Metallica - censorers of the internet?

minion

Do Metallica really beleive that they have the right to shut down Napster? What of it if people are ripping them off? It's a loophole in the system. The freedom of information is vitally important and thats what they are attempting to threaten here. If they win this case against napster then will the floodgates open to other people who beleive that they can censor the internet? It should be free of jurisdiction after all where else can people place anonymous (well more or less) information apart from the walls of public toilets? Also where do they have the right to condemn individuals of theiving their material when they started of as a band doing covers of other peoples songs at music festivals and earning money of that. Wonder if they payed loyalies for that.

TwoShedsJackson

Freedom of information is indeed vitally important and what does this have to do with that?? Nothing whatsoever. Perhaps you are confusing this with copyright??

Metallica write songs which are their copyright and intellectual property to do with as they please. If they choose not to have them ripped off by a load of folk via Napster that is their business.

Hobbes

True Castor, however in most piracy cases the main company goes after the head.

However for all intents and purposes it is not the company at fault, it is the users.

Try bringing a couple of 1000 people to court. It ain't going to happen.

But it does set a dangerous point. If you can shut down a service which is really only a form of sharing files, then were do you stop? Can they then shut down IM services? what about IRC? News postings?

Anyway it was shown that there are now more Napster users then ever and record sales are actually up.

Personally I think the record companies are fighting a loosing battle. They should figure out a way to hope on the train instead of trying to derail it.

DeVore

This is a difficult one.

My company writes software for a living. I wouldnt be at all happy if it started being traded for free by people. We've spent a lot of money writing it and it takes a fair bit of creativity and skill to write (much like music).

Why shouldnt we be rewarded for our efforts?
When *you've* worked hard on something which is just copied by someone else and distributed for free to everyone I bet you wont be so happy-clappy about "freedom of information".

Napster cant be stopped, and I wouldnt want it to be, but they should be strung up for negligance. Yup, not priracy, not copywright... negligance. They were negligant because they did not take enough steps to prevent their product being used to rip off artists. In fact they designed it to do just that.

They are clearly clever programmers, they were able to write this file exchange program, surely they could have asked you for a credit card number and asked you to donate a fraction (one dollar?) of the CD cost to participating artists.

No, then Napster wouldnt have been as popular, as widespread and they wouldnt be as rich. They've used the popularity of the artists they rip off to entice users to use their service.

They should have acted responsibly and built in these kinds of features but then, would it have been as popular? Check your MP3 collection for the ratio of non-pirated music to pirated music before answering.

Napster was built, designed and exists to pirate music. The only reason people still buy CD's is because once you have the MP3 its still mostly shag all use to you unless you are at your machine.
MP3Walkmen are uncommon and remember most people are not even connected to the internet!!

What happens in 5 years time when most people are connected and MP3 players are everywhere...
Bye bye musicians...it just wont be a viable profession. Music would become an amateur pastime.

Napster is the way to go, but you have to reward the originators of art, or all you are doing is ripping them off...

Kill the fat middlemen, not the creators.

DeVore.

_CreeD_

I was talking about this to my supervisor the other day (old git that he is.. ..At least he keeps up with things). This whole dilemna reminds him of many many years ago when commercial radio started transmitting music. He remembers seeing Bing Crosby, among others, testifying before a grand jury that Radio would destroy the music industry - giving music away for free....... Kinda familiar? Look at it nowadays, companies fight for air-time.

Now you may say MP3 is different, but it's not really. It's a means to transmit music to a large (non paying) audience. Okay, so you can keep a copy, but then you can tape from the radio.
Dev asked about the ratio of legal/illegal MP3's in a collection. I've now 20 cd's of Mp3's. 4 of those are 'illegal', partially anyway - as I hunt down the songs I like on CD when I can.
MP3 is not as good as CD, the difference is negligible on a walkman or PC, but no true music lover will settle for a compressed (Crippled) copy of a song they like.
If they can't afford it at the time, they will probably buy it later. The majority of folks that won't bother wouldn't have in the first place.

So, I ask a different question, what are the ratio of MP3's you would have gone and bought against those you just downloaded for the hell of it but would never have picked up?

As for existing companies hopping on the bandwagon, that's exactly what they're doing. All these lawsuits are just their beach-head, destroy the innovators (And already established competitors), and get a set of commercially protective laws enacted by precedant during the lawsuits (That are being paid for by the losing MP3 folks).
Sure, look at Sony, technology inhibitors that they like to be, trying to push that stupid pen sized thing that doesn't even play MP3's, but ATRAC3....
Also Mp3.com have settled with most of the folks suing them, if MP3 was such a crippling Piracy risk the plaintifs couldn't have settled - they wouldn't stay in business. They just wanted a piece of the pie.....

DeVore

1. Radio stations PAY to broadcast that music. There is a revenue stream there.

2. Radio is crap, and wont get better any time soon so copying it onto tape gets you a crap degrading copy of a crap broadcast. Mp3 is a digital copy of a perfect "broadcast"

3. If you want something, pay for it. If you dont want to pay what the person is asking then obviously dont pay for it.
No matter which way you slice it taking it for free is theft. Saying "I wouldnt have bought it anyway" is very poor logic, obviously you DID want it, you just werent prepared to pay what they were asking for it.

Next time I want a TV but I wouldnt buy one if I had to PAY for it, I'll nip round your gaff and nick yours.

Tom.




[This message has been edited by DeVore (edited 25-09-2000).]

elexes

anyone c where the creator of nabster was on the mtv awards and came out wearing a metallica t-shirt ??? twas funny when it showed a closeup of metallica

[This message has been edited by elexes (edited 25-09-2000).]

Bard

anyone know if MTV plan on re-broadcasting this any time soon? I missed it first time round

---

Bard
_____
-me-

Take it

Using napster is robing there no arguement your getting a product that costs other people £5 for the single or what ever. And now people are selling albums on recorded cds for £6 - £7 and your trying to say that it sould be legal ?

C B

Napster can not be compared to radio or playing cover versions. It gives you complete choice over what music you want to get and it gives it to you in digital quality.

simple fact it is wrong for people to trade music which belongs to somebody else and is on sale by that somebody.

Disclaimer: before anybody takes issue with me I know that I am being hypocritical because I use Napster but I'm not attempting to defend the virtousness of my actions.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 26-09-2000).]

Hobbes

Originally posted by DeVore:
2. Radio is crap, and wont get better any time soon so copying it onto tape gets you a crap degrading copy of a crap broadcast. Mp3 is a digital copy of a perfect "broadcast"

I recall an experiment last year where they were creating Digital-Radio. Instead of broadcasting the song, they send it as something like a WAV which your radio downloads and plays with crystal quality. The songs are encrypted and time bombed.

No idea who was building them, but it seems to have vanished without trace.

Blitzkrieger

Does this count as irony?

I was going to buy the new Metallica ablbum but once I heard they were sueing Napster I decided not to

They're crap nowadays neway

_CreeD_

"2. Radio is crap, and wont get better any time soon so copying it onto tape gets you a crap degrading copy of a crap broadcast. Mp3 is a digital copy of a perfect "broadcast""

The quality of radio at the time ,when copying from it was popular,was fine - good enough for tapes.
And by your own logic, since the theft of copyright material is absolute (Which I agree with) then the actual quality of your recording doesn't change the fact that you have stolen from the creator.

And 'digital quality' I think get's bandied around too much as some kind of hallmark. You can do an MP3 at 96kb/s and still call it "Digital-Quality", but it'll sound worse than a decent tape (For actual tonal accuracy). The only thing digital gauarantees you is less hiss.
And Mp3's to me are 'crap', on a par with Minidisk - handy, useful but certainly not what I want to peroperly listen to my music on.

The bottom line is we all have copied music to tape before, even the guys in Metallica did at some point you can be sure.
And nowadays we all have some MP3's.
I'm not going to play saint and deny it, or try and say I am not ripping off the artist. Just that I will minimise it by buying the stuff I really like (Anything I'd listen to more than once a month).
And I have already bught albums based on songs I first heard from a downloaded/traded MP3. It's a balance of reality and conscience.

[This message has been edited by _CreeD_ (edited 27-09-2000).]

Bard

Actually, I'd say the fact that they're suing Napster more indicates that they're trying to protect their copyright and ensure that people actually pay for what they have to sell, - that being their music.

I'd hardly call the fact that Metallica are suing Napster reason enough to not buy their next CD. I'd certainly call not liking them, or not liking the CD reason enough not to buy it, but not the fact that they're suing Napster.

[Edit: This was in reply to Blitz's post]

---

Bard
_____
-me-

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 27-09-2000).]

Jak

On another note,

Weren't the Record labels and CD people being brought to court for conspiring to maintain inflated prices on Music CD's etc?

Digital music sales may well be the future (if they can ever regulate it) .. the advantages would be for the Artists;

1. Zero Production Cost for the medium - Digital copies cost nothing to make, once the master version has been created. This means their profit margins on sales would be significantly greater.

2. They could reach a larger audience than ever before. Sales would also likely be improved as individuals are becoming quite lazy and often like to buy without having to stand and walk.

Advantages for the consumer

1. Selective buying of tracks.

2. Exceptionally low cost.

3. Easy to buy.

C B

Yes Jak all true,
but the question at hand is do Metalica have a right to shut Napster down and the answer to that has to be yes. Napster does not give artists the advantage you suggest that digital music in general will offer.

Bard

Yet Napster is still running, - or at least its servers are still running and the software still works as expected.

What's the latest on this? Is the company itself not supposed to be shut down by now?

---

Bard
_____
-me-

Paladin

You can swap mp3's using IRC also.
Legally speaking napster and IRC can be regarded as the same thing. Both have chat capability. Both have file swapping capability.
If you shut napster down whats next?

Shinji

Oh, Digital Radio is still out there, and will be with us very shortly. Damn nice technology by the way - I blagged my way into a tech demo of the system the BBC are rigging up for it (my housemate works in the BBCs Digital TV and Radio R&D dept so he snuck me in), and god is it impressive. Near CD quality, using lots of clever VBR and DBR algorithms to get that quality into a tiny amount of bandwidth. You can buy digital radios already, and they'll be rolling out all the BBC and regional services in the UK on DR shortly. Dunno what RTE are up to, mind.

DR carries copyright bits, but it's up to the recording device at the clientside to decide what to do with them... Not very secure, really

Shiminay

The arguement against that Pal is that IRC was originally created for chatting and the file transfer (any kind of file) became a feature. Napster was specifically set up to swap MP3 files.

---

All the best,

Dav
@B^)
My page of stuff

C B

The atom wasn't spilt to make nuclear bombs but the result was the same. In the end of the day the technology is not at fault rather our use of it. There is nothing wrong with software designed for file transfer what is wong is transfering files which have been copyrighted by somebody else.
Pal, there is nothing wrong with Napster being shut down by a civil lawsuit (if that is the end result). However what would be terrible would be Net regulations which may end up being too high a price to pay to protect an artists copyright.

Paladin

Aye civil lawsuit it is, but thats really only one step away from a US federal lawsuit if its successful.
You are however quite right CB.

You also Kharn. but what was intended for IRC and Napster doesnt matter in the least to the Law, if both have the same capabilities. Legally they are the same thing (with the slight difference of a search engine with napster, but search engines are perectly legal)

minion

Perhaps I was misunderstood. Sure there are thousands of people breaching copyright but what right do Metallica have to shut down Napster when it is really the users who are abusing the copyright laws? Where will it all end? No you're right I wouldn't be happy but if someone found a loop in the system whereby they could rip me off but I wouldn't go try and stop the innocent but rather the people who are actually in possession of my copyrighted ware.

TwoShedsJackson

Minion, your post makes very little sense. Copyright is law, and people who download copyrighted MP3's are breaking the law.

imho Metallica have every right to try and shut down a site/program that is stealing their copyright and denying them money/royalties etc. They wrote the music, they didn't do it for the good of their health, they're doing it to make money, hence their oh-so-terrible attitude to being ripped off. I can't say I blame them.

As for the 'innocent' in your last sentence, who are you referring to exactly? Napster is a program written expressly for distributing MP3's across the internet - people know they are in breach of copyright, therefore they know they're breaking laws.

Hobbes

I agree with minion. If I buy a VCR and copy movies I'm not supposed to, who is at fault? The company or me?

Now if Napster was advertised as a program to transmit illegal MP3's it would be a different story.

It's like trying to outlaw FTP programs because you can download pirate software.

DeVore

Read my post again people.

Neglience.

If I create a machine which is so unstable that it hurts someone I go to jail for neglience. If I create a software so devoid of check and measures that its in no way hinders what would seem like a blindingly obvious illegal use, then I am responsible.

Napster should have thought of that. Oh, of course, they did. Its why they did it after all...


Here's a question, does anyone here believe Napster REALLY made a program to swap legit only MP3's or did they work deliberately to assist copywright theft? I'm not asking for legal argument, I'm asking what YOU think they were talking about over pizza when they were coding it...

DeV.

Hobbes

I've never used Napster... so dunno. But the simple fact is the record companies are running scared of the internet. Everything is suddenly out of thier control and they are trying to get it back.

So do I think it's wrong of the record company. Yes I do.

Here's another slant on your argument. Cars are by design dangerous. There is nothing to stop me running people over, except for the fact it's against the law. If everyone took it apon themselves to run everyone else over who would be at fault? The car company?

Paladin

Carmaggeden

Nah I dont think thats quite the best analagy Hobbes. Cars were originally designed for a perfectly legal use.
So are knives.

Perhaps guns would have been closer the mark, but its still not the same thing.

And tbh, napster was designed to allow people to break the law more easily. I guess once again Dev is right
I dont think that makes a difference to the users tho

Heres a little story for you:

You all know what night safes are right?
The little hole in the side of a bank where u drop money/whatever down a deep vent into a safe where the bank keeps it safe for the night.
Well years ago over in Dallas Texas, there was a very clever guy who did something quite ingenious.
He knew that many americans are ridiculously stupid, so he went to the night safe, put a cardboard box next to it and a sign on it saying:
"Out of Order. Place money in box for safe keeping".

He got away with thousands of dollars!
Well, actually he was caught eventually, but I dont know if he was actually charged with anything, since technically he didnt steal the money, it was given to him through the peoples own negligence (and stupidity)

(Heard this from me aunt in Dallas btw, and she not the type to make up this stuff)

[This message has been edited by Paladin (edited 03-10-2000).]

minion

Devore: It is really superficial why they created the software ( that can't even be proved anyway ). As well why should they be made responsible if their software has a few holes. Does that mean microsoft should be responsible countless times over? They have more than a few minor holes in every bit of software they released. It was napsters intention that the software be used to preview songs. That they leave up to the downloader who is the person who should be responsible if they don't not delete the songs after they have listened to them not napster.