that he or she can make money for investors. Elton John may "deserve" to be paid for his music, but somehow I don't think the issue would go away if I sent a check directly to Elton, cutting EMI shareholders out of the loop. The recording industry's "artists deserve to be paid" bromide is little more than code for "we deserve to be paid."

    My theory is that people don't buy "content"; they buy media. A poet, for instance, can't sell an individual poem, but when he has enough poems to fill a mainstream medium -- a book -- then his work has commercial potential. Newspaper sales a better than ever, despite the fact that they can access the exact same content at the papers' respective websites for free. Physical newspapers are just more convenient. CDs are more convenient than MP3s, which is why MP3 has helped -- not hurt -- CD sales

    At the same time, I do not believe Napster to be an evil company. Their software is excellent and I use it all the time. However, I use it for research purposes. I do not use it to save money on music (ie, rip off artists).
    I take exception to Napster. They insist on their right to trade other people's copyrighted works without permission, while also instisting that their own software may not be copied, decompiled or reverse-engineered. Napster's position would've had a lot more integrity if they could've said, "We believe in the freedom of information: that's why we've open-sourced our client." As it stands, Napster strikes people as opportunists -- and rightly so. On the other hand, we have OpenNap, Gnapster, and a number of open source Gnutella clients.

    But the people who are going out and downloading entire albums and burning them to CD or just enjoying them on their hard drive... those people are breaking the law. Perhaps you think it's an antiquated law as it does not take into account current technology, but it is still the law.
    Actually, it's the current laws, like the 1998 DMCA that make it illegal. Thirty years ago, copyright law didn't even include recorded works (publishing rights, yes, but not the sound recordings themselves). I think that society, historically, ignores laws perceived as unjust -- like prohibition or segregation. Law changes when hithero unlawful practices become mainstream.

    Do record labels have a right to sue Napster? Not in my opinion as Napster hasn't done anything illegal. However, does the record label (or artist) have a right to sue each and every Metallica fan who downloaded and kept mp3s off napster without purchasing the cd... yup.
    Assuming that US citizens are innocent until proven guilty, how to you prove that any Metallica fan who downloaded one of Lars' precious tracks, didn't own the CD? With a broadband connection, it's arguably more convenient to download a track than to rip it from your own CD. And even if the fan didn't own it, they could always buy a used copy (no dated proof of purchase) of the CD retroactively and submit it to the court as evidence.

    Just my opinion of course
    Ditto ;-)
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by mchlwise
    I buy a CD. Listen to it at home. I want to listen to it in my car, so I copy it onto a cassette. Is that fair use? Yes. My wife wants to listen to it, so I copy it onto a cassette for her. Fair use? Yes. What about a friend? What about all my friends? What if I offer to make a copy of the song for free for whoever wants it? Is there a difference between that and offering to play the song to whoever comes into my house and wants to listen to it? What's really the difference between that and having an MP3 file on my computer available for download? There isn't any. You have bought the license to listen to a song, and the license to listen to it (share it) with whoever you want to, as long as you aren't charging them for it - non commercial fair use.
    Recording onto cassette, after repeated recordings, loses quality. MP3s are near-CD quality no matter how many times you copy them.

    That said, I think it would be better for the RIAA to start offering music for sale in other mediums besides CD. Why not be able to download the album to burn onto my own CD at full CD quality? Let me buy it for ~$5 since there are no distribution issues to deal with, and make the download so that it cannot be transferred to someone else.
    James Hromadka, TreoCentral Editor
    Houston - EST. 1836
  13. #13  
    Here's a forward of something I got a couple of months ago from George Burns, the HTML Goodies guy:

    Received from HTML Goodies Express (http://www.htmlgoodies.com)
    Original Source: Goodies Express -the great Napster debate, and more! 7/31/2000.

