|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 134 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 7 of 134:
| 
Feb 7 20:52 UTC 2001 |
Agreed, with the last sentence of the last post.
Personally, I'd like to see a system where it was easy for users to get music
that the artists have released into public domain, and difficult for users
to pirate music (and easy for them to purchase it online, if the copyright
owners so desire). But part of that, I think, involves a level of respect to
copyrighted material that (again) Napster users have not universally
expressed.
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 134:
|
Feb 7 23:49 UTC 2001 |
Ok. Are you ready? Here goes. I just received a phone call from an
authoritative source (i.e. a napster employee) who gave me some
definitive information:
1) There is NO definite schedule for the redesign/reimplementation of
Napster. The July date mentioned is hopeful, but that's all.
2) Bertelsmann's millions were designated specifically for the
development of redevelopment of Napster, and BMG has agreed to drop its
suit when the new system goes online.
3) There is a Q&A on Napsters webpage, at
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/qanda.html
Unfortunately, I was totally unprepared for this phone call, and what I
was actually hoping for was that someone there would join in the
discussion directly, so I didn't get any real zinger questions in, but I
assure you that my source is legitimate and firsthand.
|
krj
|
|
response 9 of 134:
|
Feb 8 01:55 UTC 2001 |
I'm sure the "qanda" web page represents the views and best hopes
of the Napster corporation. It does not explain why Bertelsmann
execs are making highly visible public statements about the future
of Napster which, as far as I can tell, do not square with that
web page: in fact, the quote from "Entertainment Weekly" is
a flat assertion that there will be no file sharing in the new Napster.
(pages 3 & 4, "EW Internet" insert, February 9 2001.)
Also see
http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,21904,00.html
|
brighn
|
|
response 10 of 134:
|
Feb 8 03:54 UTC 2001 |
#8> Your source may be legitimate. So is the BMG exec. The legitimate sources
are not in concord.
|
other
|
|
response 11 of 134:
|
Feb 8 04:42 UTC 2001 |
I did not intent to suggest that my information was absolutely correct
and exclusive of all other, only that it was from a legitimate source and
not n-hand information grossly altered in transit, or something I pulled
out of my derriere, without foundation at all.
|
janc
|
|
response 12 of 134:
|
Feb 8 05:25 UTC 2001 |
(I think brighn completely misread aaron. The "Pizza Kids" aaron refered to
are NOT the folks stealing copyrighted music via Napster. They are the
authors of the software systems various dot-coms were built on. They didn't
steal anything.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 13 of 134:
|
Feb 8 06:21 UTC 2001 |
Actually, I was responding to his last paragraph. Aaron may be misrepresenting
"Pizza Kids" in that paragraphs, but it's the clear implication taht the
creator of Napster qualifies as one. And while he may or may not personally
have illegally downloaded software, the whole point of the suit is that he
greatly facilitated it (making him accessory).
I know some "pizza kid" types, and they love to hack code that doesn't belong
to them (not all of them, but many of them).
And in case you've missed it along the way: I'm not saying I don't have
illegal copyrighted materials myself. I do. I'm saying that I don't understand
this mentality of exonerating the little guy just because the Megalith Corps
are Evil Bastards. If the little guy is doing something he oughtn't (like
creating Napster and implementing it in a way that greatly facilitates illegal
behavior), then he shouldn't be exonerated of all wrongdoing.
|
aaron
|
|
response 14 of 134:
|
Feb 8 14:48 UTC 2001 |
What is wrong with creating Napster?
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 134:
|
Feb 8 16:22 UTC 2001 |
*shrug* I'm not going over it again. It was created with the sole purpose of
exchanging music, with no real guards on whether that music was copyrighted.
If you still don't get it, you won't.
|
aaron
|
|
response 16 of 134:
|
Feb 8 16:38 UTC 2001 |
Your problem appears to be with the use of the program, not the program
itself. Do you actually believe that there can be no legitimate use for
a program like Napster? Do you actually believe that programs like
Napster should not be created?
|
krj
|
|
response 17 of 134:
|
Feb 8 19:50 UTC 2001 |
Here's another fun Web article:
http://www.business2.com/content/channels/ebusiness/2001/02/06/25833
from Business 2.0, titled "Napster Alternatives Lurking:
Viable entities wait to fill the void of free music on the internet."
The assumption underlying the story is that Napster as we have known
it comes to an end this summer, more or less on the timetable
announced by Bertelsmann.
|
brighn
|
|
response 18 of 134:
|
Feb 8 20:57 UTC 2001 |
#16: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The evolution of that style
of rhetoric. Yes, there are legitimate uses for assault weapons. Yes, I think
that assault weapons should be legal. No, I don't think producers of assault
weapons should be exonerated of all responsibility on the grounds that there
are legitimate uses.
don't tell me the creator of Napster was sitting around his dorm room one day
thinking, "Gee, I sure wish there was a decent way for independent musicians
to share their music with the world without having to prostitute themselves
to the RIAA." No, more likely, the thought was more akin to, "Gee, wouldn't
it be neat to connect up people's computers through the Net so we could all
swap music, because it's just so expensive in the store." [I'm not going to
say that the first thought didn't enter his mind at all, but I'd be willing
to wager that if it did, it was an afterthought or a bonus to the latter
thought.]
|
aaron
|
|
response 19 of 134:
|
Feb 8 20:59 UTC 2001 |
I do think you are too focused on Napster, and thus are missing the
forest for the trees. With specific regard to Napster, I think programs
like Napster are here to stay, in one form or another, like it or not.
