More Napster Updates 298
Here's another quick round of Napster updates! First off, LinuxParanoid wrote in to tell us about Napster reinstating a portion of the accounts removed by the Metallica-inspired crackdown. Grexnix shared at article at the Beeb about Madonna's record company threatening legal action against Napster because a single from her not-yet-released album was leaked onto the net. DanCentury wrote in to tell us about The Offspring selling Napster hats, shirts and stickers on their website. gmr2048 writes "For anyone who may have owned an old HP4020 or 6020 or a Phillips CDD2000 or CDD2600 check out this lawsuit settlement HP/Phillips was sued because of the lack
of quality in these units. They have settled and you may be entitled to a repair/replacement or $200 (if you've disposed of your original burner)." Cool! Also, check out the Brunching Shuttlecocks' 'Napster of Puppets,' and 'Encyclopedia Brown and the Case of the Pirated Mp3s' at Modern Humorist.
Re:Madonna - who released the single? (Score:3)
"Madonna Shocks Seven!
In the pop superstar's 132nd outrageous stunt of the past six months, Madonna shocked seven TV viewers last night when she appeared on a Barbara Walters special and graphically described oral sex she had performed on an unnamed NBA star
...The shocking remarks returned Madonna to the national spotlight after a three-day absence. Last week, during an appearance on Late Night with David Letterman she strapped a crucifix to her pelvis and simulated coitus, an act which shocked dozens of viewers, but was met with yawns by the millions of Madonna fans who had already witnessed far more impressive acts of sacrilege during her 1990 Blond Ambition tour.
According to a recent poll,
Just thought that might be relevant...
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:3)
Copyright isn't really the issue. Extortion is more to the point. They have something we want, and they're going to make us pay through the nose for it. Why? Not because the market determined a fair price, but because the biggest corporations got together and decided that they needed to set some limits on the pricing in order to make sure they make more money, and keep making that money. This happens to be illegal. Did they care that they were ripping us off? Nope, and they'll never have to reimburse us either. So, tell me again why we should care when we rip off the record labels?
Here's some info if you'd care to inform yourself: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm [ftc.gov].
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
I get out of the house a lot; specifically as a musician in a band that uses MP3's a LOT to promote ourselves.
I'm not arguing for the RIAA; they're a bunch of money-grubbing morons.
However, I didn't paint computer users as aristocrats; just as people who definitionally can afford luxury items roughly a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive than the price of a CD. And I'm not necessarily talking about entry-level PC's in the first place, I'm just taking a nice middle ground between a $500 entry-level machine, and a $5000 monster Dell box, both of which are represented in the Napster-using population.
I'm just trying to make the point that the cost argument is stupid. If you don't want to pay that much for music, don't get music, or shop the cutout bin, there's a lot of $2.99 CD's that are full of great stuff. But don't try to tell me that $17 for a band you appreciate is too much to pay; you CAN afford it, you just don't want to.
--
Re:Question regarding copyright (Score:1)
Re:Well, now we get to see what happens... (Score:1)
Hopefully enough suits will go back and forth that someone finally figures out that something is broken and needs to be fixed.
Re:we do create music (Score:1)
... And progressive trance...
Ahhh trolling
Dancing all night on trancy sounds [surf.to], ingesting advanced mind-altering substances [erowid.org]. How could one not like electronic dance music (please note: != techno).
How to un-ban yourself from Napster (Score:1)
Not me (Score:2)
~luge
Napster suing The Offspring (or Wired?) (Score:1)
It's all been said before, just not this time (Score:2)
There's a difference between blaming software and blaming users.
Maybe you're all for helping to push legislation that will make programs like napster, scour, and gnutella illegal instead of enforcing existing laws on the local user level. Make no mistake about it this is the RIAA's main goal.
Maybe you're all for corporate policing the net.
Maybe you're all for putting the right of the wealthy to become more wealthy above your right to use the net.
Maybe you're an idiot and your know it and that's why you posted as an AC.
Re:Well, now we get to see what happens... (Score:1)
PROVE IT
Were some of them stealing. Hell yes. I don't want to see them defended, but if that's the cost of making sure the RIAA doesn't take rights away from the rest of us, so be it.
I know somebody said (attribution anyone?) "It is better to let [40(?)] guilty people go free than to imprison one innocent person", and the US is (used to be?) based on that philosophy
Re:Class action suit lawyers must burn (Score:3)
Class-action suits in general often do not really work out to significantly compensate the harmed party, but even so they form an important deterrent to prevent companies from deliberately producing shoddy products.
You seem to be suggesting that people should not take advantage of this settlement, because the lawyers profit from it. I'm no fan of lawyers, but they're going to make their money whether the people who were harmed collect or not.
Re:we do create music (Score:1)
Re:Registry Key left over? (Score:2)
Re:Metallica Ego... (Score:2)
- From the website.
I take it that no Napster supporter here supports gun control, then? OK, Napster doesn't kill people. But the whole idea of having a police force is that *people can't be trusted* to uphold the law. In the same way, certain lockpicking tools are only available to bona-fide locksmiths, even though there's a perfectly legitimate use for someone who has forgotten their keys, because if they were freely available then the majority of use would be for burglaries. If a company sold these tools to the public, they'd be sued and/or shut down, fined, etc etc.
Napster is almost exclusively used for theft. And if Lars is to be believed, they're going to try and get an IPO out of it. This, surely, is ridiculous (and personally I find it pretty disgusting)...
- Oliver
"exp(i*Pi)+1=0" - Euler
my worst fears about the whole thing (Score:2)
An Internet tax to pay for RIAA "losses" due to piracy--kind of like the money they collect on blank audio CD-R's (and DATs?) Since they pulled that off it doesn't seem like such a wierd idea that they could report huge losses due to piracy on the Net...they're already doing it now at the same time as they are making record earnings. But they've got a lot of competition coming now and it'll be harder for them to maintain those earnings. If they actually experience a loss you can bet it's going to be blamed on piracy.
I know to some people it seems like we don't care about copyright law because we're so wrapped up in protecting the Net. And people are getting divided over it. It sucks that we're taking sides between protecting the Net and protecting copyright law. We should all be protecting both instead of squabbling over which is more important because in the meantime there are corporations that are working their hardest to fuck up both.