    ************************************************************
    HTMLGOODIES EXPRESS (tm)
    July 31, 2000--Newsletter #91

    The HTMLGOODIES Express for July 31, 2000
    is a service of EarthWeb Inc., a public company.
    For information about our company, please go to
    http://www.ewbx.com.
    ************************************************************
    Please visit http://www.htmlgoodies.com
    ************************************************************
    Featured this week:

    * Joe's take on the great Napster debate

    Greetings, Weekend Silicon Warriors,

    Usually I am a week ahead on my newsletters, but now and
    again something pops up that makes me want to hurry up and
    push out an opinion. The Napster court case is just such a
    topic. I'll state my opinion right up front so that you can
    get a handle on where I am coming from.

    I am not a fan of how Napster works in its present
    configuration. I think it's wrong. I think it is people
    circumventing the monetary side of music.

    No, I do not think Napster should be disbanded, but I do
    think it should be set up a little differently than it is
    right now. I like the idea of instant music. I love the
    thought of creating my own CD by just choosing the songs I
    want. Yes, I know there are sites where I can choose the
    songs right now. I just don't really want any of the songs
    that are offered. I would like to choose from current songs
    and make compilations. Napster would allow me to do that.
    The problem is that someone has to pay for that compilation.

    As it stands right now (things may change by the time you
    read this), Napster would have been shut down today
    (Saturday) at 3 PM, but an appeals court has granted a stay
    allowing the site to remain up and running. The Recording
    Industry Association of America (RIAA) will now appeal and
    take it one court level up to the full 9th U.S. Circuit
    Court of Appeals. This decision/appeal process will go on a
    few more times until a final ruling stands by a higher court
    either refusing to hear the case or the Supreme Court gets a
    crack at it.

    So as it stands, Napster stays alive and kicking, and people
    are going nuts trying to download every piece of music that
    they can get their hands on. The source of their music may
    die soon, so they are getting what they can while they can.
    That makes sense to me.

    In this newsletter I wanted to offer a rebuttal to some of
    the more prevalent pro-Napster arguments I am hearing through
    the news media. Let me state again that I am not against
    Napster, I just think it has to be run differently to become
    legal. I'll get to my suggestions for new business practices
    before the newsletter is over.

    1. "Napster is just allowing us to get at the music unknown
    artists put on the Web."

    If that were the case, then Napster wouldn't be in any
    trouble. The original concept, to allow people access to
    music that the recording artists themselves make freely
    available on the Web, is great. If the people who used
    Napster, or Napster itself, had made a point of keeping an
    eye out for copyrighted music and took steps to stop people
    from trading it, they might not be in this position. They
    did not. They knowingly allowed people to pirate songs and
    trade them freely.

    2. "Napster is not to blame. It's the people that are
    pirating the music that should be prosecuted."

    Maybe they will be. Napster, by virtue of its use of a
    central server system to track, search, and trade copyrighted
    files, provided the ability to break the law so they are
    seen, at least, as accomplices to a crime. One cannot provide
    a method of doing wrong, assist in the act, and then step
    away expecting to be seen as innocent of the crime.

    3. "Why should I be forced to pay $15 to $20 for a CD that
    only costs two dollars to make?"

    This is an argument that is guilty of the sin of omission.
    First off, no one is forcing you to pay anything. If you
    think the price is too high, then listen to the radio or
    watch the music channels on TV. They play all the hits. If
    you don't want to spend the money, then don't. Yes, I know
    that's not a very viable response and I knew it wouldn't be.
    It was simply my knee-jerk reaction to a person who feels
    they are being "forced" to spend money.

    The real problem I have with this argument is that it's
    simply not true. Yes, the materials and process to create a
    CD itself may very well be only two dollars, but that's not
    taking into account the numerous other costs that go into
    supporting and promoting an artist. There are so many other
    costs that must be factored into a CD.

    Still, I agree with you that CD prices are high and that
    profits are huge. That leads me to my next argument.

    4. "These artists are rich. They have enough money, so I
    don't feel bad about taking some of their music for free."

