ashke
|
|
response 74 of 134:
|
Feb 13 15:20 UTC 2001 |
So for those who are against napster, and I'll admit freely that some use it
for getting all they can, aren't we splitting hairs because the courts feel
that a computer does not constitute a home recording device (even though I
have a program like Adaptec's Disc Jockey where I can import my vinyl and
tapes into it) therefore it's not protected like your dual cassette recorder
is?
I'm more offended that Eminem and other artists feel that "If you can afford
a computer you can afford the $16 to buy my ...CD" I am COMPLETELY offended
by that. I DO buy thier overpriced CD's. What you see coming out of the
woodwork on this issue are hippocrites and money grubbing artists against this
system. Case in Point, Metallica, who advocated bootlegging not only the
albums, but the concerts they did, who now have been vocal about napster and
equally as tightfisted with their concert material. they saw $$$. They had
a big enough fan base. So they changed their mind. So that means that every
other artist has to as well, right? Big bad metallica has offically spoken
out of both sides of their face.
I'm especially angry that the shift after Frampton Comes Alive is for MONEY
to rule the recording industry. I am all for the little people who do what
they can and produce their own, like Ani Defranco. But now you have MBA's
dictating what the public will like, wanting cookie cutter bands, and warping
any idea of "music" as played by the musician. The RIAA has made the artist
a comodity of the Record Company, similiar to Slave Labor, and some of us
might actually LIKE to hear something GOOD.
If you go after napster, by all rights you should go after ever kid who gives
his friend or his sweetheart a tape of "their songs". But because of all the
BS that happened 20-30 years ago, you can't. It's just a matter of setting
precident with a computer as a recording device. I wonder if I should send
the appelate court judges a copy of one of the several computer programs that
COMPOSE music?
|