YTSEJAM Digest 5654
Today's Topics:
1) re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!)
by Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com>
2) Prog URLs
by "Paul Ninnis" <pjninnis@hotmail.com>
3) Re: All Symphony X fans, READ THIS!!!
by "M P" <mremann6@hotmail.com>
4) where all that money comes from...
by "M P" <mremann6@hotmail.com>
5) cybersquatting
by Joshua Rasiel <Josh@On-LineDesign.Com>
6) four?
by Joshua Rasiel <Josh@On-LineDesign.Com>
7) Napster
by "James Gibbons" <jgibbons@supnet.com>
8) Overture 1928
by Orion82@aol.com
9) new enchant reviews?
by Brian Hansen <bhansen10@yahoo.com>
10) SFAM 1 year anniversary
by "francesco racioppa" <racioppa@tin.it>
11) Re: Napster
by Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
12) great album
by "francesco racioppa" <racioppa@tin.it>
13) New Enchant CD is amazing!
by "Rob Pociluk" <robpociluk@dreamtheater.zzn.com>
14) Something for Jens (Napster)
by "Al @ Switchcraft" <al@isd.net>
15) re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!)
by "Neil Evans" <progmtl@mindspring.com>
16) Nightwish DVD confirmed
by "Jan-Michael" <jmsouter@airmail.net>
17) Dream Theater NEWS!
by "Jan-Michael" <jmsouter@airmail.net>
18) Criminal
by "Stephen Gervois" <stephen.gervois@free.fr>
19) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5641
by DTGirl2612@aol.com
20) SyX-V -> The Mirror?
by "Simon Krogh" <finn2@get2net.dk>
21) Save your credit before its too late!!
by debthelp17s@myered.com
22) John Myung
by DTGirl2612@aol.com
23) Microsoft Windows ME
by DTGirl2612@aol.com
24) OZRICS
by DTGirl2612@aol.com
25) Napster and the price of CDs
by Isaac Sabetai <isabetai@bu.edu>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:42:42 -0400
From: Jens Johansson <jens@panix.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: re: Napster (LONG RANTY POST!!)
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20001026194242.00838890@localhost>
[Todd O. Klindt, MCSE]
> Okay, one more round and I'll let whoever wants to get the last word.
> Chris, I've met you, you're an intelligent guy and I do value your opinion.
> I'm not a musician so I will never be able to see your and Jens' side.
> I do
> however work at a company that writes software, so I do understand the
> correlation between people paying for software and me being about to buy
> food and shelter.
So I guess you don't have to be a musician, then. ;)
> If matters at all, I can definitely see the other side of the argument. I
> just think that there is a better solution than killing Napster and programs
> like it because some of us do use it in a way that benefits both the artist
> and the RIAA.
I wonder if there are any icebergs at this time of year and at the latitudes at which we will be crossing the North Atlantic?
[Chris Oates]
> The kind of people who obsessively download albums and burn them to CD,
> never buying an original copy would probably find another way to do so if
> Napster wasn't around.
But the inconvenience!!! Arrggh! And also, then Napster, inc. would lose "eyeballs", hits and potential ad revenue. That would be sad. No, unacceptable. After all, the head Napster moron was on the cover of a bunch of magazines in a baseball cap and all. He deserves a few million for ripping off the code behind IRC and slapping a huge legal notice on it.
[Jim]
> First of all, yes Jens, I have been in the "backline truck in the wrong
> city" situation, only I was the one in the backline truck, and we were
> being detained in a Weigh Station for over 6 hours, but that's another
> story!
Well, that's the right city but six hours too late. What's the problem? :*)
[ Ahem. Also I just wanted to add for the record: I was in the right city, the backline truck was not (perhaps a subtle distinction, what do I know). :) Never missed a gig yet. ]
> Easy access/distribution of new bands and/or music VERSUS Copyright law.
> Would you agree?
I am not against opening new distribution paths (of course). I am against _ANY_ erosion of the current copyright law. I guess that should be clear by now. Pah, who cares what I'm against or for, anyway!? ;) Let the courts speak and then I'll shut up. Actually, I'll shut up after sending this. I'm going out for a few drinks in Buenos Aires with some friends.
Then I'll wreck my hotel room, like every night. <rubbing hands> I'll make a fortune this tour! :)
> 1) Would anti-Napster proponents be more in favor of it if, say, the
> quality was limited to 56Kbps or less on copyrighted material. That way
> the "I heard it through Napster, so I bought the CD" scenario would have
> an extra incentive, the higher quality of the recording.
The incentive is there even with 256 kbps if you listen carefully enough. :)
The issue to me is the negative effects of the _erosion_ of the current copyright protection (which composers and performers have enjoyed only the last 100 years or so.)
I know from hard-fought experience that no one will bitch-slap a person that copies a piece of music owned by some other person (perhaps on a distant continent), say, the same way they would be bitch-slapped if they copied, say, a small piece of paper saying "$100" that the US department of Treasury cared about.
That's the situation NOW.
I'd like it to not get worse. Very much.
Napster, inc. is simply an organized attempt at affecting erosion of copyright (specifically for music) by a well-financed corporate entity. Well-financed, but with a business model which to me illuminates in a very sad way our kinship to our tree-dwelling, intellectually challanged primate relatives.
[ and: "person" of course defined as a member of the great, unwashed, unethical masses outside of the YTSEJAM list. ]
> 2) What about bands that are releasing, with thier consent, whole, high
> quality, MP3's of upcoming material, such as Satriani did on his
> website, versus other bands that have been threatened by thier label for
> doing the same thing? Who has the control of the Copyright?
Yes, "copyright" gives them that right. Fine with me! Whatever they choose. Current law gives them that right. I happen to believe future law should as well..
> 3) Does anyone else find it strange that Metallica had the whole S&M
> project available for listening on the web before it came out in stores,
> THEN they gripe about Napster? Is the issue as simple as: "If it's on
> the web, WE want to be the ones that put it there?"
"Copyright: the exclusive right to the publication, production, or sale of the rights to a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work, or to the use of a commercial print or label, granted by law for a specified period of time to an author, composer, artist, etc "
(So, it's their decision as creators = copyright holders. "by law" means this is something we as a society have decided that the majority supports, like paying taxes for the common good, or it not being OK to chop someone's head of because they touched your shield)
> I don't see
> any evidence of loss of revenue to anyone.
I can't directly see any evidence of quarks. :)
> I understand your postion Jens, but I guess I need more convincing that
> it's a bad thing.
Regrettably, if whatever I typed before didn't do it, I do not think I can make you understand the seriousness of the situation. I'm not going to come over to your house and start screaming in your face. There's not enough time. :)
I guess the courts will speak..
Anyway, I think it's somewhat parallel to the issue of gun legislation in the US (or: the other side of the coin: the erosion of the right to carry firearms.) I can see both sides of that story too. It's not black and white, because a lot of firearms are already out there. Some people feel the need to protect themselves.
But the issue of copyright erosion is _to me_ a lot more important, I can imagine people 400 years from now being deprived of works that otherwise would have been written or performed. That's *serious*. We are beings of culture, not fucking beasts of burden.
The gun debate doesn't simply carry as much weight with me, personally. I know it does to other people. I can't envision people 400 years from now in general being upset over whether person X or Y in the 21st century were allowed to carry firearms or not -- unless of course one of their ancestors were killed because he wasn't armed. Or perhaps because he _was_ armed. :) Then there will be a very pissed off free-floating ancestor-less spirit floating around somewhere poltergeisting and generally becoming a nuisance, requiring ghostbusters to come to the rescue.