Does anyone else here collect classic rock MP3's ?





here's what I got.




Volume in drive C is HOLYSHIT   
 Volume Serial Number is 3F34-1BFF
 Directory of C:\temp

.              <DIR>        01-01-99  1:04a .
..             <DIR>        01-01-99  1:04a ..
JIMIHE~1 MP3     6,634,468  02-19-00 11:34a Jimi Hendrix - Wild Thing.mp3
JIMIHE~2 MP3     3,760,379  02-19-00 11:32a Jimi Hendrix - I Don't Live
Today.mp3
HENDRI~1 MP3     5,378,048  02-17-00 10:44p Hendrix, Jimi - AXIS- - If 6 Was
9.mp3
JANISJ~1 MP3     5,093,804  02-19-00 11:28a Janis Joplin - Piece of my
Heart.mp3
METALL~1 MP3     6,240,296  02-18-00  1:23p metallica-one.mp3
ALLMAN~1 MP3    10,207,352  02-20-00  4:41p Allman Brothers Band-Whipping
Post.mp3
ELECTR~1 MP3     4,182,639  02-19-00 11:23a Electric Light Orchestra - Evil
Woman.mp3
ELO-ST~1 MP3     4,986,408  02-19-00 11:23a ELO - Strange Magic.mp3
LYNARD~1 MP3     8,757,787  02-19-00 12:33a Lynard Skynard- Freebird.mp3
CHICAG~1 MP3     7,241,728  02-18-00 10:11p Chicago - I'm a Man.mp3
STEVIE~1 MP3     3,958,784  02-19-00 12:03p Stevie Ray Vaughn - Shake for Me
(Live).mp3
CREAM-~1 MP3     4,060,296  02-19-00 12:39p Cream - CrossRoads.mp3
MOUNTA~1 MP3     3,063,681  02-19-00  1:15p Mountain - Mississippi Queen.mp3
RODSTE~1 MP3     4,806,840  02-19-00  1:42p Rod Stewart - Maggie Mae.mp3
DEEP_P~1 MP3     5,530,344  02-19-00  3:46p Deep_Purple_-_Woman_From_Tokyo.mp3
DOOBIE~1 MP3     4,411,014  02-20-00  3:21p Doobie Brothers - Jesus is Just
Alright.mp3
BLACKS~1 MP3     4,572,079  02-19-00  3:35p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 01 - Black Sabbath.mp3
BLACKS~2 MP3     3,165,541  02-19-00  3:38p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 02 - The Wizard.mp3
BLACKS~3 MP3     2,053,352  02-19-00  3:41p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 03 - Paranoid.mp3
BLACKS~4 MP3     5,733,483  02-19-00  3:46p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 04 - War Pigs.mp3
BLACKS~5 MP3     4,293,718  02-19-00  3:49p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 05 - Iron Man.mp3
BLACKS~6 MP3     2,285,006  02-19-00  3:51p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 06 - Tomorrow's Dream.mp3
BLACKS~7 MP3     4,514,400  02-19-00  3:55p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 07 - Fairies Wear Boots.mp3
BLACKS~8 MP3     3,431,050  02-19-00  3:58p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 08 - Changes.mp3
BLACKS~9 MP3     3,678,249  02-19-00  4:48p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 09 - Sweet Leaf.mp3
BLACK~10 MP3     3,854,547  02-19-00  4:05p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 10 - Children Of The Grave.mp3
BLACK~11 MP3     4,126,325  02-19-00  4:10p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 11 - Sabbath Bloody Sabbath.mp3
BLACK~12 MP3     3,076,516  02-19-00  4:13p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 12 - Am I Going Insane- (Radio).mp3
BLACK~13 MP3     3,977,114  02-19-00  4:16p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 13 - Snowblind.mp3
BLACK~14 MP3     4,525,372  02-19-00  4:20p Black Sabbath - We Sold Our Soul
For Rock 'N' Roll - 14 - N.I.B..mp3
MOTTTH~1 MP3     6,688,310  03-06-00 11:32p Mott the Hoople -All the young
dudes .mp3
JIMCRO~1 MP3     3,654,329  02-20-00  3:47p Jim Croce - Operator.mp3
JIMIHE~4 MP3    12,077,056  02-24-00  1:59p Jimi Hendrix (Band of Gypsys) -
Machine Gun.mp3
LEDZEP~1 MP3     7,074,792  02-22-00  1:06p Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin III
- Since I've Been Loving You.mp3
JUDASP~1 MP3     1,835,269  02-24-00 11:34p Judas Priest - You've Got Another
Thing Coming.mp3
EDWINS~1 MP3     4,057,656  02-25-00  6:50p Edwin Starr - War (What Is It Good
For).mp3
BLOOD_~1 MP3     4,821,681  03-06-00  6:31p Blood, Sweat & Tears - Spinning
Wheel.mp3
GUESSW~1 MP3     4,691,968  03-06-00  7:16p Guess Who - No Sugar Tonight &
New Mother Nature.mp3
GUESSW~2 MP3     4,210,688  03-06-00  7:37p Guess Who -  Share the Land.mp3
THEBAN~1 MP3     4,341,760  03-07-00  1:25p The Band - Up On Cripple Creek.mp3
FILES    TXT             0  03-07-00  4:12p files.txt
        41 file(s)    195,054,129 bytes
         2 dir(s)       10,407.85 MB free


