More on Napster

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>I'm a little surprised to see the pro-RIAA rant on the
>Who newsgroup.

Lee:

Anti-Napster is not pro-RIAA. In essence, no matter how much the RIAA
"steals" or whatever, when the music is given away it doesn't benefit the
artist either. In fact, it hurts them in lost revenue. By downloading,
you're making matters worse, not better! How can you justify that by saying
someone else rips the artist off?
It's not the same as home taping, because now people can record in digital
quality and also there's a difference between giving one copy away and 13
million copies.
For that matter, Napster's argument was they weren't making any money from
it...however, their tune changed when threatened with shutdown..."suddenly"
they were going to lose $14 million a year! And they're hiring like mad
right now...where's this money coming from??? They are selling something
without having to pay for their "stock!" Talk about being full of shit!
In other words, they're no better than the RIAA (in fact their worse), and
at least the artists agreed to the RIAA when they signed their
contracts...they have no choice about Napster.

>All that is happening is that the incredible greed
>that record companies have wallowed in for decades is

Sorry, that's not a good argument. How much did the labels lose on bands
which didn't make it, about 30 per each one that makes it? How much did they
spend in promotion? How is it you know enough about their business to know
they "wallowed in greed?" Do you KNOW how much they have to spend to stay in
business? And besides, when did it become wrong to make money in this
country? The BANDS are doing it! Are we going after The Who next? They've
made a LOT of money! Why is it OK for them but not the people who enable
them to get their music to you? And how many bands are the labels going to
sign in the future if they don't make any money? Do the math: the answer is
ZERO.

>Anybody on this newsgroup that has ever had a record
>contract, or even come close to having one, can tell
>you that the things that record companies get away

I have friends who were on the Island label (a band called The Drag), got a
very good deal but didn't make it, and eventually had their contract settled
(without going to court) instead of making the second CD, to the
disadvantage of the label in every way. They don't feel ripped off at all.

>har!) has been recording shows from in-house FM band
>signals for years. Why is this suddenly news?

MP3 files can be digital quality, that's the difference.

>yeah, lars ulrich from metallica whines b/c their new single disappear was
released by bootlegs, like his bank acct has suffered!!!!

Pilam:

With all due respect, when did you get to decide how much people can earn?
Would you like someone to come into your place of business and tell you that
you're making too much money, so from now on you can make what they think
you should? I don't think so.

>  thank god pete doesnt give a crap and releases demos on the net and
scoop!!!!

That's a different matter. You know, ANY artist can give their music away
even if they close Napster. No one will stop them. But if there are those
who choose not to, why should they be forced to? Please explain that to me.

>It never was available as a CD, ever. Neither was his second LP release. A
>shame, I say!!

Bill:

I have been keeping my eyes open for them, but who knows what's been
released in other countries.

>recently added a discography page accessible through the mp3 page (which,
btw,
>is very cool - he has been uploading a lot of great stuff).

There you are...an artist free to give his music away. Nothing wrong with
that...but I don't see how anyone can make that decision for everyone else.
That's not freedom.



"We must all hear the universal call to like
   your neighbor like you'd like to be liked yourself."
                           George W. Bush, Presidential candidate

"Twenty-three skidoo. Hoo-HAH!"
    something Dick Cheney might have said


        Cheers                 ML