YTSEJAM Digest 5651
Today's Topics:
1) napster
by robert cox <babyslaughter@yahoo.com>
2) Re: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
by OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org>
3) RE: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
by "Tim Detman" <td4235@ship.edu>
4) Re: Napster inc of puppets
by Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
5) Kansas Ytsejam Meeting
by "Mike and Susan Verstraete" <homewks@sound.net>
6) Re: *rude* fans at dt shows ...
by Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
7) Re: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
by OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org>
8) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650
by EvoReaper@aol.com
9) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650
by IAmClay777@aol.com
10) Sha-na-napster
by WB Henderson <wbhender@cs.millersville.edu>
11) Napster
by "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com>
12) Re: Napster
by Brad Plumb <bplumb@pi-r-squared.com>
13) Napster
by CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
14) RE: Napster
by "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org>
15) DC Jammers -- Trans-Siberian Orchestra Concert
by "Ryan Park" <rpark@space-dye.com>
16) Re: Napster
by Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
17) Re: Napster
by Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
18) Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650
by Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
19) Re: Napster
by Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
20) re: Napster
by Jim <jim@beracah.com>
21) Re: Napster
by Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: robert cox <babyslaughter@yahoo.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: napster
Message-ID: <20001024214512.55678.qmail@web9906.mail.yahoo.com>
ok, i just want to say that i support napster in that
it gets more music to more people,and i think that's
important, being somewhat of a musician as well as a
big fan of music in general, the only problem is the
massive music industry, if we came up with another way
for musicians to earn enough money to eat. i think if
musicians recorded their own music and set it up on
napster, sent it to the radio stations or whatever,
then started touring with other bands, they could get
some media attention, then other bands would start to
do the same, and they would make money from concert
ticket sales, merchandise, etc. and they wouldn't have
to pay the record companies cds would be obsolete, mp3
players would be just as good, maybe better, and
everyone would be happy except the people who are
getting rich for free, the record companies
there were my latest thoughts on napster
to stay on the right topic, dream theater rules!
-robert
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:12:36 -0400
From: OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
Message-ID: <39F61764.E4613937@wezl.org>
Napster solution...$10/month for subscriptions...legit cut goes to
artists...with 50million+ subscribers...even if half drop after the fees
are applied, that's still a crap-load of money...and it's advertising
potential for artists and record labels.
Michael Kizer wrote:
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:20:32 -0400
From: "Tim Detman" <td4235@ship.edu>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: RE: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
Message-ID: <NDBBJOAJEBLELDIGIBGMGEKOEIAA.td4235@ship.edu>
good idea, but what about the other 100 mp3/file trading programs? they
charge too?
its like they have to draw a line between bands that are tyring to get
recognition and sucessfull bands. bands trying to get recognition think
napster is great since they get to spread their music around for free, but
bands that are already sucessfull (<cough> metallica)don't need to spread
their music, they are already rich bastards.
what a pain in the ass, i'm glad i don't have to figure out a solution. the
argument that will never end...
> Napster solution...$10/month for subscriptions...legit cut goes to
> artists...with 50million+ subscribers...even if half drop after the fees
> are applied, that's still a crap-load of money...and it's advertising
> potential for artists and record labels.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 18:56:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Brian D Hayden <hayd0029@tc.umn.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Napster inc of puppets
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.20.0010241834280.10867-100000@garnet.tc.umn.edu>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Andrew Coutermarsh wrote:
> And here's a little food for thought, people: Do you realize that Mozart's
> Requiem (by the way, you can download a performance of my choir singing
> the Mozart Requiem last April -- with me singing the bass solo -- at
> http://cout.dhs.org/mozart_requiem/) was commissioned by a nobleman who
> then took the completed work (which was completed by Mozart's student,
> Sussmayr, after Mozart's death left it unfinished) and performed it for
> his wife's memorial service as his OWN work? Not to mention the fact that
> MANY of J.S. Bach's works have been stolen by other composers and used as
> their own.
>
> This is what happens without copyright legislation.
Completely incorrect and irrelevant. You're talking about PLAGIARISM,
which is completely different from copyright. IT's time for a history
lesson, people.
