response 13 of 183:

Apr 14 03:19 UTC 2000

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.

response 15 of 183:

Apr 20 20:13 UTC 2000

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

response 17 of 183:

Apr 20 23:27 UTC 2000

Indiana caved, too.

response 19 of 183:

Apr 26 16:27 UTC 2000

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.

response 21 of 183:

Apr 26 18:48 UTC 2000

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.

response 23 of 183:

Apr 26 19:56 UTC 2000

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. 

response 25 of 183:

Apr 27 01:00 UTC 2000

(the author is 100% correct.)

response 27 of 183:

Apr 27 05:59 UTC 2000

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).

response 29 of 183:

Apr 27 15:17 UTC 2000

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.

response 31 of 183:

Apr 27 17:04 UTC 2000

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.

response 33 of 183:

Apr 27 17:18 UTC 2000

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...

response 35 of 183:

Apr 27 19:38 UTC 2000

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.