Who gives a damn about the whole thing?
Sure, I used napster, is it a big crime: HELL NO.

Let's all just forget it and work a bit with Gnutella !

Aaron, you say what Napster facilitates is "illegal," but if it were that clear-cut, this would be a criminal case, not a civil lawsuit. The big question is whether trading music without any money changing hands is illegal, or does it constitute "fair use." The Recording Industry Association of America maintains that it's illegal, and has filed a lawsuit against Napster. The case hasn't even gone to trial yet, and when and if it does, any judgment or decision against the company will be based on a jury verdict, not on a judge's ruling.

The RIAA has requested that the courts issue a preliminary injunction against Napster to prohibit the sharing of copyrighted music pending the start of the trial, which might take months to get underway. (The injunction would be "preliminary" to the trial itself.) The court said such an injunction was warranted, but Napster appealed. The latest ruling, from a higher court, is on that appeal. All we have so far are requests from the plaintiff for an injunction for temporary relief (pending trial) and rulings on that request. At this stage in the proceedings there hasn't even been an injunction, much less a decision against the company -- that would come only when a jury renders a verdict after trial of the RIAA's civil suit. And of course a jury might find for Napster.

Everyone seems to think the current legal maneuvering will decide the case, but it won't -- it has to go to trial, even if an injunction does in effect shut Napster down. Of course the plaintiff might withdraw (unlikely) or the defendant might give in, or both parties might settle out of court.

Interestingly, a lot of legal analysts say that if the case does wind up before a jury, the odds against Napster are not that bad. But most bets are for an out-of-court settlement. -- Dave Hall

...about what's next? Are they going to start raiding houses? Well your questions have been answered ;)

http://www.zdnet.com/zdn...6944,00.html?chkpt=p1bn

:*-( Well, I guess that's what happens when the rights of business approach, equal or override the rights of real living, breathing human beings. It should be pointed-out that individual people possess little or none of the real and literal ecomomic, political, social and cultural power that said business now does in the West (and increasingly, the whole world.)

So are you still sure everything's ok and we're on the right track? Hey, it's all good. Right?

You have more power than you think, atleast if you're 18 or older. It's called voting.

So if I vote, how does that affect the US...OH I GOT IT!!! It gets us a prime minister that once again a US Preseident will not have a clue who what his name is until they play golf. That's right. Silly me.

My intial reaction is to be flabergasted, but I know that sentiment is wasted effort. All I can do is stare back with a profound sense of abject alienation. Anyone that witnessed the last election in the US knows now more than ever before that voting won't change a f***ing thing. Besides which, why would any rational person partcipate in/contribute to a system that is incorrigibly dysfunctional and is falling over as we speak? I wouldn't expect you to admit that you are a republican, but I think based on your above statement and all previous statements I've seen you make in this forum that that much is clear. Vote? What a f***ing joke, get your head out of your ass, if only for your own sake. I bet you think you're making all he right moves and doing the right thing with every waking breath, don't you? You make me sick you disgusting creep.

PS
Btw, I'm a Canadian. I bet you think the impending recession is a transient thing that'll last only for a few quarters, don't you? Tell that to everyone that sacrificed their lives during the last one (and all the cutbacks/layoffs.) Tell them that in a years time. Where will you be then? Nowhere to be found and conspicuously silent I suspect.

Actually I'm a Democrat, I'm just not some radical,left-wing tree-hugger. Ialso believe that political affiliation is a bunch of bulls***. I believe that the US' system of laws can change to address the issue at hand. However, the problem worsens when people resort to criminal activity to get what they want. Should I start robbing banks because I want a larger paycheck? Should I drive wrecklessly because I want faster speed limits on the highways? No, I go to the city meetings, vote my opinions on certain laws when they come up. I also get involved with the political process when I feel the issue is important enough. This meamsn that some people will have to get out of their house because town hall meetings haven't started using AOL IM yet (thank god).

I would just like to take a moment and poke fun at all the people whom have devoted so much time and attention to the napster service. Your thoughtfull process has certainly helped keep the surviving alternatives out of the spotlight.

boo hoo, my free napster is being taken away... awwwww

boo hoo, I can't get my mp3s handed to me on a silver platter anymore

haha .. there will always be a fresh supply of clueless users to help keep me amused, take a look at aol's sucess.

Will not steal using any of these software programs because I am a moral person who does not steal from people who work hard.