The modern idea of copyright basically started with Thomas Jefferson. The
basic notion was that ideas should be as widespread as possible in order
to create an enlightened and cultured society. Since they are not
physical possessions which only one person at a time can own, there would
be no association of "ownership" to an idea, though there is obviously an
originator who deserves credit. This is where copyright came
in. Copyright, as originally envisioned, ensured that for a certain
period, say 20 years, the originator of an idea - a writer, composer,
cartoonist, etc, would have exclusive right over how a work was
distributed; ie, over how money was made from the sale/licensing of said
idea or work.
My personal take is in line with this notion....I think there should be a
set time, at most up until the death of the artist, after which time the
work enters teh public domain for non-profit use and commercial use must
be approved by the artist or his/her heirs. This used to be a common idea,
and was part of teh "fair use doctrine" of US Copyright law, but this
doctrine was effectively castrated by teh DMCA, if not earlier. Did you
know that using any part of a copyrighted work online is now a federal
crime? If you put your thesis containing a quote from Harold Bloom on your
website, his publisher can and will have you rotting in jail and ruin your
family financially. Time Warner has been especially fun about this
one. This is what we get for sitting idly by while our government is
bought out by corporate empires. Four companies control almost every
aspect of media you will encounter today. Four. And take a guess who the
greatest contributors to american political campaigns are. Don't think too
hard.
When it comes down to it, the reasons that these great theories and high
ideals don't work in practice has a lot less to do with some college
student computer geek being an evil greedy selfish pig than it does with
the fact that large media conglomerates have been allowed to form near
monopolies which subvert good copyright law and artist's rights far more
than any mp3 listener could hope to do. I think any musician who is crying
about Napster and has ever entered voluntarily into the serf/slave system
imposed by a major label is a disgusting hypocrite who needs to look at
the big picture. It would be like Martin Luther King Jr being more worried
about Amos 'n' Andy than lynchings. Get real. WAke up. Fight the power.
-Brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:37:32 -0500
From: "Mike and Susan Verstraete" <homewks@sound.net>
To: "ytsejam" <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Kansas Ytsejam Meeting
Message-ID: <002901c03e1b$c42e9480$a25099d1@homewks>
Hey Kansas and Missouri Jammers,
We're planning another meeting of the "Kansas Jam" on Saturday November 4th
at 3:00 p.m. in Overland Park KS. (Kansas City suburb). Anyone interested
can either e-mail me or get more info at:
.
> http://members.nbci.com/sacredjade/ksjam.htm
Hope to see you there!
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 17:29:59 -0700
From: Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: *rude* fans at dt shows ...
Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20001024172943.096917c0@pop3.norton.antivirus>
At 09:53 AM 10/24/2000, you wrote:
>FYI, yes, it is the "real" Jens. There are several rather successful
>musicians on this list, such as Jens, Bernd... Um, that's all I can think
>of right now. :)
Don't forget Marcel!
~Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 20:53:07 -0400
From: OPeCKiE Productions <emoeglin@wezl.org>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
Message-ID: <39F62EF3.25050C4D@wezl.org>
Well Napster seems to be the only MAJOR player in the file trading
thang...I'm sure others would/could possibly follow suit, and one could
choose which service they like best...just like ISP's or magazines. Also
it would detour other file swapping services from taking the current
route for swapping files.
Tim Detman wrote:
>
> good idea, but what about the other 100 mp3/file trading programs? they
> charge too?
> its like they have to draw a line between bands that are tyring to get
> recognition and sucessfull bands. bands trying to get recognition think
> napster is great since they get to spread their music around for free, but
> bands that are already sucessfull (<cough> metallica)don't need to spread
> their music, they are already rich bastards.
> what a pain in the ass, i'm glad i don't have to figure out a solution. the
> argument that will never end...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 21:16:20 EDT
From: EvoReaper@aol.com
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650
Message-ID: <c2.23a59de.27278e64@aol.com>
<< so, to make a short story really long, vai & whitesnake did not
mesh personality wise. vai wrote "P&W" while with whitesnake, and during
the following tour, took every opportunity to plug his new solo effort
rather than discuss his current gig. personalities clashed, especially
between coverdale & vai, and vai left to pursue the very wonderful &
inspiring musical path that we all have come to love.
if any of this ever surfaces on rock & roll jepordy, you all will
know the answers now.
>>
Where the fuck did you get that useless pile of "information"?
That's the biggest amount of bullshit I've ever seen placed in one post of
all time.
