|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 183 responses total. |
orinoco
|
|
response 5 of 183:
| 
Mar 29 01:55 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 6 of 183:
|
Mar 30 21:53 UTC 2000 |
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. ;)
|
orinoco
|
|
response 7 of 183:
|
Mar 30 22:14 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
scott
|
|
response 8 of 183:
|
Mar 31 12:14 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 9 of 183:
|
Mar 31 17:20 UTC 2000 |
That's a good way of thinking about it, actually.
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 183:
|
Apr 13 20:47 UTC 2000 |
News item: Metallica is suing Napster, the University of Southern California,
Yale, and Indiana University on the grounds of copyright infringement.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 11 of 183:
|
Apr 13 20:49 UTC 2000 |
They're suing the universities for letting Napster be used on their network,
I take it?
|
jules
|
|
response 12 of 183:
|
Apr 13 21:39 UTC 2000 |
im obsessed with napster. whenever im on grex im usually downloading songs
from there to put onto cd's.
|
gelinas
|
|
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 14 of 183:
|
Apr 20 19:05 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
carla
|
|
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.
|
krj
|
|
response 16 of 183:
|
Apr 20 22:43 UTC 2000 |
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.
|
gelinas
|
|
response 17 of 183:
|
Apr 20 23:27 UTC 2000 |
Indiana caved, too.
|
carla
|
|
response 18 of 183:
|
Apr 20 23:42 UTC 2000 |
well if metallica wins the lawsuit, maybe Mr. Hammett can afford to pay out
some descent child support for his illegitamite child for once.
|
krj
|
|
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.
|
carla
|
|
response 20 of 183:
|
Apr 26 18:25 UTC 2000 |
see, that's just a crock.
|
brighn
|
|
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.
|
carson
|
|
response 22 of 183:
|
Apr 26 19:14 UTC 2000 |
(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.)
|
brighn
|
|
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.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 24 of 183:
|
Apr 27 00:25 UTC 2000 |
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..
|
carson
|
|
response 25 of 183:
|
Apr 27 01:00 UTC 2000 |
(the author is 100% correct.)
|
carla
|
|
response 26 of 183:
|
Apr 27 01:22 UTC 2000 |
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?
|
raven
|
|
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).
|
scott
|
|
response 28 of 183:
|
Apr 27 11:17 UTC 2000 |
Don't expect music prices from the majors to drop anytime soon. all those
lawyers need to be payed. :(
|
brighn
|
|
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.
|
