Napster Anyone?

Joe B. Long · From: Llano Tx USA

I know that everyone is tired of hearing things about napster.com. But I was just wondering how the steel guitar community felt about the way music is "Shared" online at no cost to anyone. I personaly find it a good place to find music that is no longer published. I have found some great old songs that I have not heard in years.

------------------

Bill Myrick · From: Pea Ridge, Ar. (deceased)

Such as Oklahoma Stomp by Spade Cooley good old time steel tune from there hard to find

CrowBear Schmitt · From: Ariege, - PairO'knees, - France

Sisters + Brothers, i must admit, that i use Napster ! and i'm glad 2 do so !
imagine yourslef, far from the great reservation of the Steel Nation.
you're in a distant land, in the boonies,
w: a newly acquired ShoBud D10 + thank God ,
a computer.
If it was'nt 4 Napster, i would'nt have many tunes to play + learn with.
(i ordered some cds from Scottys and am still waitin' 4 'em.)
Having read a post concerning Napster on this Forum not so long ago, i figured it was UN K

L to admit the use of it !
i must confess a personal use of all them tunes ! i 2 have found tunes that i had'nt heard in along time.
Matter of fact, when some of U post about certain bands or players, i look 'em up Toot Sweet on that Napster !
Maybe soon we'll regret the good ol' days when this WebNet was Free...
i found this post interesting:
www.b0b.com/forum/Forum9/HTML/002721.html
Who makes the most out of record sales ?
the record company or the artist ?
How 'bout all those who sell their CDs at concerts?
i prefer coppin' my tatters from Farmer Andy
rather than putting up + waiting at the A&P
How many unknown & talented artists can be found 4 free on this WebNet?
Thank you Dan Tyack,PF,Gary Carter,Mullen guitars,the Jazz lounge,Jam Central Station
Basilh for letting me listen to your Musik 4 free !
if i was in the States, i'm sure i would buy the CDs of these talents, but from where i'm sittin', Napster ,and all the rest, provide me immediately w: food 4 thought.
If by doin' so i have ripped off my fellow man well i'll await the Lord's Justice knowing only He can deal appropriately.
+ Down here on Earth, i won't be able to get gigs cause i copped all that stuff 4 free !
Live + Learn ?
Steelin' a Nap, Sir ....

Tony Chavez · From: Belen,New Mexico,USA

Where's Lars Ulrich!!!Sorry,I could'nt resist.

Chip Fossa · From: Monson, MA, USA (deceased)

Doesn't anyone remember making a tape off
an LP for a freind years ago? Some of us were
aware and some not, at this point in history,
that this act was in violation of the same thing Napster is now being accused of.

SO........has the record & music industry
suffered any great losses since those old days of recording LP to tape? I think not.

I can't believe anyone who uses Napster has in mind to download a bunch of songs and turn them into some kind of 'underground
tapes session' in the hopes of making big money. Come on!!

I use Napster. And I use it mainly because
I have exhausted all other avenues to find a particular song that I loved, love, and still love.

Ingo Mamczak · From: Luimneach , Eire.

Having read your post CrowBear , I must 'fess up too

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

No Chip, it is not the same act. One is the duplication of music onto a medium that cannot be further copied without significant degradation of the sound. The other is the distribution of digital media which can be passed onto millions with no degredation. And the latter is specifically prohibited by law (the former is permitted for personal use only).

Any musician who has made money or who hopes to make any money from music they have produced sees Napster and the ilk as thievery. The people who are running that company made a conscious effort to make billions off of the work of artists. They never offered to donate a penny of the pile of money they made off of their stock gains to the artists they are ripping off. How much money the labels make versus the artists is immaterial. If nobody makes anything, then nobody gets anything, and the music suffers.

CrowBear, I am glad you were able to listen to my music. But I *chose* to share a lo-fi version of my CD, so that people could listen to it and decide to buy. If anybody rips my CD and sends (or makes available) MP3 versions of my CD, that is not sharing, any more than my local CD store would be 'sharing' the CD with me if I were to go into the store and rip it off. Anybody can buy a copy of my CD from b0b, or Amazon, or from a number of other places. Simply because people choose not to buy it doesn't make it right.

Using Napster to get versions of songs that are out of print is a slightly different issue, but that is maybe .0001% of the use of Napster. But just because it is more convenient to get a rare cut from Napster doesn't make it OK to rip it off rather than ordering it from a distributor of rare music. If everybody rips off music rather than buying it from a distributor who has payed the owner of the music for distribution, then these rare cuts will never be re-released.