How do we protect copyright law and the Net at the same time?
numb
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
yep (Score:2)
Bottom line, it's about greed (Score:2)
...no, not the record companies. Napster users.
Who doesn't want something for nothing? Heck, I want everything for free, too. But the bottom line is that someone's work is not being compensated if I download music without paying for it.
The capacity for rationalization on this issue is amazing.
--
Napster taking care of Metallica (Score:3)
You can see the whole thing live here [newgrounds.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Gnutella (Score:3)
just search for "madonna music"
Offspring (Score:3)
Re:The Offspring aren't new. (Score:2)
~luge
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
The band themselves don't have ANY control over the prices of the individual CDs their records company distributes to a vast number of retailers.
And as near as anyone can tell, the bands haven't been affected by Napster at all. Unless you can show me some real evidence to the contrary.
but that's not gonna work if we want professional musicians (better than amateurs, I'm almost positive on this one) then we need to pay them for their work.
While I certainly agree that musicians deserve to be able to sell their work and make money from it, I think the current system does a terrible job of achieving this goal. It overcharges the consumer and underpays the artists. You can only expect people to go along with a moronic system for so long. If nothing is done about it, they'll do something about it themselves.
The record industry spends millions on hyping up bands that may never make it.
Maybe they need to stop the hype and just let their music stand on its own.
But the more they pushed, the more they got some underexposed bands out there
Once again... forget about "pushing" bands on us... just let the music get out there and let people buy what they want.
Listen to the radio instead until prices come down.
You haven't bought a cd lately have you? Prices don't go down. When an album debuts, that's the lowest price you're gonna see it hit, ever. They only go up from there. I was browsing through a music store last week. Looked at some older Queenryche cds. They cost 17 bucks now while their newest one was selling for 13. It was the same with all the others. It was the same when I looked at Best Buy and Wal-Mart too, the prices just go up.
Just because the FTC says that music is too expensive doesn't give you the right to go into Tower Records and walk out with their singles section.
No, it doesn't. Tower paid for that cd and is trying to sell it to people. Taking that would be wrong because you then they would not have it anymore and could not sell it.
So don't go stealing it on Napster either
That's a different matter. Downloading music on Napster isn't necessarily stealing. Nor have I seen any indication that artists are being deprived of money or are making any less money because of Napster. I tried Napster briefly, but didn't like it all that much. It was kind of a pain to get anything that I wanted. It's probably improved a lot since then, but I haven't tried it again. That said, I still download a lot of MP3s. Most I get from MP3.com or artists' websites, but some I get from other people, just so I can listen to the songs and decide whether I want to buy the cd or not. Now, according to the RIAA, I'm stealing from artists by downloading those MP3s from my friends. According to me, I'm not depriving them of any legitimate earnings. I don't keep MP3s that I don't like, and I buy the cds if I like the songs. Who's being harmed?
I'm not alone in my practices either. I know many people who do the very same thing. I'd bet that the majority of people on Napster do this as well, which would explain why the record industry hasn't seen a drop in profits, and has, in fact, seen an increase.
The RIAA isn't after people to defend the artists, they are after people to defend their control over the industry. They control the distribution of music in this country and many others. Anything that challenges that control will be attacked by them. Even if it increases profits, if they can't control it, it will have to go.
Re:Anyone else notice a trend? (Score:2)
Um...when was it that she won 4 Grammies (including Best Pop Album), and was nominated for Album of the Year and Record of the Year? Oh yeah...1999.
Now Metallica, Dre, and Eminem I can do without...but this is aggravating. Happily, it looks as if "she" (i.e. Time Warner) is only pissed about the unreleased track, not about mp3s off of released discs. On the other hand, while I don't particularly care for him, Eminem's album just broke the single-week sales record or something, so it's a bit difficult to support the notion that he objectively sucks either. Frankly, I think your argument is absolutely wrong.
Let the computer compose the music. (Score:3)
Found an Article (Score:2)
http://www.maxtarget. com/hardware/cdrom/cd_class_action.shtml [maxtarget.com]
-- iCEBaLM
Go see "Better Living Through Circuitry"... (Score:2)
"Tech" music is scarey to big media. And it's people like programmers and admins, and their general ability to confront scarey technology, wrestle it to the ground, and wack it over the head with a big stick, which gives most modern monopolistic companies something to really be scared of.
The average Joe Musician, recording his own material in a digital studio he built himself using inexpensive components, is the same sort of persona (generally) as the average OS Student Finnish programmer wacking out 386 code in the wee hours of the morning, circa 1991... able to work things out for themselves, and use the machines they've built for themselves, to write art (software) for themselves and share it freely.
There'll be a similar boost in this culture (DIY Musicians) as there was with the opensource programmer culture during the mid-90's - many of us are already seeing this occurring now, with sites like MP3, SampleLibrary.Net (which I run), etc.
So I think you're pretty close to being spot on with your asessment that we need to start writing our own music. Just like we needed to start writing our own OS, just a few short years ago...
And look for this "roll your own" cultural phenomenon to make its presence felt in other industries too...
Re:Copyright Vs Trademark (Score:2)
--
Re:CDR Rebate site (Score:2)
Re:we do create music (Score:2)
Reminds me of the sort of thing all my Microsoft-lovin' NT bigot friends used to say back in '93 when I told 'em about this litlle ol' thing called Linux.
"We don't need no steenkin' Unix."
Techno is the music of the future, man. Get used to it.
;)
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:4)
Many artists are also suing Napster and anyone else who either trades, or facilitates the trading of illegal mp3s.
True and true. The thing I've noticed is that the artists that are suing already have their own distribution channels and publicity machines. I'm glad that more and more are turning up in support Napster despite the fact that they already already have these things.
CDs cost too much! Why should I pay them $12-$18 when CDs are so cheap?"
If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive".
I agree. I just wish it were easier to tell if a CD is too expensive or not. I have a few that I are worth at least $25 to me. The problem is, you don't get to know what you're buying except for one song--unless you want to wait for a year to go by to see what else gets played from that CD. I've been burned a bunch of times buying CD's because the one song they were playing on the radio sounded cool--then I get the CD and realize it's value to me is about $2 because every other track is crap.