anyone?

also anyone else use napster?

183 responses total.

 I love napster.
email me at crmatt@cyberspace.org if you want info about it.

Yes the digital music revolution is here and the record companies are
going to have to just deal.  In the long run this be good for independent
artists because it will allow almost no cost distribution plus music
of all types will be available for download so artsist can broaden their
musical range.

Linked to cyberpunk.  Your conf of digital culture and controversy.
j cyber at the next Ok: prompt.

Salon runs a feature this week interviewing artists who are highly 
critical of Napster. 

http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2000/03/24/napster_artists/index.html

Interesting article, I read it a couple days ago or so.

I'm starting to wonder now whether the current star system can work at all
with a technology that permits many easy good copies.  Maybe... but the
megastar is really a recent phenomena based on the technology of radio and
recording.  Before that, there were stars in some areas (like opera), but the
distribution problems tended to limit exposure.  Now the problem is being able
to charge for "performances" (playbacks).

So do big recording artists deserve the opportunity to be megastars?  Should
they (or their representatives) be able to use some tech but prevent the use
of other tech that might cut into their receipts?

If anything, mp3s would seem to encourage the megastar thing.  It's only
really possible to find mp3s of someone who is famous enough to have their
music in high demand, and the more records you sell, the more likely it is
that you can survive a little piracy.  It's the medium-famous people who I'd
expect this to hurt the most.

Salon has another article (well, more like a commentary) on Napster:

http://salon.com/tech/col/rose/2000/03/30/napster/index.html

This is what I was saying in resp:4!  I'm a pundit now, I guess.  ;)

Hmm.
Thinking about it, I don't know if I agree with the article's claim that
technology created the pop music star.  As long as there have been music and
money, there have been people who'll pay to hear a good performer.  Who was
Mozart but a professional star musician, making the popular music of his time?

What's changed is the nature of the support system for those professional
musicians: rather than a lucky few succeeding on their own and the rest
depending on noble patrons and the church, we've got a few indie musicians
and the rest relying on the labels.  The main difference between the two is
that the labels benefit from supporting musicians by earning money, while
patrons benefited by gaining prestige.  

I'm not entirely sure how that changes things, but I think it's an important
correction.

Well, what was Mozart?  He was, for a while, "court composer".  This was about
as good as you could do, I'm guessing.  Doesn't mean he was a star like we
define today.  Rather, he worked on pieces requested by the king or other high
level music servants.  He also did some operas and such on the side, but it's
not like he could sell records or CDs.  Strictly live event revenues, split
up among the many performers.

The nobles had a lot of money to spend on high culture... but there weren't
that many nobles.  The commoners added up to a lot more people, but very
little money each.

In today's terms, he worked for the UM, played some shows at the Ark, but also
had to write songs for local Shania Twain wannabees to make ends meet.

That's a good way of thinking about it, actually.  

News item: Metallica is suing Napster, the University of Southern California,
Yale, and Indiana University on the grounds of copyright infringement.

They're suing the universities for letting Napster be used on their network,
I take it?

im obsessed with napster. whenever im on grex im usually downloading songs
from there to put onto cd's.

Indiana blocked Napster, until a means of limiting its bandwidth use was
developed.  I _guess_ that opens them up to "contributor infringement."

I *think* it was Indiana that hosted a conference on the subject of Napster,
music and copyright just this past weekend, too.

News item, continued.  Yale University has bowed to the Metallica lawsuit
and is blocking Napster.  Metallica, in response, has deleted Yale from 
its suit and has added a number of other universities, unnamed in the
news story I have from www.sonicnet.com.

in universities choose to block napster because of bandwidth issues that's
one thing, I can understand that. Oh, nevermind.

As far as I can tell, Yale decided it was not worth spending money 
to mount an iffy legal defense on behalf of its students ability to 
download free music.
Most universities and ISPs will probably cave the same way when 
Metallica or the RIAA get around to suing them.  