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

Chip Fossa · From: Monson, MA, USA (deceased)

Dan,
Just where do these masterminds of Napster make money? I thought the whole program depends on everyone's pc involved? Seems to me when I download a song it is from someone else's library; I haven't paid a nickel to anyone claiming to be from Napster, to date, anyway.

BTW...I bought you're album from b0b, along with about 7 or 8 other ones from the Forum
many moons ago. I like your CD. You play well and certainly can 'rock' out.

And what's the difference, if you record a song off a top quality FM station or Napster?

As far as degradation and sound quality, people have paid big money in the past for such things as Dylan's underground tapes that were, for anyone's basic standards, fairly crappy productions. People still paid for that...good quality or not. So your point about sound quality rings hollow on this comparison.

------------------
Chip
Williams U-12 8X5

[This message was edited by CHIP FOSSA on 17 September 2000 at 09:52 AM.]

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

Chip, first of all, thanks a million for buying my CD!

In terms of Napster, the people who started Napster made hundreds of millions in paper profits from the stock valuation of their company. Of course, that is at risk now, but they started it to make megabucks off of the work of musicians, rest assured.

The difference between FM radio and the distribution of MP3 files is that, first, composers and artist make money from the broadcast of music on radio, second, the taping and subsequent distribution of taped content is an awkward process, and isn't likely to hurt sales, and third, the quality is lower, in general, than MP3.

In terms of the distribution of bootlegged live tapes versus ripped off versions of studio albums, you are talking apple to oranges. Sure bootlegged live tapes sound crappy, that's part of their appeal. BUt the issue is the generation of music listeners who have access to high speed internet connections who are bypassing purchasing CDs to just get the MP3s for free on the internet. This is mostly limited to college campuses (where it has decimated CD sales), but will soon be everywhere.

Adam · From: Seattle,WA

I hate to disagree with some of the folks here,but I intend to make money from music and I have just signed a deal with a major label and I love Napster!
I have waited about twenty years to get employed by a major label and I don't care if the whole system comes crashing down tomorrow.It's all about ending the cartel that the labels have.Everybody including the majors has known about this technology for years.They had full opportunity to offer MP3 music as a pay service long ago,but dropped the ball,thereby costing their artists countless dough and ignoring a important promotional tool.
I'm sure the guys at Napster are not trying to milk the resources of major labels to make money,but they're trying to make money by developing a new system of information exchange and music is just the beginning.
In an era when the vast majority music,television,books,news,magazines are controlled by literally a handful of corporations,anything that takes the control of information out of the hands of this elite minority and puts it into the hands of a bunch of snot-nosed college kids is a step in the right direction.
Why people continue to toe the party line that"Napster is theft" without looking at whats really going on,I don't know.
If I never make another dime off of music,it would be a small price to pay to loosen the monopoly that exists today.
To answer Chip's question,Napster makes money from investors who want to develop the technology for all kinds of file sharing,not just music.They will cash in when companies decide to hire the developers of the technology to help their businesses share files(Just like the majors should have done nine months ago).
I have so much more to say on this subject,but I will spare you all my ravings.I just thought I'd share my unique position of someone who stands on both sides of the fence and supports Napster.

Steve Benzian · From: Burlingame, CA USA

I don't belive that Napster is a public company at this time. They most likely plan to go public if they can turn what is currently a very compelling and slick distribution system into a profit making operation. A substanial abount of venture capital has been invested in the company. How else could they hire David Boies as their attorney?

What is different and better about Napster is that you can easily find individual songs and quickly get them to your commputer....especially if you have a large bandwidth connection to the internet.

What needs to be solved is how the artists get paid. This can be worked out if the record companies cooperate.

New technology always creates new legal problems that eventually get worked out. What was it like when the radio was invented and suddenly songs could be listened to for free?
The record companies fear they will lose control of a medium that they have dominated for years (frequently screwing lots of artists out of their intellectual property).

The real problem for the record companies is that nearly every well known recording of the past few years is already on somebodies hard drive (genie out of the bottle anology).

Do I download songs from Napster?...yes. Do I feel guilty about it...yes. The sooner that Napster and the record companies work out a revenue sharing agreement the better. Maybe Napster can charge a resonable fee to distribute an individual song file.

It's likely that music distribution is going to change to respond to what the consumer wants and because of evolving new technology. Lets hope that the artists will get what they deserve.