"If the artists are in it for the art, they should welcome mp3 trading."
Try living off of "art". Walk into a supermarket and try to trade your mp3 collection for a loaf of bread. Art is nice, but money is a necessity. And do you really think that Metallica or [insert current teenage pop star] are doing music for "art"?
I'd suggest making money by working like every other musician out there. If you are talented enough you will make some money off of it--provided you have an efficient distribution channel to get your music to fans and potential fans. If you do well you get to make it a full time job. Also, I think Metallica does care about art even if they may (notice I said "may") care more about the money.
"All intellectual property should be free"
If this were true, most music wouldn't exist. Despite what your favorite left-wing writers might think, financial rewards still have an attraction for most people.
Sorry but I think you're way off base here. I think you're confusing the music you hear on MTV and the radio with "most music." The fact is that most music is not on MTV or your local radio stations. It's produced at a loss with a slim chance of being heavily promoted by a major label. Most music is *not* produced for the money.
"Anti-Napster 'advocates' want to destroy free music!"
No, many just think that the attitude of many Napster users is hypocritical and wrong. You don't deserve everything for free, no matter what Momma Slashdot says.
Thank you for being fair and using the word "many" instead of "all" (wrt Anti-Napster as well as Napster users.)
"Napster introduces a whole new paradigm of free information exchange which artists need to understand."
Perhaps *you* need to "understand" the current paradigm better. Most artists don't offer mp3s for sale. That is no excuse to download them illegaly. You can live without the new Britney Spears album. Trust me.
I think both things are important to understand at this point. I think the new paradigm is more important to understand than the one that's on it's way out though.
numb
Re:Offspring vs Metallica (Score:2)
I personally find it ironic that Metallica, which had previously promoted spreading of their music via bootlegs
And the band still does encourage bootlegging of its concert performances.
is so up in arms over napster
They have the rights to their studio recordings; how can you argue with that?
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:5)
"If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive"."
Uhm, well, no. CD's are not just "too expensive" - they are conspiritorially overpriced. The record label oligopoly in this country is making money hand over first because of dumbasses like you who just mope around and consign themselves to paying $16-$18 per CD, and then go whine on Slashdot about how everyone else should too. Did you ever even stop to consider that maybe you weren't paying a fair market price for those CDs, that maybe that price is aritificially inflated by a quintet of record companies that have a lot more to gain through cooperation than they do through competition? Obviously not.
Because if you did, you'd realize that they are basically perpetrating fraud on every poor cad who has to by music from them. These companies have had literally no incentive, ever, to lower the price, because the have never had another competitor. They own the means of music distribution in this country, and many others. Period.
MP3s and the Internet represent the consumer's first real weapon against the record companies. For the first time there is a way to get out music at a much, much lower price, to the masses. Albeit this price happens to be free, what you fail to understand is that the innovation of digitally distributed music is a good, good thing. Eventually, a someone will find a secure way to distribute music on the Internet, and that will open the floodgates for literally anyone to make money selling their music.
Paying $12-18 for a CD is a bad, bad thing. We are getting ripped off everytime we do. You have obviously been deluded into thinking that is a fair price for a CD only because that's been the price for as long as anyone can remember. I implore you to think outside the box a bit before posting drivel like this. Maybe you'd realize that preserving the status quo isn't always a good thing, and that just because we've paid high price for CDs for as long as any of us can remember, doesn't mean that's the right thing.
--
Re:Question regarding copyright (Score:2)
I think this is legally untested in most juristictions, so it probably partly depends on where you've moved to. Personally I think it *should* be acceptable to get a higher-quality copy, since the argument for copy protection is that "you're not buying the tape, you're buying a license to use the song" and it is obvious, at least for older music, that there was never any intention of reserving the right to use a higher-quality version.
[BTW, just to nitpick, it is not "theft" even if it is "unauthorised copying" - the latter is a much less serious offence]
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
CD prices are artificialy inflated, you prove to me that they arent. Here's a little something from the Federal Trade Commision to start you off:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2000/05/cdpres.htm
I and many others would rather not be gouged, thanks. Defending the status quo with this economic arguments is hardly convincing. Then again what do I know I'm an aristocratic PC owner. Lets ignore that PC hardware is sold at market prices with little or no inflation over what the market can bear, maybe thats why they're so popular and affordable.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:5)
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price. What this means is Best Buy or whoever can offer CDs at less than they pay for them (which is what was happening to attact people to the store and then hopefully sell them a big ticket item). CDs in general will not go down in price because of this.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it. Most people want something for nothing. That is why they use Napster, not as some grand protest.
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Artists have no control over how much they pay for a cd. They sign with a label, they make the music, the label advertises them and markets them and produces and sells the cds. The band can want to give away their CD for free, but it ain't gonna happen. The selling process is controled by the label.
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
So if you want to make a statement, don't buy RIAA CDs. Buy indie Cds, or go to MP3.com. That would make a statement. But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
CDs don't cost _that_ much, thanks to Play. (Score:2)
The FTC found that CDs cost TOO MUCH! ... If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
I don't work for Play [columbiahouse.com], but Play has lots of 60% off deals. And they start you out with 15 CDs for $50 + shipping.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
No, the FTC concluded that the record industry can't withhold advertising money from stores that offer their CD's at less than the recommended price.
Umm.. that's considered price-fixing. The record industry is setting a price and telling the retailers that they aren't allowed to sell a cd for less than that price, or they will face consequences (such as loss of ad money, or a refusal to deal with that particular store again). When you get the five largest record companies all doing this, you get an antitrust violation due to the harm they are doing to consumers and the market. This is what the FTC said:
"The Commission has unanimously found reason to believe that the arrangements entered into by the five largest distributors of prerecorded music violate the antitrust laws in two respects. First, when considered together, the arrangements constitute practices that facilitate horizontal collusion among the distributors, in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Second, when viewed individually, each distributor's arrangement constitutes an unreasonable vertical restraint of trade under the rule of reason.