Indiana caved, too.

well if metallica wins the lawsuit, maybe Mr. Hammett can afford to pay out
some descent child support for his illegitamite child for once.

Dr. Dre has piled on, also suing Napster.  According to the story on 
www.cnet.com, Dr. Dre's legal papers say that he will name individual
Napster users in his suit at a later date.

see, that's just a crock.

My $0.02 on the issue:
Putting copywritten songs on the internet is just like putting copywritten
stories on the internet. It's illegal, unless you own the copyright. I don't
understand the huzzah about one particular format, though... any practice that
involves illegally distributing illegal anything should be treated with the
same level of diligence.

But if Metallica and Dr Dre don't want their stuff distributed fro free on
the internet, they should be allowed to tell people to stop.

(Napster's defense, as I understand it, is that they simply provide
the technology to make sharing MP3s easy, and don't do any bootlegging
themselves. thus, suing them would make as much sense as suing the 
companies that built the computers used to make the MP3s, etc. I can't
say I disagree with the defense.)

Actually, suing them would make as much sense as suing a photocopy shop for
not actively discouraging people from photocopying books. Which has happened.
And the copyshops have lost.

But yes, since carla explained to me what it is that Napster does, it does
seem a little more trite to go about suing them. 

  It's a little more complicated than that..  While it's true that Napster's
  just acts to make *any* recorded music easier to trade over the internet,
  and doesn't specifically differentiate between copyrighted and non-,
  Napster is certainly reaping huge windfalls from the piracy bonanza that's
  going on..  In fact, Napster would be just another lousy file-transfer
  service if it weren't for the massive amounts of pirated material that
  they help make accessible.

  So for them to claim that "we're just helping other people trade files,
  we don't tell them which ones to trade" is pretty disingenuous.  Other
  people's illegal activities are the core of their business..

(the author is 100% correct.)

I'm not saying that it's legal or even moral, I guess.  <stands up> I like
napster and use it so I want it to stay.  How strong is thier defense?

The posative thing Napster is doing is giving the record industry a kick in
the butt over the high prices they charge for CD and making them think
seriously about new mediums of distribution and new ways to charge people for
music. My understanding is that the artist recieves 1 dollar on the sale of a
16.95 CD.  Napster is going to force the record industry to come up with online
music distribtion schemes which rip off the consumer less.  Hopefully  artists
will also start to do more direct distribution ala mp3.com by passing the
greedy record compsny middle men (and woman).

Don't expect music prices from the majors to drop anytime soon.  all those
lawyers need to be payed.  :(

An average CD costs $12-$18.
An average hardcover book costs $20-$30.
An average softcover book costs $4-$9.
An average first-run movie costs $6-$9.
An average new release DVD/videotape costs $15-$30.

Could somebody PLEASE demonstrate to me how CDs are somehow "overpriced"? IT
seems that, when compared to other genres of materials in the entertainment
industry, they're reasonably priced.

As for artists getting hosed, 10% is a fairly standard royalty.

Let's look at inflation. When I first started buying LPs in 1981, they were
ca. $7-$9. That price has now roughly doubled. When I first started buying
hardcover books, again ca. 1981, they were $10-$15. That price has now roughly
doubled. I don't recall ANYONE in 1982 complaining that LPs were overpriced
(except in the concept that they degraded quickly, which is moot for the CD).

So quit yer whinin'. And quit stealing.

CDs cost less than a dollar each to manufacture.  They're actually cheaper
than LPs when you figure inflation.  So why are CDs still more expensive?

Because manufacture cost isn't the only figure that's used to calculate price.
Supply and demand, what the market will bear, what comparable items cost
(hence my list)... supply is higher than demand, so that's obvioulsy not a
factor, but the market is obviously bearing it, and comparable items are
certainly in the ballpark.

Few items in the entertainment and leisure industry are priced according to
manufacture cost: Concert t-shirts, beverage concessions, fast food, snack
food... all priced based on what the market will bear, and what comparable
objects cost. Books are fairly unique in that their manufacturing cost IS a
significant portion of their cover price, and it's got publishers concerned
(As they continue to price themselves higher out of the leisure industry).

Furthermore, if you UNDERprice, their are potential negative ramifications.
Think about your reaction to seeing a new $9 CD vs a new $14 CD, vs. a new
$5 CD... a scenario common in classical music. My standard immediate reaction
is that the $14 CD must be better than the $5 CD, even if it's the same
composer and the same orchestra. I usually buy the $5 CD anyway, but hey...
some of my favorite CDs I got out of the $1 cutout bins.

This concept of underpricing might be seen as collusion, but it's not... if
one music label has a standard price of $17 MSRP, then the other labels follow
suit not out of collusion but because if they price lower, they might induce
a perception that their product isn't as good. columbia, for instance, has
those "Best Buy" releases -- older CDs at 2/3 the price -- and the implication
is that, because this stuff isn't as new, it isn't as good.