Dan Dowd · From: Paducah, KY, R.I.P.

This is the same brand of thinking that has stopped the video taping at conventions. All some of you folks think about is making a buck. While I will agree that it is necessary to make a buck for the industry to survive, however I believe they will make their quota in spite of Napster. I spent last nite downloading old Spade Cooley, Tex Williams, Jimmy Wakley,and other stuff that can't be purchased. If it wern't for Napster who would play the new country stuff that is recorded today. I dont even listen to the radio any more because of the crap they play today. If anyone is concerned about the recording industry, blame them for the junk they are churning out and not Napster. LONG LIVE NAPSTER. I think Jeff Newman told it like it is at the convention in St Louis about the state of country music today.

Donny Hinson · From: Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.

Screw the record companies! I think the whole industry needs serious investigation by the federal government. And you guys know I'm no friend of Uncle Sam's bureauracy!

Shania, Garth, and the rest of the biggies make most of their money from personal appearances. The money they make on CD's all passes through the recording companies, and very little (well under than 10%) filters back to the artists themselves. The recording companies are looking out for THEMSELVES, They could care less about the artists!

We have to find a way to get the music directly to the people...like b0b does here on the FORUM! No steel player, even with the benefit of the "big recording companies" has ever made a good living on "his own" records. I would wager that the number of steelplayers that has EVER made "millionaire status" can be counted on one hand. For cryin' out loud, wake up and smell the coffee!

The ratio of "small self-produced" CD's that I buy, compared to the "mass produced crap" is about 10:1. I have bought MOST of the CD's for sale on b0b's FORUM.

If you want to help out "the steelplayer", or "the musician", buy HIS CD's, and NOT some "big stars"!

Joe B. Long · From: Llano Tx USA

Wow!!! I did not know I was opening a big can of worms. All of you have made some great arguements for and against Napster. However if Napster is not outlawed by the government,and the record companys make a deal with them to start charging for downloads. What is to keep me or you from starting up another site just like Napster? I feel like this venue for finding music is a great one. While I download music I often use a chatroom that is on the site and promote the local Texas musicians as much as I can. I often tell people about all of the great local bands out of Austin like Pat Green, Cory Morrow, Dale Watson, Dub Miller, Kevin Fowler, and so many more. Each one of these artists only have one or two songs off of their whole album on Napster.And this lets people get a taste of what their music is really like,and hopefully they will start looking in the stores or on their web-sites for more of their music. I think Napster is a great way for any new band or singer to get his music out in the world where it can be heard. Because we all know how easy it is to go to a record label and get them to start recording your music and promoting it.

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

Napster was funded by venture capitalists who thought that there were big bucks to be made in ripping off musicians. The idealistic bulls(&*^T came later. It was a pure venture capital play, the investers don't care about the distribution of music, they care about making a bundle. They betted (and probably lost) that Napster would make megabucks on some future promise of internet advertising. Napster has not been involved in, or been in discussions with, or said squat about paying musicians/songwriters or any other owners of the music they are promoting the distribution of music of (for free).

I am not talking about the 'company line'. I am talking about two things:

It is wrong to steal things that don't belong to you. It doesn't matter if Nike uses child labor in manufacturing tennis shoes, you don't go into your local sports store and rip off a pair of shoes because of this. Is it any different with music? Just because the major labels rip off artist by signing them to less than wonderful deals, how does it help artist to rip off their work? Maybe I am too old fashioned to understand this, but I just don't get it.

In a practical sense, the promotion of unprotected formats like MP3 is bad, bad news for musicians and fans of music. Yes the major labels have screwed up big time in terms of making music available and their rediculous pricing model. But Napster and the like have only one pricing model: free for everybody.

If Napster or any of the similar technologies would enable the artists and writers to benefit from their work, I think it would be great. There are ways they could do this, including limiting the distribution of content which doesn;t include minimal content protection. They haven't done so, and so they have done a massive (explicit gerund deleted) on the content producers. What these companies (Napster and the like) have is a PR campaign against the record companies, which I can agree with. But they are using this argument against the companies to screw the artists, which is inexcusable.

The apologists for Napster say that the artist will make up money they have lost in CD sales from live appearences or tshirt sales and the like. What a load of crap. What about artists who choose not to tour (because they have a day gig or they have kids or because they are disabled or whatever)? Don't they deserve royalties? What about artists who are deceased? Do their families not get any royalies because they aren't capable of touring?