Steve DID write all the guitar parts for "Slip Of The Tounge", he DID NOT
learn Adrian Vandenburg's guitar parts. The reason he didn't release P&W
sooner was because he had to write the Whitesnake album. He had jam tracks,
all the back-grounds for the songs, and he wrote all his guitar parts over
them. There were NO conflicts of personality AT ALL. And Steve was offered
the full time gig for Whitesnake, but declined the offer to pursue the solo
carreer. Also, songs from Passion And Warfare were written anywhere between
1975 and 1990. To say that Steve does not like to be mentioned with the
project is putting false words into his mouth. Steve had a great time with
the Whitesnake project and tour, but again, opted for a solo carreer. Please
find me the EXACT pages you found this information on, then I'll shove my
foot in my mouth, until then, do NOT state false accuisations on something
you know absolutely NOTHING about.
Warm Regards,
Andy
"Yeah, I'd say your my biggest fan I've met so far,
just don't shoot me, K?"
Steve Vai 11-23-99
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:24:37 EDT
From: IAmClay777@aol.com
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650
Message-ID: <65.b6cc532.27279e65@aol.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 12:09:49 -0500
> From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
> Subject: musicians on the list
> Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A01FC2651@ISDCRE00>
>
> Marcel is on here, too.
>
Yeah man, Lemur Voice kicks (kicked?) ass! Can't wait to hear Sun Caged.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:31:31 -0400
From: WB Henderson <wbhender@cs.millersville.edu>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Sha-na-napster
Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001024213249.00a6c0b0@cs.millersville.edu>
I went to a panel at the College Music Journal convention in NYC this
weekend called "And Then There Were Three". It was supposed to have been
about the consolidation of the major music companies into three (or four,
or five, depending on who you talk to) massive 'empires'. It
wasn't. Instead, the panel of record label goons spoke chiefly on
MP3s. The fear was blatant. They have no idea how they're going to make
the transfer into this new 'digital era'. And, certainly, there's both
positive and negative aspects to this, from our consumer-standpoints.
The basic problem for both the record companies and the artists producing
the pirated material, as far as I've gathered, is that the 'genie is out of
the bottle' -- MP3/future digital music proliferation is not going to stop,
no matter how many Napsters are shut down. If anything, it's only going to
get bigger as the 'net becomes further and further integrated into
day-to-day society (and digital soundfiles become better). If people
(generalizing here) can get something for free rather than by paying for
it, it doesn't make much sense to spend their money on it. It's not sound
economic thought to believe that any industry can dictate what the
consumers will want. While it works to a limited extent (MTV knows this),
it's the market that, in the end, decides what that industry will
produce. If the market wants free music, the market will (try to) get free
music. It's 100% capitalism, pure 'n brutal.
So the real question that the music industry should be asking is this: how
can they make the average Joe *want* to purchase music he can get over the
web for nothing? It's a tough question to answer. One thought I had was
to make CDs, well, better. Spiff up the packaging, load 'em with stuff
they can't get on the web, toss out the old-fashioned jewel cases and
replace them with something flashier. A better armored version of the
digipac cases might be something along the lines of what I'm talking about
(schematics not available upon request). This isn't an all encompassing
solution by any means, but it certainly couldn't hurt sales, assuming they
kept the prices the same (...which wouldn't happen (the idea's key
fault)). Somebody out there can think up some better ideas than this
one. Go on, what are you doing reading E-mail? Think of a plan!
Brian
[NP...Megadeth -- Capitol Punishment]
==============================================
WB Henderson [wbhender@cs.millersville.edu]
Automaton Hit Parade (prog-radio): http://ahp.musicpage.com/
Metalmaton Grit Patrol (metal-radio): http://www.wixq.com/metal/MGP/
WIXQ ON-LINE: http://www.wixq.com
WIXQ-METAL: http://www.wixq.com/metal/
==============================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:57:32 -0500
From: "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Napster
Message-ID: <003701c03e37$b4cf9400$8184e5cf@someone>
> From: "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org>
> I understand this isn't always the case, but when the RIAA themselves,
using
> numbers that they've compiled, say that CD sales and profits have improved
> every year since things like MP3s and Napster came along, I just can't
feel
> sorry for them.
The RIAA doesn't attribute any rise in CD sales to MP3 or Napster.
Otherwise, they'd never have brought the suit. You're invalidating your own
point by selectively choosing your piece of the whole picture. Do a little
research, and see what RIAA attributes the rise in sales to.