So, the record industry was engaged in illegal actions that cost the consumers of their products as much as $480 million dollars over the last 3 years. That's right. They stole from us. They have no intention of returning that money. Then they go and try to complain that people are stealing from them when their decision to overcharge people probably played a big part in the creation of things like Napster. If people could get cds cheap, they wouldn't bother with napster anyway. And that's not even considering that many people actually buy the music that they get from Napster and elsewhere. I've bought quite a bit of music after listening to the MP3s. This probably explains why the record industry has continued to see increased profits despite Napster and other methods of obtaining MP3s for free.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
The selling process is controled by the label.
This is true, and not only do the record companies control the sales, they usually own the music as well as part of their contract with the artist.
But when you try to make a statement about how the music industry is greedy and charge too much, and then go and show your own greed by stealing someone else's intellectual property, the only statement you make is about you own hypocrisy.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical. Not only that, but they haven't shown that Napster has done any monetary harm, whereas the FTC has shown monetary harm to consumers. I doubt that Napster has had any significant affect on the industry other than being a threat to their control over the distribution of music.
Madonna also on Web sites (Score:5)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
Sure, I have taken mp3s from Napster, plenty of em. But, when I found the mp3s that I liked, I went out and bought the CDs, and if I didn't like the mp3s, then I deleted them. Is that illegal? I don't know.
It's like taking an album off the shelf, listening to it, and then choosing to buy it. Much like you can do at some modern bookstores (like Borders). The only difference is, you are able to listen to a much wider range through Napster and you are able to buy them through Amazon if you like. I think that Napster offers many people that choice.
Yes, I agree that there are many people who remorselessly steal mp3s and never think twice, and never have the slightest intention of buying the album. Those people are the ones who are, IMHO, breaking the law. Not the ones who download and delete or download and buy.
Gawyn
The Ten Commandments of Napster (Fixed) (Score:3)
II. Thou shoult not make unto Napster any incomplete MP3s
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, Napster, in vain
IV. Thou shalt useth Napster every day to keep it holy
V. Honor Napster's Father, IRC, and its Mother, Fraunhofer
VI. Thou shalt not
VII. Thou shalt not try to pick up horny thirteen year old girls on Napster
VIII. Thou shalt not download MP3s that you do not have the CD of
IIX. Thau shalt not lie to Metallica just to have your account re-activiated
IX. Thou shalt not covet thy Neighbors DSL connection
X. Nor their MP3 Files, or any other 'property' of thiers
IFTI probably means... (Score:2)
The complaint issued from the IFTI, the International Federation of Phonographic Industry
Read "IFTI" as "RIAE" (recording industry association of Europe).
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:3)
I'm taking the position that being gouged for something and/or disliking the copyright is NOT a viable excuse for breaking the law and violating licensing terms.
There are other options to being gouged that hold water, buying discounted/used CD's, buying CD's from independant bands (I'll sell you some of our CD's for $10 at http://www.elfhill.com/Annwn), or just not buying CD's.
But taking something illegally is simply not a justifiable position just because you don't like the price point. You might not like the copyright laws (I sure don't either), but putting your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la doesn't make the unsupportability of your position go away.
Copyright law is the only law we have for being able to make licensing demands on content. The GPL only exists because of the strength of copyright law, as does the BSD license, as does any licensing of content, open or not. Undermining just some licenses because you don't like them paints you as selfish and hypocritical; part of the 'gimme-gimme' crowd that makes Open Source and Linux and most of this community look bad to the outside world.
There are constructive ways to make changes in things you don't like; freely taking for your own personal gain is not one of them.
You probably already saw this by Larry Wall, but it's deeply well-spoken and correct: "When you force someone to give you something, it's no longer giving, it's stealing. Persons of leisurely moral growth often confuse giving with taking."
--
Computers and music (Score:5)
Enough talk, lets take control of the music!
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Re:Well, now we get to see what happens... (Score:2)
If any were not, they could sue Metallica just as well.
Offspring vs Metallica (Score:5)
An interview [rollingstone.com] in Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com] quotes them as saying some very interesting things. My personal favorite being:
Napster: It's all been said before (Score:5)
"Many artists enjoy the publicity the recieve by having their songs traded on Napster"
Many artists are also suing Napster and anyone else who either trades, or facilitates the trading of illegal mp3s.
"CDs cost too much! Why should I pay them $12-$18 when CDs are so cheap?"
If you think CDs are too expensive, don't buy them and don't listen to the music. Find cheap local labels, or get music from independent sources like mp3.com Don't download the music for free then complain that it's "too expensive".
"If the artists are in it for the art, they should welcome mp3 trading."
Try living off of "art". Walk into a supermarket and try to trade your mp3 collection for a loaf of bread. Art is nice, but money is a necessity. And do you really think that Metallica or [insert current teenage pop star] are doing music for "art"?
"All intellectual property should be free"
If this were true, most music wouldn't exist. Despite what your favorite left-wing writers might think, financial rewards still have an attraction for most people.
"Anti-Napster 'advocates' want to destroy free music!"
No, many just think that the attitude of many Napster users is hypocritical and wrong. You don't deserve everything for free, no matter what Momma Slashdot says.
"Napster introduces a whole new paradigm of free information exchange which artists need to understand."
Perhaps *you* need to "understand" the current paradigm better. Most artists don't offer mp3s for sale. That is no excuse to download them illegaly. You can live without the new Britney Spears album. Trust me.
"You must work for the RIAA!"
Good parrot. Have a cracker.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
My question is, why not? There are components of a CD price that the record companies just can't explain. If you do a dollar-for-dollar accounting of where the money goes when you buy a CD (e.g. $.50 for pressing, $6.00 to artist, etc.) there is money that just has no reason to be there. They are overpricing the CD's simply because they can. They have a monopoly on a commodity, they being 5 record companies who have a standing agreement not to foster competition amongst each other, the commodity beind music, which, okay, isn't water or electricity, but it's high up on the list of people's wants and needs. The Big Five can charge what they want, to a point, because they know people have to pay it. And record companies have been doing this since CDs came out (20 years), possibly longer. Now, with that in mind, what is so bad about ripping them off in return? I simply don't see the moral argument about "stealing" when their own, essentially, theft, has turned David Geffen et al. into multibillionaires by ripping the consumer off. Maybe if piracy continues en mass for about 20 more years, and the recording industry is finally cut down to size, I'll feel a few pangs of guilt. Until then, I'm laughing all the way to the bank.
