A short Napster

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

> He should pay more attention to who is really screwing him. The RIAA

Kevin:

Just because someone else is screwing him doesn't mean he shouldn't be
upset about his music being given away. He accepted the conditions of his
"employment," which included the RIAA, when he signed the contract with the
label. No one forced him to and he's benefited quite nicely from it.
Wouldn't you say?

> My main hope at this point is that the digital technology will
> destroy the big record companies. It just might. And that is what
> they are afraid of.

And what I'm afraid of too, because it means the end of big bands as well.
No more "Who's" for future generations. You think this is a GOOD thing? And
you're the guy who won't make copies of copyrighted material????? What do
you think Napster is all about????
No labels equals no Tommys or Quads or Tens or Mellon Collies or Sgt.
Peppers etc. etc. etc.

> forming up.  MP3 is actually signing original artists.

LB:

Ever heard of any of them?

It's good for a new artist in the short run, bad in the long run. I wish
people would look beyond the moment....short-sightedness is what's wrong
with this country!

> if we really want to make the most of MP3s and 'free
> music', just do what the radio dose.  Mp3.coms 10 a
> month fee works, and so do adds, advertise in napster.
>  i for one have bought several CDs of bands, bands i
> would never have known about had it not been for
> napster.

Sid:

That's great, and what it should be used for. That is what I think is the
best solution. Unfortunately, that isn't the way it's being used. 

  the record companies think they are all
> that.  the only way they make money is if we buy the
> music.  music should be free, it frees our minds,

And who's going to put up the money for the band to produced and advertise
their product, if not the labels? Business is someone taking a risk in
order to make money. Whether you like them or not, the labels do this. How
many bands do they lose money on? More than they make it on, I can
guarantee that. Ever consider that, or just focus how much they make on the
ones who succeed? Who's going to pay people to discover and develop new
talent? The money has to come from somewhere! You have to look at the whole
picture!!!
Columbia (now Sony) had a Classical label (green label) they ran at a loss
for decades, feeling it was their duty to keep the music out there. How do
you think that was paid for?
"Music should be free" but if it was it would be worth every penny. I guess
every entertainment should be free, huh? But then who would do it? No one.

> used to be, and should make all the money they can b4
> they get any worse.

You mean like The Who making all the money they can by touring on music
they made 20+ years ago while they can still perform it? Shame on all of
them, huh? Wanting to make money...such terrible people.

> yeah but lars is trying to stop napster b/c he is upset that the new song
metallica released for MI:2 was distributed before the record co. released
it. if he shuts down napster, that wont stop peole from bootlegging it

Pilam:

But he can keep it from being given to thousands of people a minute. Or at
least try.
Look, I'm no Metallica fan in any way. I could give two shits about Lars
himself. But I do like having major bands and great music, little if any of
which will survive if there are no labels and the music is given away.
Change doesn't have to be bad. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I just
don't see one single advantage in this music give-away in the long run. I
could be wrong, of course.


"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
                         George W. Bush, Presidential Candidate

      
                    Cheers                  ML