Yep.. those record companies sure work hard making a $3 cd cost $15+. HA

Yes, and as long as there are enough mindless drones out there (like you) willing to believe/do exactly what you're told and not think for yourself, it's business as usual. They are counting on it. I see our society collapsing under the weight of its own iniquity in the very near future. Yes,I'd love a world where everyone was justly compensated and everything was fair and just, but it's not the case; and yes, sometimes you have to screw with the system if you want to change it and makeit better. We're on a downward road people, don't doubt it. It's not the people sharing music on Napster that are causing it, they're not even partof the problem. It's the very system itsself: it's rotten to the core, and there's onlya thin veneer of goodness concealing the evil within.

Btw, I expect very few people readingmy above statement to agree with any of it. That's the point, isn't it? Most of you have a huge stake in said system, with everything to lose and nothing to gain by crticising and/or wanting to change it. Sure, it might be nice if it were better, but it's better than nothing or something worse, right? Most of you would sooner sell your souls than call for fundemental change, which is what's required and is the situation wherein you stand to lose everything. And you've fought in a highly competitive environment to get where you are, so you aren't about to change, are you? So you have sold your soul (even as an atheist I can say that and mean it metaphorically and not spiritually), and now we're paying as individuals, societies and as a species. You own iniquity has come home to roost, and you'll likely be totally screwed as a result.

lol..you Communist bas****.

you say your not a thief more than likely you as everyone else has made a recording of some somes off the radio... thats the same thing...just because i use napster doesnt make me a thief it make me more of a sharer... im not selling something thats not mine im just sharing..and most of the songs on my system are songs that through out the years ive owned on tape or cd and have just lost those or the got damaged...

WTF ??? Can I just say that for those of you who think the demise of Napster is no big deal think again..seriously. Napster although one of the first on the scene was great BECAUSE of its centralised location. You didnt have to configure anything it knew WHERE to go. The fact that SOMEBODY was offering to link everybody up for FREE was also a bonus.

The technology of Gnutella is interesting but that is all it can be. Peer to peer is NEVER going to work because it takes too long to propagate your requests to everybody. It STILL relies on a central location but spreads those servers around; think of it as IRC. If we were to analyse the code we'd probably find something similar to IRC =) in terms of file transfer. If we take this analogy of how GNUTELLA technology works, why cant record companies shut them down too? Thats why it is important to support Napster as much as possible.

I dont agree Pirating constitutes Illegal activities ..pirating has always implied selling or transmitting intellectual property. Nobody is selling anything on Napster. And whoever defined transmitting as piracy was a lunatic. IF somebody GIVES you the song to DOWNLOAD why should that be illegal? Infringement of copyright occurs in the selling of the property RESULTING in the artist not receiving any royalties. So what now? I CANT give granma my copy of Barry Manilow to listen to? When my friends want my cd of Rod Stewart I must say no?

Bulls***, i bought the cd if i want to throw it away i will..if i want to give it to grandma I will ...if I want to GIVE it away i can because i bought it and i'm not RESELLING IT. Get it through your heads idiots. Nobody is selling ANYTHING on Napster just sharing. Think of it like borrowing your friends tape to listen to. At the end of the day or in a month that file will probably be deleted ..just like you returning your friends cd.

Gnutella does not rely on a "central location" because there is none! And of course it will take longer than searching through a single database (or databases linked together in some fashion) on a central server. That's the tradeoff you have to give. And your analogy to IRC isn't exactly correct because on Gnutella all the clients are the servers.

Why should we support Napster? They're backed by investers and they are soon about to be backed by customers and some music corporations. They can do their own fighting.

Copyright infringment is copyright infringement. No matter how long you keep the file. Does this mean I don't do it? Ha, of course not. There's no telling how many times I or others have broken copyright laws. But I don't feel bad. Famous people already have too much money to screw around and buy stupid crap with. Ever see that show "Cribs" on MTV? I don't even want to comment on what some artists do with their money.

GNutella is centralised OF sorts. How do you think it works? True PEER TO PEER is when the client boots up and transmits a message to the whole LAN (this case the net) that basically says "hey boys i'm here too". Now THINK about this carefully if Gnutella REALLY did this how long do you think your broadcast is going to take to come back (when applied with the net in mind)? Thats right its going to take an effin long time.