--
Encyclopedia Brown Rocked My World (Score:2)
CDR Rebate site (Score:2)
www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com Temporarily Unavailable
This account has surpassed its bandwidth allocation at the present time. You may reach the account administrator at www@www.cdrecorderclassnotice.com
Looks like more people have those CDR's than they expected. I for one have two of 'em and am eagerly awaiting my $400!
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
The point is that MP3 is the first alternative we've ever had for getting music. Boycott was always an option but never a viable one simply because people would have to forgo listening to music. That's essentially what the first post said - either don't listen to the music or pay the price. I happen to disagree. Downloading music free might be morally wrong, but it's no less wrong that jacking up the price of a CD to overcharge consumers. The way I see, karmically the recording industry and consumers are reaching a much-needed equilibrium. They've ripped us off for two decades, now it's our turn. Eventually, the two sides will reach an agreement in the form of lower price for CDs. So, I think downloading MP3s is a completely justified and fair way of hitting the record companies in the same place they've hit us: the wallet.
--
Re:Madonna's record company has got real problems (Score:2)
Don't try to tell me her newest album isn't just a William Orbit album with her singing over it.
Actually no, I'm not really young. (Score:2)
Heck, I remember when USENET was introduced, and how cool that was! Whoa, you mean we can post messages and it'll get automatically distributed to News servers around the world? FREAKY!
Unix will never die.
Re:Class action suit lawyers must burn (Score:2)
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
Think of it this way. They stole our money, which caused this sort of thing to happen. Had they not committed their crime, there would be no problem. You can complain about our lack of morals or whatever, but the fact is that they decided to play dirty, they chose this game.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
You're right, that is price fixing. My point was they didn't say anything about the price of CDs. CD prices won't come down, and the FTC didn't say they should.
As much piracy? No. But there would still be plenty of it.
Maybe, but I doubt it would be any worse than what you get with vhs tapes or cassette tapes. Once the prices came down on these, people didn't bother to copy them. They were cheap enough to buy that it didn't make sense to bother with copying.
Except that you can only copy so many videos by hand. Everyone seems to like this comparison, but they have basically nothing in common. To copy a video, you need 2 VCRs, a blank tape for every copy you make and LOTS of time. Distibuting a copy of a video to a million people is basically impossible. Now, to get a copy of a song to a million people you need a computer with a CD-ROM (which is almost every one), an internet connection, and Napster). With MP3s you can distribute an infinite number of songs to an infinite number of people (yes, it's hyperbole, I know) with little effort. It cost people time and money to get a (sometimes much) lesser quality copy of a video, whereas it is completely free to get a vitually exact copy of a song.
The industry stole from us, and then complains about us stealing from them. They're being just as hypocritical.
And as we all know, if someone steals from you, you are morally correct to steal from them. They way to show they are hypocritical is to not make their mistakes while showing others what they are doing. You invalidate your own arguement in the same breath you invalidate theirs.
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
But, as the previous poster pointed out, nobody has to buy any music from anybody. The real problem is that people are basically willing to be ripped off for CDs. Something is worth only as much as someone else is willing to pay for it. TeenyBopper234211 is perfectly happy paying $16 for the latest "music" from the Spears factory.
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
off-topic: first offspring cd? (Score:2)
You really bought their first, self-titled CD, in 1989? If so, you're one of the few. (excellent CD, though)
Unless, of course, you mean you bought Smash, their first MTV-popularized CD.
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but fair market value is what the market sugests that people will pay for a product. If persons weren't willing to pay $16-$18 per CD then they wouldn't and prices would go down, but we as consumers for the most part have decided to pay this much for a CD and that it is a fair value. Therefore we have the 16 to 18 dollar price tag.
Now as to the CDs supposedly being over priced. Lets say it cost $1 to physically produce one CD, now when I say phsically produce the CD I'm talking about the actual machine producing each CD and then putting everything into those nice plastic Jewel cases. Now let's say that initially 1 million of these stupid things are produced. That is 1 million dollars. But you all seem to forget about the person doing all these little jobs in between such as a clerk in the store that is being paid 6.50 to continually listen to the new Britanny spears CD, plus studio time, plus shipping the CDs everywhere, plus promotions, etc. So please do not tell me that it only costs 50 cents to make a CD. Just like it doesn't cost 50 cents to produce a piece of software on CD. I don't know about all you other programmer, but I don't think my time over a period of time is 50 cents. So that means someone has to pay, and untimately its the final person the consumer.
Please quit your whining about overcharging for CDs. If you don't like it don't buy them ever.
Also I hate to tell all of you that $16-18 dollars today is worth less then 16-18 dollars when the CD first showed up so we are technically paying less.
Just my 3.5 cents worth.
Re:Offspring vs Metallica -be fair (Score:2)
This is interesting, because on
Want to work at Transmeta? MicronPC? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Also checkout (Score:5)
Tired of being the only one on your block who hasn't issued a rambling, meaningless legal threat to Napster? Can't afford high priced, low moral legal representation to craft elegant claims of damages and wrongdoing you have suffered at their cruel and perverted hand? Just click through this easy multiple choice form and your one hundred percent screwball legal threat will be generated and sent by Low Pass catfish to the acting CEO of Napster, Eileen Richardson. Don't delay, start now!
Napster Forgiveness Machine [lowpass.net]
Once again, Low Pass Industries is here to bail you out of your seemingly hopeless predicament. Our in-house polytheist chaplain (Mark Anthony Lynett) has agreed to read and provide nearly instant absolution for any confessions submitted via the form below. As everyone knows, the first step to forgiveness is the admission of sin.
Yes you are :) (Score:2)
Anyway, I myself had the privilege of working with the very first transistor-based computer to arrive here at Rio (an already-obsolete IBM complete with its card-reading sibling), and then with the first DEC minicomputer to arrive (a PDP-10, for which I personally ordered from MIT a copy of ITS on tape).
We didn't really know much about Unix here until around 1985-1986, when we were forced to switch to VAXen, and someone decided that, between VMS and BSD, we were better off with that stupid little OS.
Alas, no more ITS, and none of the fabled Lisp Machines ever arrived here (AFAIK, anyway); a few years later, we started adopting some Sun hardware too. And not once did the utter and complete imbecility of Unix's design, architecture and implementation cease to nag me whenever I logged into the system.