> I would guess that more money in CD sales means more money
> for the artists, so I can't feel sorry for them either.
It sounds like you have everything figured out.
> things that I legally own. Not everyone is out to steal music and put
> musicians out of work.
That's not the goal of stealing music... it's to save your own money.
But if it means that a few great musicians have to work crappy day jobs
because they spent their time and effort learning to make great MUSIC and
not learning how to use Napster, hey... if you want to make an omlette...
> From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
> Subject: RE: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
> Todd, your message is excellent and drives the point home that Napster is
> NOT Evil. Many of us will find new music samples and find new bands by
> using these songs to find what we like! Great post.
You guys may well do that. I believe you. But you are TOTALLY the
minority... I bet less than 5% of Napster users buy 80% of what they DL. I
bet there's a much higher percentage of Napster users who burn cds of the
MP3s they DL. I think Todd's post drives home the point that Napster users
don't want to believe that their actions may have consequences to the bands
they often think, in some misguided manner, that they're helping.
And thanks for quoting the whole messages, guys. Made for a stimulating
re-read.
> From: Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com>
> Subject: RE: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
I think you really nailed it all home, and you're not ME so maybe people
will be willing to hear it from you. Way to go Michael.
> From: "gloom gloom" <phairgirl@anada.net>
> Subject: i bear napster's children
> I agree with you on many wide points, mainly simply the way Napster works
in
> general. However, without Napster I would be bored out of my mind and my
> musical tastes might be quite different right now. Here's why:
I know you're not offering your "entertainment" as a reason why Napster
should be allowed to violate musician's rights. Well, maybe next time
you're bored we can go to the nearest arena and watch some Christians get
eaten by lions. Hey, it's fun, so it's okay!
> From: Brad Plumb <bplumb@pi-r-squared.com>
> Subject: Re: [ Symphony X, ] and Napster
> rights to, and making money off of them. I'm not so much concerned with
> whether the artist is losing profit here, but that someone else is making
> profit off their work (which is the same reason I hate the RIAA). This IS
> piracy, even by my narrow definition.
Theft = okay. Piracy = BAAAAD.
> However, with that said, I gotta be frank that I am somewhat of a believer
> in free distribution (sorry Jens).
People who subsist by means of exchanging money for food and shelter
tend not to believe so much in free distribution, since your belief requires
them to take advantage of the distribution of food at a soup kitchen or
applications at the McDonalds kitchen. If you're a programmer by trade,
what if your company decided to take your stock away, and not pay you for
services rendered, because they decide it's time for you to freely
distribute the goods and services they want. Oh, then it's wrong. I think
Jens will offer you the source code to his last album if you ask nicely
enough. That doesn't mean he's gonna bend over.
> niche. What Napster does is make niche music more accessible, so that more
> niche users than ever before can discover the same music
Whereby they can then burn their niche music to CD and never worry about
having to buy those hard to find niche cds! And the CD Prices these days!
Wow! Good thing people can afford to keep making music for my free
enjoyment. Bands, for the most part can make it BIG off of underground
methods like MP3... I mean, you just take the money that you have for being
a musician (which is, I can tell you, because I think I know, A LOT) and go
on one of those WORLD TOURS on your bus. Maybe you even wreck a hotel room.
The point is, Napster users are there to support you every step of the way.
They will continue to DL your music forever, or until they have to pay for
it.
You don't get out much if you really think many Napster users buy the
music they DL. They sure help out the companies that make blank cds,
though, so maybe it's okay in the end.
> From: Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
> Okay, how about this: "Why Napster is good IN THEORY." Napster was
> ideally designed as a method for people to share music of theirs in a
> convenient and broad-based fashion
Ideally as in "by coincidence, this PRODUCT turns out to be something
that would be ideally suited for intentionally spreading My (musician X's)
music" Not ideally as in "one of our ideals in creating this PRODUCT is to
help no name musicians." My brother used to IRC with the guys who made
Napster (and he said they were LaM3Rz) and he certainly believes they did it
as a means of trading MP3s without having to search the web or wait around
for DCC to finish. The artists' rights were never really a consideration...
they knew they were doing it to avoid paying for cds.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:18:18 +0000
From: Brad Plumb <bplumb@pi-r-squared.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <2.2.32.20001024231818.00da61e4@pi-r-squared.com>
>
> Theft = okay. Piracy = BAAAAD.
>
By my admittedly selfish and hyppocritical definition: yep ;) It's when
money is exchanged during all of this that I have a problem.
I guess I just don't see it as theft, and never will. But I do have a
problem when money is involved
>> However, with that said, I gotta be frank that I am somewhat of a believer
>> in free distribution (sorry Jens).
>
> People who subsist by means of exchanging money for food and shelter
>tend not to believe so much in free distribution, since your belief requires
>them to take advantage of the distribution of food at a soup kitchen or
>applications at the McDonalds kitchen. If you're a programmer by trade,
>what if your company decided to take your stock away, and not pay you for
>services rendered, because they decide it's time for you to freely
>distribute the goods and services they want. Oh, then it's wrong. I think
>Jens will offer you the source code to his last album if you ask nicely
>enough. That doesn't mean he's gonna bend over.
I said somewhat. I do believe in artists getting compensated for what they
do, but once you enter into a record contract there's a certain amont of
public domain use that's to be expected. Like I said earlier, the line, imo,
should be drawn when someone is actually going to be making a profit (ie if
someone is selling your music, or wanting to use it in a
commercial/movie/game/etc). Whatever, we're never going to agree on this,
and you'll just make me out to look like a completely fool (which is probly
somewhat true).
>
>> niche. What Napster does is make niche music more accessible, so that more
>> niche users than ever before can discover the same music
>
> Whereby they can then burn their niche music to CD and never worry about
>having to buy those hard to find niche cds! And the CD Prices these days!
>Wow! Good thing people can afford to keep making music for my free
>enjoyment. Bands, for the most part can make it BIG off of underground
>methods like MP3... I mean, you just take the money that you have for being
>a musician (which is, I can tell you, because I think I know, A LOT) and go
>on one of those WORLD TOURS on your bus. Maybe you even wreck a hotel room.
>The point is, Napster users are there to support you every step of the way.
>They will continue to DL your music forever, or until they have to pay for
>it.
> You don't get out much if you really think many Napster users buy the
>music they DL. They sure help out the companies that make blank cds,
>though, so maybe it's okay in the end.
My point here was that the people downloading niche music, are not the
people burning cd's. The people burning cd's are generally 15 year old kids
with a bunch of scripts in front of them trying to make a cheap profit, and
would have no use for a band like say... DT.
As for me (and my mp3 collection is relatively small and scattered compared
to most people) they're not really losing anything because I didn't buy cd's
BEFORE Napster was around. I never buy ANYTHING (I'm a college student, what
can I say?). This doesn't mean I pirate everything, it just means I have
nothing. The only difference between me pre and post napster is: now I have
music to listen to. And on the offchance that someone is going to buy me a
gift for Christmas or Birthday or whatever nonsense, I usually ask for a cd.
Or sometimes I do get in a few extra dollars. Either way, the first thing
I'm getting out of it is a cd, and more likely than not, it's some band that
I've downloaded a few mp3's from. As far as burning cd's... I don't have a
burner, or money for blank cd's, or a car to drive to the store to buy them,
or a license to drive the car with ;) I'll shutup now.
Palpatine
www.pi-r-squared.com/brad/
Co Founder of NARF: The North Houston Anime Resistance Force, and Historian
of Anime-no-kai
"There is nothing more pragmatic than idealism" -David Mamet
"With all its luck and all its danger
The war is dragging on a bit
Another hundred years or longer
The Common man won't benefit.
Filthy his food, no soap to shave him
The regiment steals half his pay.
But still a miracle may save him:
Tomorrow is another day!
The new year's come. The watchmen shout.
The thaw sets in. The dead remain.
Wherever life has not died out
It staggers to its feet again."
-Bertolt Brecht. Mother Courage and her Children
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:27:24 +0200
From: CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
To: Ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Napster
Message-ID: <39F61ADC.981DCD22@mol.com.mk>
Ummm, sorry if it sounds dumb, but can someone tell me how Napster makes
money?
I downloaded bunch of stuff so far and I really don't see how Napster
got even 1 cent of my money.
P.S. For those who could recognize the silent genious names Ronie Stolt
in TransAtlantic, go check Flower Kings!!! These guys are AMAZING, I
thought I will never say someone is more melodical than Spock's beard.
:)
Thanx to Napster I downloaded few albums of FK, and in 1 month I'll own
2 original official CDs of them! Why? Because I liked those mp3s.
No matter what happens, or who and why and how is making money, I'm
hoping the concept of Napster's work will remain forever - free
distribution of music.
Niacin - Purple Rain (live) - another goldie coming out of the blue thru
Napster. Where the hell does this yune came from??? Isn't on any
release.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 23:41:38 -0500
From: "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: RE: Napster
Message-ID: <025d01c03e3d$dd399700$3464a8c0@klindt.org>
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. I did want to make one remark about the RIAA and the
increase in revenue. There are many causes to the CD sales and profits
being up. Jens touched on a couple of those. With the economy the way it
is, I imagine sales and profits are up for a lot of things. Certainly the
RIAA isn't going to come out and say that MP3s have helped boost their sales
but they want to outlaw them anyway. But just because the RIAA doesn't
accredit MP3s doesn't mean they didn't have a positive affect, it just means
the RIAA won't acknowledge it. I can immediately point to at least 50 CDs
in my collection that I would have never bought had I not been able to
listen to a couple of MP3s first. Stratovarius and Symphony X are a couple
of examples of this.
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.
tk
-----Original Message-----
]From: ytsejam@torchsong.com [mailto:ytsejam@torchsong.com]On Behalf Of
Chris Ptacek
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:02 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Napster
> From: "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org>
> I understand this isn't always the case, but when the RIAA themselves,
using
> numbers that they've compiled, say that CD sales and profits have improved
> every year since things like MP3s and Napster came along, I just can't
feel
> sorry for them.
The RIAA doesn't attribute any rise in CD sales to MP3 or Napster.
Otherwise, they'd never have brought the suit. You're invalidating your own
point by selectively choosing your piece of the whole picture. Do a little
research, and see what RIAA attributes the rise in sales to.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 01:03:06 -0400
From: "Ryan Park" <rpark@space-dye.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: DC Jammers -- Trans-Siberian Orchestra Concert
Message-ID: <NDBBKMFPMKNHENPACFDDGENHCHAA.rpark@space-dye.com>
TSO will be playing at Constitution Hall on Friday, December 23. Tickets
are $25-33 via TicketBastard. I saw them last year in Chicago with four
friends. Only one of my friends was familiar with the music, but they all
thought it was the best show they had ever seen. I wasn't *quite* that
impressed, but it came VERY close.
So, anyone going?
Ryan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:06:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010250204110.47139-100000@oz.plymouth.edu>
On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, CyberDuke wrote:
> Ummm, sorry if it sounds dumb, but can someone tell me how Napster
> makes money? I downloaded bunch of stuff so far and I really don't
> see how Napster got even 1 cent of my money.
Because when people visit the Napster website, Napster gets money for all
those ad banners that show on their web pages, whether by ad viewing or by
clicking on a banner ad, it doesn't matter.. I would also imagine that
some bands (like the ones they feature in the program when you first log
on) actually PAY the guys at Napster to showcase their music.
You'd be surprised at how a web-based company can make money.
-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Coutermarsh
a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu
http://cout.dhs.org/
Cloak on IRC
ICQ: 2513441
-------------------------------------------------
FOR SALE: One parachute, used but unopened. One
small stain. Going VERY cheap.
-------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:55:09 +0000
From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <39F6ADFD.D20913CF@picsel.com>
Chris Ptacek wrote:
> People who subsist by means of exchanging money for food and shelter
> tend not to believe so much in free distribution,
I have discovered a cool way to get free food and shelter: become a
farmer. When you get hungry, you can just eat a cow. And when it starts to
rain, you can just hide underneath another cow.
-- Graham Borland Picsel Technologies Ltd graham@picsel.com Glasgow, Scotland------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:20:30 -0700 From: Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: YTSEJAM digest 5650 Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20001025061843.096adc98@pop3.norton.antivirus>
> >Yeah man, Lemur Voice kicks (kicked?) ass! Can't wait to hear Sun Caged.
Judging from the four tracks at MP3.com, I didn't like the death growling too much, but I'll give it another chance when the final version comes out. Post-production and effects have a big influence on my tolerance for death growls.
~Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 06:40:01 -0700 From: Chris Oates <aspect-lists@tinagh.org> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Napster Message-ID: <4.3.1.2.20001025062632.09694688@pop3.norton.antivirus>
>I have discovered a cool way to get free food and shelter: become a >farmer. When you get hungry, you can just eat a cow. And when it starts to >rain, you can just hide underneath another cow.
Shouldn't that be a sheep, Mr Scotsman? ;)
And now for some random thoughts.
Free exposure to obscure/new music is good. People downloading whole albums and never paying for them is bad. I think most people agree.
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. Artists and labels lose no money from these people because they would never make money from them. They would rather give their money to Ricoh and Fry's Electronics than Warner and Musicland.
Programs like Napster (to exclude any Napster-specific complains, such as the ones raised in Jens' web page) perform both a good service and a bad one. Do we conclude that they are all bad because some people can do bad things with them? Or do we allow a (potentially unavoidable) bad situation because they do good for some people? You can quote (or more likely make up) percentages, figures and statistics all you like, but it is a matter of personal opinion in the end. (kinda like gun control?)
Does free MP3 distribution encourage more people to buy CDs that they would otherwise never know about, or does it encourage more people to not buy CDs since they can get them for free? Is this the critical question? Can we even answer it?
WMA files, in terms of quality to space ratio, kick ass all over MP3s. it must burn people up when Microsoft does something right...
Disclaimer: I have never used Napster or any similar program. I have downloaded a few "illegal" MP3 files, and have bought CDs based upon that. On the other hand, two of my local record stores have Progressive Rock sections, and one has a Progressive Metal section, so I don't really need MP3 files to get exposure to the cool bands anymore.
~Chris
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 09:32:32 -0500 From: Jim <jim@beracah.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: re: Napster Message-ID: <39F6EF00.56C3696A@beracah.com>
Greetings all!
I just wanted to throw a couple questions into the whole Napster discussion since we have such a diverse crowd here on the Jam, I thought I would get some great opinions.
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!
I see the 2 main points of argument being: Easy access/distribution of new bands and/or music VERSUS Copyright law. Would you agree? Based on this, a couple questions come to mind.
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.
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?
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?"
I have worked for both big label, national acts, and local, struggling cover bands, and everything in between. Right now that band I work for is an all-original, progressive rock band with 3 independant CD's, and one on the way. They would have nothing to lose if thier songs became popular on Napster, in fact, the gain in exposure alone would well be worth it. I think this is the positive aspect of Napster. I don't see any evidence of loss of revenue to anyone. In fact, a local, independantly owned music chain has announced that thier sales have gone up every year that they have been in business, and that they have seen many situations where someone comes in and says: "I downloaded this cool MP3, I need the CD!"
I understand your postion Jens, but I guess I need more convincing that it's a bad thing.
Jim (aka Roadie)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 08:54:29 -0700 From: Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: Napster Message-ID: <5.0.0.25.0.20001025084331.009ffdc0@mail.phoenixdsl.com>
At 09:33 PM 10/24/00 -0700, you wrote: >My point here was that the people downloading niche music, are not the >people burning cd's. The people burning cd's are generally 15 year old kids >with a bunch of scripts in front of them trying to make a cheap profit, and >would have no use for a band like say... DT.
I would tend to disagree that this is limited to 15 years... I have overheard conversations with people from college age to mid-forties that basically said the same thing, "Nah, I never buy CDs anymore, it's not worth it... I'll just download it". I have heard this same sentiment several times almost verbatim. What really kills me, is that the old people I heard this from are supposedly professionals in the software industry (oh yeah, they also see nothing wrong with bootlegging loads of software either... talk about shooting their left foot to buy bullets to shoot their right foot)
I guess the main sentiment that I perceive from the population in general is "Hey, if it is easy to get something for free, why bother paying for it". If you had to painstakingly encode the 1s and 0s that make up an MP3 by hand using Notepad(tm), I bet there wouldn't be as many people doing it. Oh yeah, there'd still be the handful of people who never believe in buying anything, but those are the only ones that really fall into the category that people always mention "but people who download MP3s and copy software, don't ever buy anything anyway, so they don't affect sales".
Maybe I am just pissed off because I know people who have quit the music business because they kept getting screwed over, and/or had to concentrate on another line of work to make ends meat.
~Michael Kizer < mike@ivorygate.com > < ICQ # 2070538 > "Enter ivory gates through midnight skies..." ~ http://www.ivorygate.com >>> Fates Warning ~ Island In The Stream <<< >>> Dream Theater and Kevin Moore "Unofficial" Song Books <<< >>> Underground Internet Radio at: http://www.ytseradio.com <<<
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5651 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:07:42 EST