    Well, how you feel is fairly unimportant to this case, so
    let's focus on the fact that artists and record producers
    "have enough money". Let's say the cash flow was to you.
    How would you like it if, at any point, someone else decided
    you had enough money? I don't care if you make $6 an hour or
    $6000 an hour. At what point in your financial dealings does
    someone else get to make the decision that you have enough
    money? I make a fairly good living writing for HTML Goodies
    and teaching, but I would never turn down a raise. I would
    go ballistic if all of a sudden someone informed me that I
    had made enough money and that I can just live on what I
    have right now or on a greatly reduced sum because someone
    else says so.

    Many people consider wealth something that should be limited
    at some point. As long as the wealth is made legally, I have
    no trouble with amounts. If you do, then remember that when
    you become well off and reach a certain point...stop taking
    money.

    5. "The only way to keep file-sharing technology from moving
    forward is to force us all to return to using 486 computers
    with 14.4-Kbps modems."

    This is an age-old argument that basically goes, "you can't
    stop us so just let us do it". That's just not an argument
    at all. You mean that if a large enough group of people
    decide to break the law, that the law should be changed to
    accommodate what people are doing? If 50% of all drivers
    decided that they will now begin driving 100 miles an hour,
    should the law be changed because the police will simply
    never be able to catch everyone?

    I can understand this form of protest if there is a great
    injustice being done, but no matter how you frame the RIAA,
    it isn't violating anyone's civil rights by selling CDs.

    6. "Cassettes did not hurt the recording industry, videotapes
    did not hurt the movie industry, and music trading will not
    hurt the music industry."

    Again, this is not a viable argument. The advent of computers
    has allowed copies of songs to flourish. Instead of a song
    being copied onto a cassette a few times or videotape being
    copied a few times, now one copy of a song can be copied
    literally thousands of times per day and distributed with
    great speed. This, I believe does have the ability to harm
    the music industry. I need only copy the music once and post
    it. An hour later that song could be in the hands of 10
    thousand people. That's a whole lot different than the
    technology of copying available through cassette and video
    (which is also illegal if not for private use). In addition,
    the there could only be so many copies of a videotape or
    cassette. After a few "generations" the sound quality would
    be so bad, it wouldn't be worth listening to. A digital
    copy created today can be copied, the copies can be copied,
    and so on, with no fidelity loss. The variables have changed.
    Comparing the process of ten years ago against the technology
    of today is like comparing apples to oranges.

    7. "Napster acts as merchandising. People hear the music and
    will then go buy the CD."

    There may be some truth in this right now because the vast
    number of people using Napster need to be in front of their
    computers to hear the music they swap, and that's not very
    convenient. Buying the CD does free people to listen to the
    music in their car or on headphones. If allowed to roll on
    unchecked though, this will soon not be the case. I am
    starting to see numerous gadgets for sale that take the MP3
    files and record them to various portable devices. There
    are right now Walkman-style MP3 players and portable CD
    players that run the files. Technology will only get better
    and within a year will end the merchandising effect of Napster.

    8. "Napster is just like radio."

    AAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUGH!

    This is the argument that just drives me straight up a tree.
    Napster is no more like radio than it is nuclear physics.
    However, that statement does hold within it the answer to
    the Napster problems.

    First off, let's look at a song on Napster. Someone does buy
    the CD. There, a commission is paid to the artist. That
    person copies the song, posts it for all to copy and the
    money trail to the artist and recording company stops. Now
    radio...

    A song is sent to radio and radio plays it. But what some
    of you may not know is that radio stations pay fees to be
    able to play that song. Most commercial music is licensed
    by one of two firms, ASCAP or BMI. Yes, there are always
    songs sent to radio stations that do not have representation.
    Local bands would send me tapes all the time when I was a
    DJ. However, the majority of the music is licensed and my
    radio stations would pay fees to ASCAP and BMI. Radio
    stations can either pay what's known as a blanket fee,
    which is a flat rate, or a fee based upon what songs you
    actually played.

    Either way, twice a year we would send three days of our
    music play lists off to the licensing firms. Those firms
    would in turn tally the number of all plays a recording
    artist received, and pay them royalties from it. The more
    you were played, the more you got paid. Before the advent
    of computerized play lists, I remember having to write down
    every song I played, the artist, the authors, the label,
    and a few other things. Ugh. What a pain. It even goes as
    far as music used in commercials. I did the voice work for
    one car company that had the Bachman Turner Overdrive song
    "Let it Roll" behind their commercial. We had to note that
    when sending in the forms.