But enough of "my credentials are bigger than yours"
Thus my sig.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:2)
Yeah, that's true, but stealing IP in the form of music isn't the answer, it only screws the promotions people while the execs pull down their millions. Go after the execs, not the promotions people and the accountants.
I don't know of any way to go after the execs. We just do what we need to do to get the music. Now, like many people, I want to support the artists I like. That's why I still buy cds even though they're expensive as hell. I just make sure that the cd is worth buying before I allow myself to be screwed over by the record company in order to support the artist. I do this by downloading the music and listening to it so I can decide whether it's worth buying or not. I don't see why I should have to make an uninformed decision when I go to buy a cd. I think many people do the same thing, which is why the record industry's profits are still increasing each year.
Yeah, I agree, but apparently, they never know when the single is gonna go huge...so they sign everyone and then they're stuck selling everybody shitty muzak.
Right, which people are tired of getting stuck with. Which is why they like to download the music first and listen to it before they plunk down 15 bucks for the cd.
but for the most part I buy USED CDs. Heard of em?
Sure, but I'm talking about new cds, as in not previously owned. Used cds aren't really relevant to the discussion. We're talking about retail sales of new cds. That's the biggest part of the business. Hell, if the record companies had gotten their way before, you wouldn't be able to buy used cds.
It is stealing. You're acquiring IP you don't have the license for. It's theft, whether or not the RecCos got cash for it or not.
How can it be theft if nobody is losing anything? It's copyright infringement, not theft. Theft requires somebody to actually lose something, and I have seen no evidence that the record companies or artists are losing anything. On the other hand, the FTC did come up with evidence that consumers have been ripped off to the tune of $480 million by the record companies. So who are the real thieves?
Re:Offspring (Score:2)
Ummm, okay. (Score:2)
On what basis are you assuming that Unix and C have been *detrimental* as a whole?
And what is your suggested alternative?
Napster is good! (Score:4)
So many of you self-proclaimed "do gooders" are out and about, saying, rather hypocritically I bet, that we're all pirates, and we're so evil, that we steal from musicians. Well, I completely disagree. I think our society is one which requires a large movement of people to change things.
I don't remember if Slashdot ran a story on this or not, but a week or so ago, the Federal Trade Commision concluded that music producers were engaging in price-fixing (forget the proper term, I'm sure someone will help me out). The FTC found that CDs cost TOO MUCH!
And Napster is what's going to make the prices go down. Remember back in the day, when VHS costed $100 per movie. That sparked a movement where people began copying their own videos. People, this is nothing more than history repeating itself.
Now we have videos for $14.95, or $19.95. Is it really worth $14.95 to have two VCRs, a bunch of cables, and the wasted time of copying VHS cassettes? I think not.
And now it's time for all of the music industry to follow suit. They need to lower prices. Piracy is a result of outrageous prices! If CDs costed $4.95 a piece, would we see as much piracy? NO!!!
And am I the only one who is sick and tired of music artists telling us bullshit like, "We don't have any control over the prices of CDs". I HATE THAT. Lars Ulrich sat there, and lied to our faces. You know it's bad when someone like Metallica cares so much about profits, that they are willing to lie, and try to get warm and fuzzy with their fans. Don't believe for a second. Artists have a lot more control than you think. They've just been locked into the "system" for so long, that they've lost sight of what's really important.
People we need to open our eyes. Artists who have embraced Napster are not going broke. If it weren't for Napster, I would have never bought my Offsping CDs! Let alone any of the large numbers of CDs I own now
If you ask me, I say keep running Napster, or Gnutella, as your taste preferes. And stop letting the criminal music industry tell you that you are a theif. Art should be free for everyone to enjoy!
Napters of Puppets? (Score:4)
Re:which one is the 4020? (Score:2)
I assume it includes both the external (HP 4020) and internal (HP 4020i) models.
I do not have the site mirrored, but I do know there is a claim form available, as well as a PDF of the settlement.
Re:we do create music (Score:2)
Bob Seger, Queen, Led Zeppelin, the Stones and Beatles happen to be the geek favs around here..
Well, if you don't count the hack who will gladly kill you to replace that Kid Rock album with the Chantelles or Louis Armstrong.. Or Dave, who happens to still get kicks from Guns n'Roses, REM, and Twisted Sister...
Shit.. Twenty-something and out of the loop already.. Someone kill me before I become my parents...
Re:Computers and music (Score:3)
Jiggy ho's -- Buffer overflows
Glock -- Overclock
Relaxin -- Vaxen
You'll be on your way to rap superstardom in seconds.
--Shoeboy
(former microserf)
Re:Ummm, okay. (Score:2)
But when I copied it into an editor to save it, it crashed.
Rationale (I figured it out as the UI was restarting): a crappy custom text-field widget that didn't bother to check for over-long lines before it passed them on to the text-drawing API, which resulted in an ugly buffer error.
If only I had set the "soft-break lines as they're typed" flag.
My God, low-level OSs suck.
Anyway, here's a summary of what I had written before:
On what basis are you assuming that Unix and C have been *detrimental* as a whole?
* The "worse is better" mentality.
* C has a sucky, nearly useless, type system.
* C is messy and unsafe (no preconditions, no way to prove correctness, poorly defined semantics). Consequently, Unix is also messy and unsafe.
* C++'s utter lack of real high-level features, although it's widely touted as a HLL.
* C Doesn't Play Well With Others.
* C imposes its own notion of 'text' and 'integers' on the rest of the world, and can't use higher-level constructs in IPC.
* C/C++ is completely static; classes aren't high-level objects. (Exemplified by CORBA.)
* C/C++ makes us stay in the Stone Age of programming. Specifically, on OS architecture, it forces a choice between the low-level paranoia of the "monolithic kernel" and the abstraction inversion of the "microkernel".
* "Worse is better" quickly leads to "if it works - however marginally - don't fix it". This hinders technical evolution. (Exemplified by the AtheOS polemic, X, XML, and the Web.)
And what is your suggested alternative?
Regarding OSs: none so far, although SPIN, Fox, SqueakNOS and Oberon show great promise.
Regarding languages: many. For application programming, a wide range, from Java to Prolog. For systems programming, less choices, but I've recently come across PreScheme, a statically typed dialect of Scheme that offers performance comparable to C's and most of Scheme's expressive power.
Conclusion: hopefully it'll eventually be possible to switch from static languages and low-level paranoid OSs to dynamic languages and high-level liberal OSs. We're not quite there yet, though.
Re:we do create music (Score:2)
Re:Ummm, okay. (Score:2)
But you're still thinking inside your box as a technologist using technology. Think instead, for a moment, what Unix and C as *tools* have done for society in general.
Sure, they may not be the nicest tools to use, but they have sure built some great bridges.
The Web, for one.
This forum, for another (yes, Perl != C, but C was used to build Perl).
I generally evaluate a technology on the basis of what are its current effects on the environment, and what are its continued effects. In my view, for all their ugliness, Unix and C have made a *huge* difference to society as a whole, and on those grounds you can't complain.
Build better tools, hopefully you'll build better bridges...
In a related news... (Score:5)
The complaint issued from the IFTI, the International Federation of Phonographic Industry (?).
It was a hot topic on Belgian IRC channels today. I'm amazed how mp3 stories begin to appear everywhere, even for non-computer-litterate people.
Here's a link [lameuse.be] from a local newspaper about it. It's French, but those of you who read it should find it as scary as I found it myself.
Stéphane
A slight change of focus... (Score:2)
And that's where my point comes in. The fact that some people managed to build so much great software, despite Unix and C... that is, IMAO, a great testimony to each programmer's, engineer's or researcher's intelligence, skill and resourcefulness. (Of course, those are still the minority; as you well know, most software written anywhere is not at all demonstrative of intelligence, skill or resourcefulness.)
But I digress. My point is, sure we've used Unix and C to do some great things. But instead of lauding them for it, more people should be acknowledging their inadequacy for many other purposes. For they themselves have really done nothing, but the people who used them. In short, they should be replaced, not praised.
Re:Encyclopedia Brown Rocked My World (Score:2)
A couple of observations:
1) Sally and Bugs had a love/hate relationship. Most likely, she dumped the geek Encyclopedia in high school and got busy with Bugs because she was attracted to his rebel side and figured she could tame him.
2) Encyclopedia hung out in a garage all day with a tomboy who "protected" him. Didn't his dad and mom worry about that? Why didn't Mr. Brown take Cyclo out back and teach him how to fight and be a man?
3) What kind of town would elect a police chief whose 10 year old son had to do his job for him?
4) Why did everyone always confess? In real life, Bugs would have said, "Big deal, punk! Whadya gonna do, take me to jail!?"
5) You think Cyclo ever got a Atari, or was he more content hanging around the garage solving crimes?
6) When Cyclo got into high school, did he find that most of his crimes took place in or around the girls locker room and it required him to spend long hours in hidden surveillance?
nice! (Score:2)
Gotta go get that tinfoil hat back from my neighbour...
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:CDR Rebate site (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Data Control (Score:2)
If the RIAA and these bands are so threatened by napster, why aren't they up in arms over the upgraded trade status with China? Isn't that where a lot of actual pirate copies of all kinds of stuff made?
Re:which one is the 4020? (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:Madonna (Score:2)
Nooo, didn't you notice the new tricks for that stuff.
I guess she released it in an self-extracting cab-file with a shrink-wrap license that stated that you have to treat that song as a trade secret
madonna stupidity (Score:3)
It's really too bad that Madonna has come out against Napster. Surely she, if anyone, should be able to find some way to use it to further her own fame.
Also, I wonder how much the single was really a work-in-progress, as the video was being shot in April, according to the Official Madonna Fan Club [madonnafanclub.com].
If only Microsoft would move to Canada [geekpress.com], we'd finally get the the "Windows, eh?" edition.
-- Diana Hsieh
Class action suit lawyers must burn (Score:3)
Now, I'm not advocating that the companies that produce faulty hardware should not be liable for the quality of the products that they produce, but these suits are getting ridiculous. Toshiba HAD to settle that suit because the total value of the lawsuit was more than the $USD 9 billion. Here's an article [nytimes.com] from the New York Times.
This crap is getting out of hand. Toshiba, to me, has been a good company. They sold a flawed product, just as many manufacturers do. The flaw was minor and did not affect that many people. Now a couple of lawyers looking to make a quick 30% of the take have decided that their pocketbooks are more important than the thousands of jobs that Toshiba provides around the world. All of you that have bought the great products that Toshiba has made over the last few years are going to have to pay more for anything you buy from them because these bastards are legally stealing from Toshiba.
Compaq is on the chopping block for the same sort of trouble now too. Put "compaq class action" into a google search and see what you come up with. I just hope that more people take notice of this type of legalized theft before all hardware prices go up by 30%. What's next, "My Nvidia driver didn't work great, so I'm going to sue the company out of existence?"
Of course, no one is bringing suit against Microsoft for knowingly releasing a product with some 64,000 odd bugs....
Anyone Keeping Score? (Score:3)
Limp Bizkit
Chuck D.
The Offspring
Against:
Metallica
Dr. Dre
Madonna
On the Fence:
Weird Al [weirdal.com] (Question 4)
Anyone know any other artists' stance?
-----
Re:Madonna's new single? (Score:2)
Co-written by A. Bastard & D. Umbfukk.
The sleeve-notes will confirm the rumour that Madonna is, in fact, the mother of Christ.
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
"CDs cost too much! Why should I pay them $12-$18 when CDs are so cheap?"
Why should you have bought the $2000 computer and $40+ monthly Internet service that you're using to download MP3's? After all, that's all so cheap to produce!
I find it hard to take cost rationalizations seriously from people who are definitionally among the more wealthy half, by virtue of their owning a computer in the FIRST place.
Oh, but I forgot, all their allowance has to be saved to get the Voodoo5 at $399 the day it comes out so they can get that extra 5fps in Quake III. It's a necessity of life.
--
Re:Napster: It's all been said before (Score:2)
*Snore*
"If you don't do it for money, you shouldn't do it."
"Sharing is evil."
"This is about big name stars."
...zzzz....
If you think CD's are too expensive...you agree with the FTC. [ftc.gov]
Keep the music flowing.