All Gnutella has are spreads of servers that never shutdown ..perhaps friends of the authors or whatever. But all the clients START OFF from here. And slowly builds up its connection database. Some are key nodes while others like yourself come off and on.

Once keynodes are shut down where the **** are you going to connect to? Your friend who has 10 mp3s? Basically Gnutella and others based on it is a glimpse of the future ..where everybody 60% has broadband connections ..= 512 kbps ..the client becomes a worm that sneaks around constantly updating and ever changing peer to peer network.

As somebody said once you are in the gnutella network ..the download to another is peer to peer ..but the key has always been getting on the network. I dont buy it when I see the author of gnutella or others coming on TV and puffing up their chest saying their trading system will never be taken down cause its peer to peer ..what a load of crap.

The only thing that takes longer is the SEARCHING. The downloads are still peer to peer, just like in Napster and just about anything else.

You don't HAVE to have those "central servers" like gnutellahosts.com or whatever one of the websites is. It's merely for convenience at this point.

Napster is a peer-to-peer service too.. the only thing that is keeping Gnutella around is that it is open sourced, so the court can't really attack Nullsoft when other developers are making a variation of the same thing. Sure, you have to connect to a server at the beginning on Napster, but when you download songs, its peer-to-peer. If you look at Gnutella, you have to connect to a server too which finds all the other IPs running Gnutella as well. The reason the RIAA is attacking Napster is because they have closed source, so Napster has to take 100% of the blame, since they developed 100% of the software.

Just my .. thoughts I s'pose.

uhhhhh Napster is open source dude...Scour used napsters open source code to create a version of napster of their own which in my opinion was much much much better than napster itself..But scour got hit harder becuase they were sharing movies and music..Ouch! But if you ever saw the scour client it was an almost exact replica or scour but totally revamped with nice UI Enhancements and programming enhancements like resume and etc.. But I think napster may have closed their source now cause they are going to charge for service. But at one time they had it all open source on their web page..

Uh, when was the client ever open source? I sure don't remember it ever being so. There are some open source clones of it, though. Scour was a totally different product by a totally different company.

He may be referring to OpenNap.

I really hope this all dies down soon, because all the people in my apartment complex with napster mania are bringin down the bandwith of my cable internet service...i'd like to get my low ping back when im trying to play TFC...

AAron, coming from a techie standpoint and a greta supporter for all things tech., I agree with what your saying excatly. In fact I printed it out so all of my other tech friends can read it b/c I am sick of hearing of napster. the world will not cease to revolve if it gets shutdown. We know that. But the rest of the fricking world can't seemto understand. Also, I know people who can't plug in ethernet cables or even know what na ethernet cable is. I know this b/c I work in tech support. :)

I agree with LoriAnn. Yes, pirating files (whether mp3's or whatever) is illegal. However, you seem proud of that fact. I do agree with you on the point that there are MANY other programs available to do the same thing as Napster. However, I think you are missing the point of the whole Napster issue. In my opinion Mr Fanning (author of Napster) has done NOTHING illegal. He wrote software to share files. (even if the intent was to share pirated files) Writing software is not illegal, its the people that use the software that make it illegal. TO me it is just like the saying "Guns don't kill, people do." Should we start throwing the people that wrote FTP server software into jail? FTP servers can be used for illegal copying, why not get on them too? If you are gonna do that you might as well toss the people that wrote the FTP client into jail as well. I mean they wrote software that allows people to download pirated software.

No one is saying you aren't right. And I was simply saying that I'm proud to be a nerd. It's a fact that on the net, and with computers, if its wanted its gotten. Proud of pirating software? I never said that either. I was simply saying that we are all guilty of it when we trade MP3s that we don't legally own the copy to. The bluntness of the statement has skewed the original intent.

Nor did I ever say it is right to take down Napster because it facilitates illegal MP3 trading. No where does it say that I agree with people who say Napster should be banned or shut down. I was simply saying that if Napster does get shut down or become a pay service, there is a myriad of other options for people who still want to trade MP3s.

A lot of computer "newbies" I was discussing in the article don't realize that. I was saying that you should help them out because I'm tired of people getting all worried about it. Not that its their fault, because they probably don't write for a tech news site nor do they visit one daily or whatever, nor do they probably care to.

It's a good thing we don't have to worry about our freedom being defended by "more technically inclined individuals" like you. But, please, continue thinking you are superior in some way because you know something about computers. Oh, and you installed gnutella! Way to double click an icon.

The comparsion of napster (easy to use, works well) to gnutella (doesn't work well, and as you imply, we're too stupid to plug in a cable, let alone use this software) aside, outlawing napster is a dangerous precident. It paves the way for enforcement of the law. Which means police access to ISP records. Anti-privacy.

How can I hold back on commenting on your stealing, knowing it, and being proud of it. This shines deep into the depths of your character.

loriann

Is anything he's saying not true though. It might come off as arrogant, condescending, pompous, and perhaps even satirical, but it's the truth. Nobody wants to outlaw Napster, they want to prevent copyrighted materials from being traded so easily.

Attacking one's character based upon an editorial is a bit extreme, don't you think?

Heavens to betsy! Enforcement of the law? No way...heaven forbid someone should be able to prosecute an individual for a wrongful act. My law professor once said that the law is only as good as the system that supports it. What you are saying is that accessing your IP shouldn't be allowed because then you might get caught? or because the police will know your IP? I mean really..if the police want they can get a full history on your existence, obtain DNA, or look at your fingerprints. How is an IP more sacred than that?

And it never says that YOU are too stupid to plug in a cable, or to double-click an icon, and no one asked for a cookie, but some people out there just don't know how to do it. Period. Maybe not you, maybe not your mom, but some people just don't get it. I'm sorry if that offends you.

Most pc users are stupid....there I said it....it's out there now! This is why Napster was a great program....because anyone could use it. I used Napster, Scour Exchange, eDonkey, and whatever else that will get what I need...I also run an FTP site with about 50GB of software, MP3's, porn, you name it, I have it...I SHARE all of this stuff with my friends.....is it illegal? Hmmmmmm....good question, probably so, but I don't care......SO THERE!

This whole thing about napster "revolutionizing" file sharing and mp3's is crap, we were trading mp3z years ago.. by the gig.. long before crapster was ever thought of... as far as "stealing" or "piracy" the music i download falls into 2 catagories.. either music i would buy and music i wouldnt.. the music i would buy.. i do.. the music i download and consider wouldnt buy it.. well i wont buy it and never will.. matter of fact most of what i download is crap i already own on tape or cd... and have them in mp3 format just so i can listen on my pc, or what not.. so. umm... yeah.. :)

Yerr right matey! Using Napster is pirating and there will always be alternative ways of getting music, but who will fill Napsters' shoes as an easy to use way to download music? And I also agree that the recording companies and artists aren't harmed, in fact they may be helped the same way radio play can help an aspiring artist... now how about downloading some sea chanteys, arrrrrr!

Who are you to decide whether it is legal or not? It all depends on how you use napster. My friends and I use it often to trade files amongst each other using hot lists, or to tell each other what songs they have that we may like. I dont believe this violates the fair use of copyrights.
Thanks to sony and betamax... we have it established that if a product has substantial fair use, it negates the illegal uses of the device. Napster does have substantial fair use... I too admit many people dont use it for legal trade, but then again many people do. The simple fact that it has substantial fair uses is enough.
We also have the somewhat new Digital Millennium Copyright Act to thank for making Internet businesses not responsible for files carried throughout their networks. This is very similar to the way napster works. Napsters service simply negotiates the transfer of a file between one computer and another. They have also shown they will comply with reasonable proposals from the recording industry. When they have recieved lists of users who have traded files which the RIAA claims to be illegal use of the copyrights, napster has quickly complied and blocked the user from the service. They have also attempted to propose opportunities for artists to be compensated should their files be traded so that users can then legally trade files over napster which may otherwise be copyright infringement, as well as compensating both the artist and industry.
It is very clear that in the beginning, napsters purpose was to trade files illegaly. But after becoming a real COMPANY, they switched over their business plan away from that, and started implementing services such as the NAP (New Artist Program) to help promote artists.

Beyond the legality of the service, there is the reality of the service. The music industry has shown no signs of slowing, and their sales have only gone up since napster. Yes, there are many people who dont go buy singles but instead make a cd themselves. But in reality, do you think that those people would go buy the single, or album in the first place? I dont think so. These are the people that if napster wasnt around would record the song off the radio instead. If the recording industry would stop fighting napster, new technology, and innovation, and began working with it, they would find these to be great resources, a wealth of free promotion, a seamingly endless crowd of music craving fans. By presenting music to the fans... they are more likely to go spend money on such things as t-s***s, and other merchandise, or tickets for a concert, which is what really pays the artist. The reason why the industry is so scared? Because they know that if they lose power, they will lose their footing. They have been for 100 years ripping artists off, paying them MUCH less then the artists should be paid, and the labels have grown into a gigantic, monopolistic, money making powerhouse.

The technology is here to stay... who the winner is lies in the hand of the government. Will fans and artists win, will napster and other file sharing companies survive? Or will the recording industry, the fat cats, the labels win? It all depends on who learns to embrace the technology the best.

The artists have not asked for the consumer to step in and fight this one for them. In fact, more than a couple have asked you to stop. Therefore you cannot be pirating their music on their behalf.

Also, where do you think the losses are going to be felt first? The record labels? Nope, guess again. The record labels, even for superstar artists, take their cut off the top. Artists don't start seeing royalties until teh record label has been paid back for their advances, recording costs, marketing costs and video costs. It takes money to produce an album you know. Artists aren't independently wealthy.

I'd like to add as well that for those of you who keep telling artists to get a real job and quit whining, I say, YOU get a real job and quit b****ing. You have never created anything yourself apparently and so not understand the value artists and musicians place on their work.

Well they might have some money to live on if they didn't spend it on cars costings 100's of thousands of dollars, million dollar houses, and clothes costing thousands of dollars.

The amount an artists make off album sales is typically so minute that it barely figures into their income. Approximatly $0.005 of each album sold goes to the artist. This new technology (well, its not so new anymore) would eliminate much of the need for record labels, as artists would have their own distribution and promotion mediums which they could easily access.

Yeah, but have you ever heard of contracts?? I mean Christ...how many millions do some bands get paid just for signing on the dotted line BEFORE they ever even step into the recording studio. To base income on the sheer basis of royalties is very shortsited (and downright foolish). Besides that, think of this:

If somebody gets paid $1million dollars for WHATEVER reason, the normal Joe Blow would have to work for 20 years at $50k a year to get there (without investments of course). Is recording an album that much harder than swinging a hammer, or any other blue collar job? No. Sure, the hours are long. But I don't think I ever made nearly as much as them when I was working contruction putting in 16 hours days, 7 days a week for God knows how long.

The ultimate fact of it is we brought this all on ourselves. This goes for professional atheletes and actors. We glorified these people. We put them on pedastals for doing something that, quite frankly IS NOT THAT demanding. We pay to see ARod play a g** d***ed game for $25 million a year. We watch Tom Cruise for an hour and he makes $20 dollars. Sure, he works for months at a time on his films...but then you think, he would make 400 times more than the guy busting his a** off on an oil rig so Tom can drive his $8 million dollars worth of cars.

The truth is, we gave this money to these people and now they are b****ing cause people have finally started to wise up that these people are not worth this money. A few hundred years ago entertainers (pro-athletes may fall into this category now) were viewed as bottom feeders. Really think of it...these people are our entertainment. Think about it. You life is dedicated to the amusement of other people. Is that not really degrading? The only reason people aspire to be in this category is because of the pedastal we built for those already there.

We the people are at fault for the witch hunt in napster. Not because it is contrued as theft. But because we put them on the pedastal and we have to power to knock it over. Unfortunately, they have amassed enough money to stop the minority in it all. This being Napster, Scour etc... But they will never have the power or money to stop the people. The people drive the world...and they will speak. Condoning mp3 or warez? No I am not. Saying we brought the witch hunt on ourselves? Yes, cause we gave them the power to do so. One thing the entertainment industry had better learn fast is to not bite the hand that feeds you.

er...the Tom Cruise statement should be $20million....not $20 lol

ALSO...sure, the artists could be rid of their labels etc... get 100% of the revenue. But the sad fact is also that, well...I don't think a lot of upstart bands can afford a multi-million dollars promotions campaign to just get their name known. Let alone buying how many millions of dollars for tour equipment. I would love to see the Star Trek concept of having a society lacking currency or social class occuring within my lifetime :P And that is not because I am poor or something...there is lotsa money in my family (just none of it is mine yet lol)

Sprry, wrong answer. Pleas try again. Let me give you a hint thoughtis figure is about 5 years out of date. When I was at MTSU studying the Recording Industry, from both a legal/business and technical standpoint, the figure was 6.25 cents per song per album. This figure changes occasionaly though it's always by very little, perhaps a half cent to a cent or so. By now it could be as high as 7 cents per song per album. So by calculating a 10 song album from a 4 member band, an artist would make 70 cents per album. Multiplay that by 100,000 and you get $70,000. You would then divide that by 4 you get $17,500. This is a decent figure considering 100,000 is what MOST srtists sell. Now, more popular bands sell in the millions of albums. Let's use Metallica as an example since it's a 4 member band much like our earlier example. Let's say they were able to negotiate 10 cents per song per album because they know they will sell a lot of albmus and they can pay back their advances from 500,000 records sold. Wait a sec, what's that? Pay back? Why do they have to pay the record label back? Because they BORROWED money to go into the recording studio to make their album. Wait a sec. Recording Studios cost money? Welcome to the real world. Back to our example. At 10 cents per song per album, on their latest album which had 13 songs (reLoad - I'm not counting S&M since this album proabbly went through a different process as it was a special album and they had to pay union rates for the symphony and I bet Michael Karmen - the SFSO conductor - got a cut). 10 cents per song times 13 songs equals 1.30 per album. Multiply this by, let's say 2 million albums sold (this is not an actual figure - I'm not sure, nor do I care, how many albums they sold) would be $487,500 per member. This would be about $243,750 per year since they wouldprobably take a couple years before putting out another album. Now this assumes that Metallica has only paid for the recording costs because by now you are saying there is no way that $2,600,000 divided by 4 does not equal $487,500. You're right, I also said they paid the recording costs after sales of 500,000 albums which equals $650,000 and $2,600,000 minus $650,000 divided by four DOES equal $487,500. Now this is a very sloppy example because I'm pulling numbers out of the air to make my point and comparing sales of a band at 100,000 albums to a band selling 2 million albums. If you are truly interested in learning how this process works I suggest the following books on the subject. They have more then enough examples to fulfill your needs.

"The Musicians Business and Legal Guide" edited by Mark Halloran, Esq and the Beverly Hills Bar Association Committee for the Arts

"Successful Artist Management: Strategies for Career Development in the Music Business" by Xavier M. Frascogna, Jr. and H. Lee Hetherington

"Music, Money and Success: The Insider's Guide to the Music Industry" by Jeffrey Brabec and Todd Brabec

"The Studio Business Book: A Guide to Professional Recording Studio Business and Management" by Jim Mandell

You will come out with a better appreciation for teh amount of money it takes to produce a record and the shear amount of time and effort required from the musicians themselves, and I don't just mean the ones we see in the limelight. The rules apply to EVERYONE in the music business though more successful artists can obviously negotiate higher royalties and better advances and payback terms.

You also didn't put as much effort into learning how to swing that hammer as they did at learning how to play their respective instruments. You didn't have to travel around the country doing a show a night for 3 months straight. You didn't put time in driving yourself around the country in a beat-up van spending your own cash earned at gigs to ay for hotels and food only to play a gig a night at small bars. You are bsing your comparison on a small portion of the music industry, the ones who are in the limelight. Also, bands like 'N Sync and the Backstreet Boys are not that common. They get a lot of attention because they sell lots of albums to teenagers but they do NOT represent the entire music industry.

Perhaps you should curtail some of your spending habits so you could have money to spend on their CD's. It's a two way street.

I forgot to add that bands do not normally get millions just for signing on up front. Not that they don't have to pay back anyway. Advances on future royalties is what it's called and is normal in the music bussniess so musicians have a cash source and don't have to hold down a second job while recording.

I don't spend hardly any money. That's why I have a nice stash in the bank. :) If I was forced to pay $15 for a CD each time I just wanted one song, I'd just stop listening to music.

how can you say that? do you have a ticket (trade). How about a degree? Many people put much more effort, time and money into building a career than musicians. Most musicians started out as just hobbyists. Playing for the sake of playing. FURTHERMORE, people like Backstreet Boys and friends are nothing more than a stage act. None of them play instruments. They are just pretty faces with good moves and good voices. The fact is, musicians get that money up front sure...ok, advance on royalties. Can I get a few million bucks up front on the promise that I will work for a company for years?? The thing is they sign "multi-record" deals. They get millions up front and then a kick back of a certain percentage of royalties. I wonder what is happening with the New Kids on the Block...oh yeah!! Most likely they are sitting pretty for the rest of their lives while most people actually have to WORK for a living making a fraction of what they did in their 15 minutes of fame.

First of all, musicians, even the big name acts do NOT get millions up front. They know they have to pay it back and any money they borrow is money they lose in the end. Besides, they've made enough money to support themselves better.

Second, I have a bachelors with three minors and a masters. My bachelros degree is in Recording Industry Management with emphasis in technology but as part of the curriculum I took plenty of business and legal classes to better understand how the money flowed in the music industry. My minors are in music theory and composition in classical guitar, mass communications theory and entertainment technology (multimedia). My masters of fine arts degree is from Boston University in Graphic Design.

I realized long ago that my commitment to music was not enough to make it as a career musician though I still play for my enjoyment. I use my know music and audio knowledge as a multimedia designer and am beginning to focus on some other new web tehcnologies encompassing 3D. As a designer I recognize the necessity for copyright law and appreciate the problems facing the record industry.

However this is not just a problem for the music industry. The publishing and movie industry will be next to follow. Imagine the irrate customers who have to pay $8-10 for a paperback and $24 for a hardback bestseller. It has already been proven that people will stop at nothing to get free books either. Stephen King was hte litmus test for the book publishers and red flags sprang up when his ebook was cracked.

With DeCSS facing legal troubles, it's only fueling the fire for the "napsterites" of the movie world to start downloading cracked DVD movies. With divx one can get full length DVD quality movies onto a CD-ROM. Broadband can download movies of this size in about 2-3 hours. Not a very big deterrent but it will stop more casual copiers.

There is no legal argument that is going to hold up in court in Napster's defense. Their best resolution is going to be one similar to radio. They should have to pay a licensing fee per year which goes to ASCAP or BMI and these industry groups will distribute the funds to the artists. I think the fee should be absed upon the number of downloads per year and the quality of each song downloaded. Lower bit-rate samples would cost about as much as redio airplay but higher, 128 and above, would incur higher licensing fees. If you understood the music industries reasoning behind the fees paid by radio, you would understand the reasoning behid this. It is fair and could still allow Napster to decide how they can make enough money to stay in business and keep the fans happy. Perhaps some money from ads could subidize the user fees. Sponsering concerts for some artists with a cut of the proceeds going to Napster is another avenue for them to consider.

The simple fact remains that the artists have not asked consumers to fight the record labels for them. If consumers are unhappy about the cost of the CD's they should protest by not buying CD's from these labels. If they dislike the choice of songs on an album then write the artists themselves. Most bands have fan clubs and/or web sites with e-mail addresses. Write them and tell them you didn't like most of the songs on their last album. Tell them what you liked and maybe they'll see that most fans like one style over another. Their next album might have more songs you like on it. Personally I don;t have any albums that I only like one song on it. There are plenty albums I own where there are a few songs I don't particularly care for but I don't get bent out of shape about this. I have friends who happen to like these songs and I also have a greater appreciation fr music in general. Another avenue to consider is to purchase albums from online sites that let you build your own CD song list.

Theft is theft, even if the original is still in tact. Intellectual property is just that, property, and it has an owner. Sometimes it's the creator but either way, if you want taccess to this property you have to pay the owner, plain and simple, no excuses.

bah...pointless arguement. The people will always do what they want. And as for the artists not asking for the people to fight their fight, I think you should look things over a bit more. Though the roots are the same, the premise of the fights are different only because of the social rift between the artists and the people. BTW, most napster users aren't "rebelling", they are just following the laws of a market economy: get what you can at the best price. At this point it is free.

It's not free. This is nothing more than looting. The market hasn't condoned this price or the policy of distributing their consumables in this manner. If the consumers were truly trying to affect the market, they would stop purchasing from the labels. This has not happened, therefore the market has not spoken, the cheapskates have. Besides, the arguments are only pointless because you don't wish to hear them.

Who cares if they get shut down, just get a older version of napster and use Open Nap servers with napigator.

I only said it was pointless cause there will never be a resolve. If people can get things for free they will. If it is construed as looting, so be it. End of story.

but of course the star trek world is based on socialism in that sense...I, being a socialist, agree with it but I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't (i.e. our newly elected president). Now we could debate politics till we're blue in the face, so I probably shouldn't have mentioned this at all. Oh well :)