They do make it harder for the owners of intellectual property to ensure
their ability to collect royalties.
|
aaron
|
|
response 20 of 134:
|
Feb 8 21:04 UTC 2001 |
I guess I should add this: I was speaking, specifically, with regard to
your response to the comments I entered. But to be fair, I don't mean to
criticize your focus on Napster in an item devoted to Napster. ;-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 21 of 134:
|
Feb 8 22:37 UTC 2001 |
Indeed. I don't think it's "too focused on Napster" to be responding to a post
concluding with a paragraph on Napster in an item on the topic of Napster.
A reasonable mind would presume that the intent of the original post was to
present a perspective on Napster.
Assault weapons are also here to stay. That doesn't exonerate their existence.
[NB: I'm not saying that Napster is in the same "league" as assault weapons.
I'm using extreme examples to indicate the irrelevance of Aaron's various
defenses. In case anyone thought I was a loony who thought that Napsterites
are one rage short of taking out a Mickey Dee's with an AK.]
|
aaron
|
|
response 22 of 134:
|
Feb 8 22:47 UTC 2001 |
However, you responded to that post as if the entire post were about
Napster, when quite obviously it was not. And you continue to do so.
|
scott
|
|
response 23 of 134:
|
Feb 8 23:53 UTC 2001 |
Yeah! Get 'em, Aaron! And don't forget to call him a pathological liar; it
totally wins the argument for you.
|
aaron
|
|
response 24 of 134:
|
Feb 8 23:55 UTC 2001 |
Don't forget to demonstrate that you are a true Grexer, by entering
gratuitous, hypocritical personal attacks.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 25 of 134:
|
Feb 9 00:20 UTC 2001 |
re #23, 24: Round one goes to Scott..
|
aaron
|
|
response 26 of 134:
|
Feb 9 00:22 UTC 2001 |
Look - if it gives you and scott your jollies to take potshots, perhaps
you could at least start a new item rather than demolishing this discussion.
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 134:
|
Feb 9 00:31 UTC 2001 |
Paul, why don't you tell us how you interpret Bertelsmann's
apparent embrace of Napster?
|
brighn
|
|
response 28 of 134:
|
Feb 9 03:45 UTC 2001 |
I don't want to. Aaron's hurt my feelings. *sniff*
(BTW, isn't #24 a gratuitous personal attack? Let's think about this. IF Aaron
is a true Grexer, then #24 is hypocritical (according to its text). But Aaron
is saying that all Grexers make personal attacks, ergo his making a personal
attack and his being a Grexer makes #24 [as a personal attack]
non-hypocritical. Therefore Aaron is not a true Grexer, by his own definition.
Therefore #24 carries the implication that he does not make personal attacks,
which makes #24 hypocritical, which makes him a true Grexer. Of course, we
could resolves this by concluding (a) or (b):
(a) Non-Grexers sometimes make gratuitous, hypocritical attacks or
(b) Aaron's an asshole
shall we vote on which we prefer?)
Oh, anyway, back to the topic. Ken, that's an awfully broad statement.
Personally, I would think that BMG has been given a lemon and would like to
make some lemonade. That is, it sees these potentials:
(1) Continue its legal assault on Napster. While they have the law on their
side, technically, they appear to have public opinion against them, and I do
think they have morality against them. The RIAA has attempted to portray
themselves as Defenders of Art, and I think that the masses have bought that
padlum even less than they've bought Napsters Defenders of Freedom mantle.
A case COULD be made that Napsterites are only interested in the altruistic
growth of Disadvantaged Musicians, but the bandwidth sucked up by Metallica
alone casts a pall on that argument. But with the kind of attention that the
RIAA has been giving to tripe like Britney and B*Boys, no major music label
can claim that they're just Standing Up for the Boys. They're in it for the
cahs, and they're willing to exploit the law as much as they can, even if it
means fucking ethics over.
(2) Be the first to partner with Napster. I think the goal was to make it look
like BMG was the lone sheep, the one who truly WAS interested in the Art, and
a marraige with Napster would show those cute little kids that BMG is willing
towaver in its capitalist tracks enough to embrace the little guy, to give
them an opportunity to grow. See, BMG isn't like those OTHER labels, which
are just interested in money. BMG **CARES**. It saw the PR mess that the RIAA
lawsuit has created, and decided to cut a plea bargain. And it can't lose,
either, or so it thinks: If the other labels come on board, then they were
the Trendsetters. if the other labels go on to win the suit and Napster is
banned for ever and always, problem solved without having become part of the
Man, the Bad Guy themselves. If Napster is barred from distributing all but
BMG's and independent (read: some folkie who sings in Irish pubs, and some
hacker who bangs on a Casio in his basement) music, then hey, BMG has its own
little machine all pre-fabbed. And they're probably right about the possible
outcomes.
|
aaron
|
|
response 29 of 134:
|
Feb 9 03:53 UTC 2001 |
brighn, it isn't likely that your effort to pick a fight with me will be
more fruitful this time around than it was last time, so how about
trying something new, and hopefully not too alien to you - by dropping
it.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 30 of 134:
|
Feb 9 06:24 UTC 2001 |
(I don't agree with all of what he's saying, but I think Paul is really
smokin' in this topic. Hysterical laughter at the first part of #28.)
|
gull
|
|
response 31 of 134:
|
Feb 9 06:28 UTC 2001 |
I think Napster, like so many things (the atomic bomb comes to mind),
was created because it could be, without much thought as to whether or
not it was a good idea.
|