So, I still maintain that I don't see CDs as overpriced. They're priced
fairly, for what they are, and what other items in the entertainment/leisure
industry cost. Just because the manufacturers have managed to find ways to
make production costs low, doesn't mean they should be punished, and NOTHING
justifies out-and-out theft, which is what copping MP3s of copywritten
material off the Web is. Theft.

 BTW, I've been accused when I've made similar comments in the past of being
 morally- high-and-mighty. I'm not. I have tapes at home that friends made
for
 me, I like to post lyrics of pop songs, I have unregistered copies of
 shareware that I use a lot (like WinZip), as well as illegal copies of
 commercial software. But I'll also freely admit taht I'm a thief, and if the
 government or private companies come after me and demand that I either pay
 up or cease and desist, or go to jail, then I'll pay the piper.

No Paul theft is making a CD for dollar and pocketing at least 10 dollars
while the artist who makes the CD gets a buck.  There is a pretty interesting
article about this by Chuck D from Public Enemy somewhere on the web URL
later.

As I said before I think the ultimate solution is sites like mp3.com
wherere you can buy sonds direct from the artist or they will burn a cd
on demand for you and the artist gets all or nearly all the procedes.

Yes Napster probably is wrong but wrong in a way like making home audio
tapes or dubbing movies with a vcr, wrong in a way that became acceptable
to society.  I think the way home audio taping at least was dealt with
was with a tax on audio tapes with the $ passed on to the record 
industry.  It seems like some sort of online micro tax will have to
happen as Napster I think in practical terms won't be stopped even in they
lose in court they can use move to a country without copyright laws,
then there's gnutella...

  re #27:  Napster is certainly an irritation to the record companies,
  but it's not exactly news that a lot of people aren't willing to pay
  $18 for something that they can get for free, so the idea that this
  is some sort of wake-up call for the music industry is somewhat flawed,
  I think.

  I believe a more significant result of the Napster situation is that
  many artists are being alienated by what's going on and dissuaded from
  music formats like MP3.  Most artists have no great love for the record
  companies, so when you see them both lining up on the same side of an
  issue that should tell you something.  Napster is, in fact, allowing the
  record companies to (almost justifiably) claim, "See?  All of those 
  paranoid scenarios we spun concerning on-line music distribution are true!"

Theft is taking something which doesn't belong to you.
If you stand on the street corner and tell passersby, "Hey, gimme $10," and
people give you $10, you're not committing theft.

Saying that Columbia or Elektra is committing "theft" when they charge $18
for an album implies that the album belongs to YOU, that you have the RIGHT
to own that album, and that Columbia or Elektra is denying you that right.
That's ridiculous. You have absolutely no right whatsoever to own prerecorded
music. None. The CD belongs to the record store until you purchase it. Then
it belongs to you. If you don't want to pay the price, then don't pay the
price. Somebody else will.

Independent labels exist. Wax Trax!, for instance, and On Her Majesty's Behalf
(or whatever it's called)...Whip-Smart. Oh yes, and Righteous Babe, Ani's
label. Do these labels go out of their way to make sure *their* CDs are less
than $18? Not generally. Ani's CDs are the same price as everyone else's. So
she's pocketing the money instead of the record execs. Good for her. You're
still giving it to her.

I also remember Garth Brooks' tirade against used record stores some years
ago... and that's different. I own a CD. I don't like the CD. I'm entitled
to sell my CD to somebody else, just like any other possession.

But accusing the record labels of THEFT? Because musicians (and oh yeah, some
gold-plated phatcat with a Beemer and swimsuit models is going to get a lot
of sympathy from ME about oh boohoohoo the recordcompany stole from him) were
held at gunpoint and forced to play music? Because you were held at gunpoint
and forced to buy a CD? I just don't buy it.

(I agree with brighn wrt CD pricing.)

        What if I am download MP3s of songs I already have on a purchased
format?  It's just that someone else done the conversion for me.

what if you make a tape of a CD you own, and use it for yourself?

Once you have purchased a piece of recorded music, you are generally permitted
to copy that music, in whatever formats you deem appropriate, to your heart's
content, for "archiving" purposes... that is, so long as you don't
sell/give/exchange it with anyone else. Ditto software, for that matter.

Paul if you are so convinced this is a crime why don't you turn yourself
in for your tapes and "stolen shareware."  Your position is sort of like
saying shoplifting is wrong except for those strawberries I lifted last
week at the store. If you turn yourself in maybe Metllica or Dr, Dre will
give you a good citizen award. :-)

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss