The RIAA has the means of finding out what username and IP has what songs (the entire direct connection between pirating users allows this quite simply)... they can then get their ISP to close their accounts, pretty simple in a complex way (time is the only issue).
... shouldn't they be after the suppliers rather than the makers of the truck that transports the goods? oh but wait, this truck maker made it easy to load stuff onto which makes them the problem. what happened to the individual? Oh I forgot, let the individual off because its too much work to actually track down the obvious... sheesh.
Most of the people who download from Napster probably wouldn't be the cd if they couldn't download it. So they really aren't affecting CD sales at all, cause even if there wasn't a napster, it's not like they'd buy the cd.
I couldn't find ANY complete albums on Napster. (Where?)
What you are talking about EngineNr9, must be the rare exception rather than the rule.
If Napster encourages people to download individual songs - which is advertising for the artist - I am all for it since it is little different than radio. If they allow whole downloads of albums to avoid buying it, I am against it for it is taking money out of the artist's pockets.
I don't know what albums you're looking for, but new albums can be found relatively easy. And even if you can't find the Album on one server, you can pickup the individual songs from multiple servers easy.
It doesn't matter if it's one song or the whole album though, the point is the artist's are getting no material compensation.
I am so sick of this argument I could puke. Come on people, use your freakin brains! Napster is WRONG. It is taking MP3 in the wrong direction. Now, I don't like paying 15$ for CD anymore than anybody else does, but who are we to say that it's a ripoff? The best thing we can do is not buy! That will force them to lower their prices.
If any of you that say "down with Metallica! Use Napster!" understood anything, you wouldn't be saying that! Napster is evil. Napster can never, and will never survive in it's current form.
What if someone came out with a program that had an index of every single book ever written, where you could download the book in PDF form, to read on your computer? Do you think authors would just sit there and say, "hey cool"? I don't think so! Wake up people.
It's realitivly understand, being a aspiring musician myself.
As far as Smashing Pumpkins and the Offspring having their "perogative" - obviously THEY think Napster will BENEFIT them. They are also artists and they are NOT stupid.
It is the RIAA that is against Napster. Obviously, Napster needs to be rethought. But the RIAA has shown themselves to be inflexible and rather lazy and greedy. They like the status quo and that obviously needs to be rethought also.
EDIT: Eli, as an aspiring musician you have a much better chance with Napster than you do with the RIAA.
I don't care........ Napster is still wrong. It wouldn't be so bad if you had to pay a small fee to get on and download the songs. Metallica's main gripe with Napster, according to the Napster Chat I attended with them, was that Napster didn't ask Metallica's permission to have their songs traded.
So what, until artists come out and say they like it/don't like it people should be allowed to continue to steal from them? Hell, even the artists who come out and say they're against Napster still have their work distributed over the service.
It certainly does. It has great potential, if a system can be worked out so that profits can be made from the distribution of songs in such a manner. In the meantime, don't try to justify blatant theft.
Argh, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, I use Napster myself! I'm just disturbed when people try to justify it.
I can't justify it, I just do it. I buy CDs occasionally, and I don't think my using Napster has affected that, and I understand that that's the case for most people here defending it, but clearly it's not true for everyone. There are a lot of people who really do abuse the service. That's why Napster honestly isn't fair.
personally, i have 80-some songs. i have bought many(lost count) cd's ever since i got napster, because people suggested some bands which i have never heard of and wasn't gonna pay $20 cdn just to hear if i like them or not. this way i can see if i like them or not
i have gotten cd's by KMFDM, Skinny Puppy, Apoptygma Berzerk, The Cure, Cruxshadows etc. which i wouldn't have gotten if i hadn't heard them before. i also get the odd song if i only like the one song, and have no intention of buying a whole cd just for that song. but thats my opinion
<<Let the people who make a living from their music decide that.>>
<<Napster needs to be rethought.>>
<<It has great potential, if a system can be worked out so that profits can be made from the distribution of songs in such a manner.>>
That's it in a nutshell. As a technolgy, Napster is neither good nor bad. It's just another means of distributing music. The artists who create that music and those who perform legitimate functions in promoting and distrubting need to be paid for thier work, or they won't be able to keep it up for long. Also, no alleged ripoff of either the artists or the public by RIAA justifies another ripoff by anyone else. If that's the case, it's just one more thing that needs to be fixed.
You pay for your computer hardware, and you get the benefit of using the hardware. If the people who manufactured, distributed and sold it didn't make a living at it, you wouldn't have the hardware you're using to read this thread. Why should it be any different for the people who provide your music?