    So, as you can see, radio and Napster are pretty darn
    different, but using radio as a model, I think we can alter
    Napster a bit and actually make it viable...and cheap.

    My suggestion is that Napster would run much more like a
    radio station. To begin with Napster must be made to pay
    fees on the music ASCAP and BMI licenses. These fees will,
    of course, change depending on how many copies of a certain
    song move through the central Napster server. Yes, Napster
    can keep tabs on all of this - how do you think Metallica
    received the names of all the people that downloaded their
    music?

    Now, some of you are thinking that if Napster has to pay
    the fees for everyone that swaps the music, they will go
    out of business. That's true. It's too much money for one
    site to have to pay. What will need to happen is that
    people who wish to use Napster will pay a fee structure.
    An account should be set up attached to a credit card that
    keeps track of what songs a person swaps. Each time the
    person swaps a song, they should pay a small amount. I base
    this one what I know my radio stations paid in fees.

    The amount will certainly be small too. (At least it should
    be if everybody plays fair) At this point you are just
    paying on the royalty plus a small bit for manufacturing.
    You've eliminated a middleman. The music industry would in
    effect be selling directly to the consumer. I could go in,
    set up an account, and swap ten of my favorite songs and
    burn my CD, legally, for a few bucks. I get the music,
    Napster pays the royalties, and everyone is happy. Well,
    almost everyone.

    Of course some people will have a fit at this point because
    even two or three bucks will be too much for them and they
    will start trading around Napster. Fine. Napster will be
    legal and those people will be the ones the RIAA will go
    after.

    Napster could be the central database for legal music
    distribution. Those artists that post their music to the
    Web freely should be kept separate from those songs that
    are not. That way, people could swap that free music to
    their hearts' content without touching the fee-based music.

    In addition, once Napster gets the recording industry on
    their side, the MP3s that will be swapped or bought could
    be far better quality. You could have numerous versions of
    songs. You may be able to start swapping outtakes or first
    takes that people never get to hear. Maybe you don't want
    the dirty language - fine. Just grab the version that's
    been edited. This could be great.

    If Napster sticks to this fight and remains on the same
    course that it has chosen, it's going to lose and the site
    will be shut down. My suggestion is rather than dig in your
    heels and fight a losing battle, start to work with the
    people that represent the music.

    Make music something that can be downloaded legally for only
    the royalty fee plus a small percentage to cover manufacturing.
    I would think you could get a song for pocket change if the
    RIAA plays fair. That's where we'd see some true colors, huh?
    If Napster decided to try a deal like this, would the RIAA
    attempt to boost the price so that a CD created online would
    cost the same as one in the store? I hope not. That would be
    unfair.

    If all play fair, I think online music could be one of the
    greatest ideas yet because, in all honesty, I hardly ever
    like an entire album anymore. I just want one song from this
    group, two from that group, and another one from another group.
    This would be perfect.

    Maybe we could even get back to the 1950s style of music
    producing when singles were the thing and groups that only
    had one song were given a chance because the medium allowed
    it. That might see the end of albums that have one great
    song and twelve losers. The 45 could be king again. That
    would be great.

    Well, the "45" CD.
    Hope it helps whichever side you're on. I've got more if you want it...
    Tim
    <A HREF="http://vbq1.tripod.com/"></A>
  14.    #14  
    Alright, debate's over (went 1-2 ), but you folks are welcome to continue the debate over here.
    Life's just a blast, just it's moving really fast, and you'd <BR>better stay on top or life'll kick you in the *** -Limp Bizkit
  15. #15  
    For all the overpaid, whiny artists crying over Napster, I'm sorry. It's the record company's fault, I used to could go to the drugstore and purchase a single on vinyl, then on cassette, and for a limited time only, on CD. Now I download music for free, try it out, buy it if I like it. CD sales were up to an all time high this year, maybe the RIAA sould get on the bandwagon

Posting Permissions