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

[This message was edited by Dan Tyack on 17 September 2000 at 10:37 PM.]

P Gleespen · From: Toledo, OH USA

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.
(But this time, I'm keeping it as short and detail free as possible)

The record companies need to figure out how to make money from Napster, not shut it down.

Think along the lines of ASCAP and BMI, but for online downloads. (Sure, it's not going to be easy)

Napster is not going away. There are already several other systems up and running that do the same thing.

(Dan, I too bought your cd from b0b, and I absolutely love it! Great stuff.)

Mel Culbreath · From: Waynesville, NC, USA

Dan, you make some very good points.

It's not often I agree with your views, but in this case I only wish I could have said it as well.

Mel

John Steele · From: Renfrew, Ontario, Canada

I have to agree with Dan on this one too.
To me, whether or not electronic distribution of music will help or hurt record sales is a moot point.
The real point is, only the person that owns that material should be in a position to decide how it's distributed. Anyone who says "We know best how your work should be distributed" is just plain arrogant, imho.
I do think that electronic distribution will be the way of the future. Some artists/intellectual property-owners are in favour of it too. And that's their decision. Nobody else's.
Just mho.
-John

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

Harrison Adler · From: Summit, New Jersey, USA

Actually making a copy from a friend's CD for home or reformatting use is legal in a broad sense according to the American Home Recording Act. Napster on the other hand spells possible death for the recording industry in its current form and is illegal according to international law. Electronic distribution of music will be controlled by record companies large and small. The first to be hurt by Napster will be the small, independant companies. Companies such as Napster will operate as clearing houses for the smaller companies. Two things will occur first. There will be a blanket license imposed on internet service companies by the performing rights societies (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) and there will be a numbering system put in use on musical compositions (or any intellectual property carried on the internet) which is very similar to international book numbering. In the meantime Napster is going to disappear ond be footnote. With the MP3 case as a precendent, Napster is going to be hit with huge, record-making fines and rightly so. Any musician who supports Napster is doing so out of ignorance. Why not instead think of something similar which would be controlled by independants. This is how ASCAP started. A very small group of composers who were tired of hearing their music played for free in hotel lobbies. ASCAP is still controlled by writers and publishers. The same thing can be done on the internet controlling cyberspace.

Harrison

Adam · From: Seattle,WA

Please show me any evidence of "artists being hurt" by Napster,statistical or anecdotal.I am the CD buyer for a university bookstore and sales have not been "decimated" as reported in a previous post.Happily,sales are up and continuing to grow at the same rate that they did before Napster.

Ron Page · From: Penn Yan, NY USA

I have to agree with Dan on this one.

From the moment a buddy told me about Napster I questioned the legality of it. I trusted my instincts – which told me it was clearly illegal—and have never visited their site.

There’s always a way to rationalize your actions, and that’s what I see whenever the subject of Napster comes up – not just here on the forum. Everybody does it … the music industry has been ripping us off on the price of CD’s … and a million and one others.

It’s illegal to copy things that don’t belong to you. If you own a valid copy you also own the right to copy it for backup or for your own use.

As far as it not hurting any artist, how can it not? Do you honestly think that the only people who copy this stuff illegally would not have bought it in the first place had Napster not made it convenient to steel, err, I mean steal?

------------------
HagFan

BTW: Please don't take the above as condescending and "holier than thou". That's not how I meant it... I have plenty of other faults even if Napster use isn't one of them.

[This message was edited by Ron Page on 18 September 2000 at 11:33 AM.]

Fish · Posted 18 Sep 2000 11:13 am

The Offspring's release of their new album over Napster should provide the final answer to this question: Is Napster theft or a new promotional tool?

See the story in the LATimes:
http://www.calendarlive.com/music/20000914/t000087080.html

David Pennybaker · From: Conroe, TX USA

Dan Tyack · From: Olympia, WA USA

David is right. It's both. If the artist encourages downloads of music, and comes up with marketing schemes, that's great. If the artist's music is downloaded without permission, it's theft.

In terms of evidence that unprotected digital media (e.g. MP3 files) has hurt sales, most of the evidence is anecdotal, because there simply isn't a big enough audience of listeners with access to high speed internet, and the consumer digital players simply haven't hit yet. But there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that there are pockets of MP3 users who have limited their CD buying (or eliminated it, as an MP3 hacker guy from MIT boasted on an interview I heard recently).

------------------
www.tyacktunes.com

Forum Index > Music	Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next	Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic