YTSEJAM digest 5771

From: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Date: Fri Feb 16 2001 - 15:26:36 EST

Next message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 5769"

Previous message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 5782"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

YTSEJAM Digest 5771

Today's Topics:

1) napster
by rob denni <drummerdream@yahoo.com>
 2) RE: Heck with Napster....go AudioGalaxy!
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
 3) RE: My $.02 on Napster
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
 4) Yappity yap
by "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com>
 5) Mortgage Rates DROPPED! Act Now and Save!!
by Great-Loan-Rates@ee7ee.fsnet.co.uk
 6) Re: question for you napster haters
by Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
 7) re: replicators...
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
 8) The NPASTER Question
by "Steve Johnson" <Steve.Johnson@MSLpr.com>
 9) Napster - Gun maker analogy
by "Steve Johnson" <Steve.Johnson@MSLpr.com>
10) RE: A Short Bogie Response
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
11) where has ptacek been anyway?
by Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net>
12) Re: Napster - Gun maker analogy
by "Dr. Mosh" <drkhoe@xinu.irv.concentric.net>
13) Napster versus Post Office and Hatch (short one, I promise!)
by Jens Johansson <jens+@panix.com>
14) RE: Hatch (short one, I promise!)
by "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
15) %#$#^!! Napster, of course
by "Paul Evans" <evansp3@corp.earthlink.net>
16) RE: Napster - Gun maker analogy
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
17) RE: Napster - Gun maker analogy
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
18) Re: %#$#^!! Napster, of course
by "Dr. Mosh" <drkhoe@xinu.irv.concentric.net>
19) Freak English
by CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
20) Napsteriada
by CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk>
21) RE: %#$#^!! Napster, of course
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 03:56:14 -0800 (PST)
From: rob denni <drummerdream@yahoo.com>
To: ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: napster
Message-ID: <20010216115614.73616.qmail@web10712.mail.yahoo.com>

You can get rid of napster and all the other related
sites, but its not gonna stop people from saying to
there friends "Hey dude, thats a cool disc, let me
burn a copy of it".

=====
Rob Denni
1657-B Elm Ct.
Ft. Gordon, GA 30905
(706) 790-8937
Go visit my website! http://home.talkcity.com/HeadbangersHwy/funkygroove/index.html

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 06:28:58 -0600
From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
Subject: RE: Heck with Napster....go AudioGalaxy!
Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D1895@ISDCRE00>

I'm loving AudioGalaxy. It's just like Napster in that you can grab files.
The download satellite works from any PC because you can leave your computer
logged in at home and from any other PC login to the AudioGalaxy web page
and search for files you want, then click on "send to satellite" and it will
download on your PC at home. Right there on the web page you can check the
status of what files are queued and what files are downloading. Great
stuff. It's a shame that Napster may go away, but AudioGalaxy is so much
better.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul W. Cashman [SMTP:pellaz@atl.mediaone.net]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 4:33 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Heck with Napster....
>
>
> Heck with the Napster debate..... It's these people who post
>
> "Well-said, _________!"
>
> ..and then quote the whole rest of the original message -- 70 lines
> worth! -- who pose the real threat to society...or at least, those of us
> who read the Jam in digest-mode....
>
>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:26:46 -0600
From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Cc: "'shadow_majesty@hotmail.com'" <shadow_majesty@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: My $.02 on Napster
Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D18A1@ISDCRE00>

You are pretty mis-informed there. Napster doesn't keep ANYTHING on their
site or servers. The mp3 files are on USER'S hard drives around the world.
All Napster did was provide the connection between individuals. Please get
informed before making silly statements like that. Ignorance is bliss.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dark Majesty [SMTP:shadow_majesty@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:41 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: My $.02 on Napster
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 at 15:59:59 -0800 (PST),
> "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com> wrote:
>
> >>Sure, the source of the leak used Napster as a means to
> distribute the media. But Napster themselves did not actively
> participate in the distrubtion of that song.<<
>
> But they did keep it on their site, or server, or whatever Napster is, so
> they were still responsible for the distribution.
>
> >>On the basis of your argument against Napster, does that mean that every
> time someone uses a gun to kill someone else, you think the gun
> manufacturer should be sued?<<
>
> It's 5 in the morning, and I don't really see how this is related to my
> argument at all.
>
> >>Sure, these might be big
> "if"s, but you also seem to be one who would be pro-Napster if it wasn't
> abused. Correct?<<
>
> Um, did you catch ANY of my post? I am entirely opposed to Napster, and
> all
> other forms of downloading songs with intent of burning them on to CDs or
> keeping them permanently on your hard drive, as well as burning CDs at
> all.
> Even if it wasn't abused, which I seriously doubt could happen in our
> beautifully moral-lacking society, I would be against it.
>
> --96
>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:41:14 -0600
From: "Chris Ptacek" <someone@digitalrodent.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Yappity yap
Message-ID: <000e01c0981e$275b2760$4cb5fea9@madstation>

> From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
> Subject: RE: My $.02 on Napster

> But Napster themselves did not actively
> participate in the distrubtion of that song.
>
> On the basis of your argument against Napster, does that mean that every
> time someone uses a gun to kill someone else, you think the gun
> manufacturer should be sued?

Remind me again... which court was it that just denied this argument,
hopefully putting an end to the Napster days? :)

> LOL!!!!!!!! Oh man, there have been numerous debates like this one over
the
> years here in the jam! Gotta watch what you write, because someone is
gonna
> notice a little crack here and there, and is gonna blow the hell out of
it!!

I know. That's what I get for a smart ass. I was just being pedantic,
because I was angry. :) Wasn't a whole lot of sense involved.

> From: "Niklas Thorpenberg" <031-7049409@telia.com>
> Subject: question for you napster haters

> Why are some of you getting so upset about this whole Napster thing? I
> mean, no one has been able to prove that Napster hurts either musicians
> or record companies.

You can't prove that someone would have bought your album. You can only
prove that someone HAS your album, and didn't pay for it. Napster takes
away your choice, as a musician, to release or not release your music for
free.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 23:57:40 -0800
From: Great-Loan-Rates@ee7ee.fsnet.co.uk
To: <Great-Loan-Rates@ee7ee.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Mortgage Rates DROPPED! Act Now and Save!!
Message-ID: <00004fd722ca$00007942$000053ae@x145>

<html>

<head>
<title>Mortgage companies make you wait</title>
<meta name=3D"GENERATOR" content=3D"Microsoft FrontPage 3.0">
</head>

Mortgage companies
make you wait...They Demand to Interview you... 
They Intimidate you...They Humiliate you... 
And All of That is While They Decide If They Even Want to Do Business With=
You...

We Turn the Tables on Them...=
 
Now, You're In Charge

Just Fill Out Our Simple Form and They Will =
Have to Compete
For Your Business... 
<a href=3D"http://64.19.213.78/homeloans"><big>CLICK HERE FOR FORM=
</big></a>
<div align=3D"center"><center>

<table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"1" width=3D"68%" height=3D"1">
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"50%" height=3D"1" valign=3D"middle">We have
 hundreds of loan programs, including<blockquote>
 <blockquote>
 <ul>
 <li>purchase loans
 </li>
 <li>refinance</b=
> </li>
 <li>debt consoli=
dation </li>
 <li>home impro=
vement  </li>
 <li>second mortg=
ages </li>
 <li>no income ve=
rification </li>
 </ul>
 </blockquote>
 </blockquote>
 You will often be contacted with an=
offer the very same
 day you fill out the form!
  </td>
 <td width=3D"50%" height=3D"1"><div align=3D"center"><center><table bo=
rder=3D"1" cellspacing=3D"1"
 width=3D"70%" height=3D"151">
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"100%" height=3D"58" colspan=3D"3" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"=
><font
 color=3D"#0000FF"><big>National Average Mortgage Rates</st=
rong></big></td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"36%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">Program</td>
 <td width=3D"34%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">Rates</td>
 <td width=3D"30%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">Points</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"36%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">30
 Yr Firm</td>
 <td width=3D"34%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">7.22%</td>
 <td width=3D"30%" height=3D"21" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">0.60%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"36%" height=3D"9" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">15 Yr
 Firm</td>
 <td width=3D"34%" height=3D"9" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">6.80%</td>
 <td width=3D"30%" height=3D"9" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">0.55%</td>
 </tr>
 <tr>
 <td width=3D"36%" height=3D"8" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">1 Yr
 Arm</td>
 <td width=3D"34%" height=3D"8" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">6.54%</td>
 <td width=3D"30%" height=3D"8" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">0.59%</td>
 </tr>
 </table>
 </center></div><big>Just Look at Today's R=
ates!</big>
 You can save Thousands Of Dollars=
 over the
 course of your loan with just a 1/4 of 1% Drop in your rate! </=
td>
 </tr>
</table>
</center></div>

<a href=3D"http://64.19.213.78/homeloans"><big><big>CLICK HERE FOR FORM</big></bi=
g></a>

To be Removed,=
reply with the word
Remove in Subject Line!
</body>
</html>

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:08:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrew Coutermarsh <a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: question for you napster haters
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0102161003190.66514-100000@oz.plymouth.edu>

On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Niklas Thorpenberg wrote:

> Why are some of you getting so upset about this whole Napster thing? I
> = mean, no one has been able to prove that Napster hurts either
> musicians = or record companies.

Well, the proof I can offer lies in the testimony of certain college
students. I know of several people who say that they will never buy a CD
if they can just download it. I would say that the overwhelming opinion
of college-level Napster users is that they can find it online and CDs are
so expensive... you can draw the conclusion.

It's not empirical data, but it's close enough. If that's the opinion on
this college campus, then you can basically assume that other college
campuses around the country/world are the same. Also, since the college
demographic (especially college FEMALES) are the ones that the record
companies try to cater to the most, then it's a fact that if these same
students aren't buying albums, then the labels are losing out.

-------------------------------------------------
Andrew Coutermarsh
a_couter@mail.plymouth.edu
http://cout.dhs.org/
-------------------------------------------------
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not
for you.
-------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:13:14 -0600
From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com>
To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: re: replicators...
Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D18AE@ISDCRE00>

Just the small curlies, right? ;)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Mosh [SMTP:drkhoe@xinu.irv.concentric.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 6:35 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: Napster + replicators...
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 03:03:32PM -0800, Steve Chew wrote:
> >
> > Anyway, it will be really interesting in the future when you
> > want to borrow your neighbor's lawnmower and instead he tells you to
> > just Napster over the CAD plans and print your own. :-) It's going
> > to have serious implications for personal property. OK, that's
> > a *long* way off, if it ever happens, but damn it's cool to think
> > about.
>
> Nah, that's nothing, it'll be interesting when we have Clonester.
> "Hmm... my neighbor has a nice looking wife, I just need a lock
> of hair..."
>
> -The Doc

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:12:34 -0500
From: "Steve Johnson" <Steve.Johnson@MSLpr.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: The NPASTER Question
Message-ID: <sa8cfd25.075@mail.macmanus.com>

I don't care if a subscriber is DLing one song or an entire album...the =
debate for me is less "is this affecting album sales?" and more, DID THE =
ARTIST CONDONE/AGREE TO HIS?HER MUSIC BEING FREELY DISTRIBUTED. Even =
outside of a label contract, in the end there are real regulations and =
copyright laws applicable. If the artist wants to enforce them, they have =
that right and it should be preserved. Would I want MY band on Napster? =
Hell yes! Do a number of other artists? Yes. But the ones who don't =
should have their livelihoods and intellectual property rights protected. =
Bottom line...

Steve

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:26:49 -0500
From: "Steve Johnson" <Steve.Johnson@MSLpr.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Napster - Gun maker analogy
Message-ID: <sa8d0073.071@mail.macmanus.com>

What a bunch of shit that arguement is (suing Napster is like suing gun =
makers for muders committed with their weapons)...Gun makers make product =
for legal use only (licensed hunting, use by governmental organizations, =
etc.). No gun manufacturer makes a product specifically for criminal =
murder (vs. a war). Napster's entire product is based on explictly =
assisting in the illegal (by letter of law and finding by courts) =
distribution of copyrighted property. Napster doesn't hold and distribute =
the material, but it (using your analogy) becomes the party supplying the =
gun to the murderer....these people are charged and usually sentenced for =
breaking the law. THERE'S a correct analogy.