--
Anyone else notice a trend? (Score:4)
Metallica
Dr. Dre (I'd like to know what his Ph.D is in
Madonna
Some that support digital music and fans:
The Offspring
Limp Bizkit
They Might Be Giants
and many more i'm sure...
What common trait do these groups share? The anti-digital music camp is composed of bands that either suck, or are past their prime, while the other side doesn't suck and are all younger and pretty "hip" bands. Now granted TMBG aren't exactly a new act, neither are the Offspring but they definately come from a different generation of artist than Metallica and Madonna. Of course not all pro-digital bands are young, Chuck D has been around a long time and was one of first artists to see the power of digital music, and hell The Who are famous for encourging fans to freely trade their music. Guess some were just ahead of their times.
One other interesting thing I noticed in the ten minutes of research I did for this post was that both Limp Bizkit and The Offsprings websites contained a ton of useful and interesting information for fans, both included streaming versions of all of their songs, videos, lyrics and even guitar tabs! Talk about fan oriented groups!
This has gotten me thinking about how the 'net and mp3s will really change everything, it's going to come in phases, but what's really going to finally bring the industry as we know it to it's knees will be when the next Big Thing in music is discovered online and completly circumvents the traditional distro system, tells the major labels to fuck off and goes direct to fans first, online, before releasing a CD. I believe the condidtions for this to happen now exist, the fan base (ie market) online is big enough, the technology is ready and media awareness of the whole deal is there as well. The first band to make a name for themselves entirely online is going to get gobs of free publicity as soon as the traditional media hears of them, and once they start getting mainstream attention, radio broadcasts and the like, it really will signal the terminal phase of the cultural cancer we know as the music industry.
Madonna (Score:2)
i wonder who released it into the wild anyway. that would be the person i'd go after. actually since al gore invented the internet he might be her next target
Re:A twist on the Napster lawsuits (Score:2)
numb
Re:Class action suit lawyers must burn (Score:3)
The suit was filed in March in federal court in Beaumont, Texas, by two owners of Toshiba laptops -- Ethan Shaw, an attorney in that city, and Clive D. Moon, who lives in Plano, a Dallas suburb. According to Toshiba, the two men did not claim to have actually suffered any lost data or other damage from the flaw in the PC , but rather that they had been sold a defective product. Neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys returned calls seeking comment.
...
Shaw and Moon, the two plaintiffs, are to receive $25,000 each. But their attorneys, led by the Beaumont law firm of Orgain, Bell & Tucker, stand to make $147.5 million.
Did anyone say "Publicity Stunt?" (Score:4)
Sounds like Madonna still is in the shock-to-promote game, and plays that "sue-Napster" as advertisement for her CD. She leaked the song out in the first place. And, it is available from numerous sources just as easily as from Napster.
Too bad such airheads do not realize that their silly little promotion scheme has such large ramifications for freedom of speech - or basic freedoms in general.
Re:madonna stupidity (Score:2)
>able to find some way to use it to further her own fame.
She has. It's the first rule she learned: even bad press is good press.
--
Madonna's music *literally* stolen? (Score:2)
From the bbc article:
Does that mean ``stolen'' as in ``somebody walked in and swiped the demo tape'', or ``stolen'' as in ``somebody copied the demo tape''? If it's the former then the manager's comments are fair enough. However if it's the latter then the manager has committed slander and they are therefore wide open for a countersuit if they try and litigate, in which case I do hope defendents take advantage of this because I'd like to see the flagrant misuse of the word ``stolen'' being stamped out.
Re:Anyone else notice a trend? (Score:2)
although i do wonder if dre and dogg are also using metallica's story "we're sticking it to napster for the little guy" or if they actually feel that they are losing enough money to napster to justify the legal costs.
Re:Napster is good! (Score:3)
You say, well if they really care about their fans they can move off of that label to another...well, yes, but they need to make their bread. Personally, I'd love to see free music that's legal everywhere, but that's not gonna work if we want professional musicians (better than amateurs, I'm almost positive on this one) then we need to pay them for their work.
So lets give away their tunes to get people to concerts. Sure, then we can watch as concert ticket prices go MORE through the roof than they already are (my friend Dave paid more than $150 for Bruce Springsteen tickets...unreal).
The record industry spends millions on hyping up bands that may never make it. I spent a year as Music Director of a college station and I spent some serious quality time on the phone with Moose at The Syndicate, Nicole at VisionTrust, and Graham at SPECTRE not to mention a few. These guys were getting paid to promote bands that for the most part sucked. They didn't have to push the successful artists, mainly because they didn't need to. But the more they pushed, the more they got some underexposed bands out there (Lit when they were young, amongst others) and got them some record sales to try and recoup the millions lost promoting less known bands.
So CDs are expensive, DON'T BUY THEM. Listen to the radio instead until prices come down. Just because the FTC says that music is too expensive doesn't give you the right to go into Tower Records and walk out with their singles section. So don't go stealing it on Napster either.
Re:Class action suit lawyers must burn (Score:3)
Many people who posted to this article concerning the HP lawsuit were excited and gleeful. They were just happy they are getting $200. They are not taking into consideration that frivolous lawsuits that net a person who was actually harmed by the defective product a meager couple of bucks, while some theif lawyer is raking in $USD 150 million.
Funny thing is... (Score:2)
I don't think he's a programmer but when asked in an interview, "Why do you have such a strong presence on mp3.com?" he answered "Because I am willing to waste away in front of the CRT for hours each day" :) That ought to count for something! Also, his style is geek-friendly: some rap sounds like Jocks, and Gentle is drastically more articulate, polysyllabic and creative than that, with a more relaxed, flowing delivery that first drew me to his music.
Again, just last night I uploaded four tracks to mp3.com/ChrisJ [mp3s.com] as part of this collaboration- they are just down from the top of the page, the ones that credit Gentle and have (experimental) in the name and 'parental advisory' on the track ;)
To hear what Gentle normally does (and also you can hear the vocal-only tracks that I added bebop-jazzesque music to), go to mp3.com/regularsizemon ster [mp3s.com]. I'm not a hip hop listener but I ended up liking lots of the tracks...
Now all we have to do is convince Gentle to geek out on Linux and programming a bit ;)