As mentioned...the whole argument comes down to distribution without =
permission. I think too many people on this list keep missing that =
primary and fundamental point. With consent, Napster is all good. =
Without it, it is illegal.

Steve

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:16:45 -0500
From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: RE: A Short Bogie Response
Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C61F44@arcadia.schliz.com>

>From: Chris Ptacek [mailto:someone@digitalrodent.com]
>Subject: A Short Bogie Response

>I'm not going to clutter up the jam and go point by point through=20
>Bogie's mail, because I know that his posts were long... and you all=20
>know how long my full response will be. I will start by offering=20
>an apology to Chris/Corvin, because I WAS being a smart ass. But I=20
>stand by my argument totally. I tend to actually get UPSET when I=20
>see certain pro-napster arguments. We're all human. You don't like=20
>it, tough. :) Bogie: I will be mailing you personally, to address=20
>this more fully.

Well, I'm glad you were able to see you were a bit harsh to Chris/Corvin
in your original post. I don't expect you to not stand by your
argument. Just as you get upset when you see certain pro-Napster
arguments, I get as upset when I see certain anti-Napster arguments,
like those who believe Napster has servers all over the nation from
which they allow MP3s to be downloaded.

> I hate it when you, and other people decide who does and who=20
>doesn't "need the money." Nick, do you believe that one hit wonders=20
>make more money per cd than Britney Spears? Do you believe that they=20
>make more money per album that Dream Theater? Most one hit wonders=20
>are on major labels, and the hits come from debut albums. Those=20
>folks are not making much, if any money per disc. The bottom line is=20
>YOU don't have the right to say who does and who doesn't deserve to be=20
>paid for their work. Do I have the right to tell you you don't=20
>deserve to be paid for your computer work? No. Why do you have the=20
>right to say who should get paid for their MUSIC work? It's a job.
>It's a shit paying job.

I don't believe my argument ever mentioned anything about who I think
does and doesn't need the money, but since you're asking me what I think
about this, I guess I'll answer. First of all, I tend to think of
Britney Spears as a one-hit wonder. :) She sort of falls into that
grey "one to two album" wonder area which in 10 years looks like
One-Hit-Wonderland. (Remember NKOTB?) But, to answer your question, of
course one hit wonders make little to no money off their debut (and
final) album WHEN THEY RECORD IT. That is, some bands are paid up front
X amount of dollars. One hit wonders, since they are making their debut
usually get ripped off up front. They haven't put the proof in their
pudding yet. However, they do make an incredible amount from the
radioplay and sales of their single that is the one hit, and they still
get money from sales of the CD. What I was arguing was that the typical
use of Napster hurts one-hit wonders more because in most cases people
have a hard time buying a CD for just one song 10 years after it was the
most popular song on the radio for couple months. Since their CDs lack
value on a whole, they are less attractive to the buyer long after their
popularity has dwindled. =20

To address your other question, do I have the right to say who does and
who doesn't deserve to be paid for their work? You're damn right I do.
At least that's what I've been told as a citizen of the United States.
Unless they've thrown in an amendment recently which takes away the
freedom of speech, I think I have that right. :) You also have the
right to tell me that I don't deserve to be paid for my work. Actually
getting someone to listen and act upon what you think is totally
different than what you are asking however. Alas, I never said a word
about who I think deserves to get paid in the music industry. If you
caught the general idea of the end of my argument, you can tell I'm
basically anti-Big-5. I'm pro-musician and
pro-whatever-technology-it-takes-to-get-the-power-to-the-musicians. Am
I pro-Napster? I am 100% pro-Napster if people use it for its goodness.
I qualify Napster's good qualities as it being used for evaluation of a
song/album/whatever to help a listener decide if they want to buy the
CD. I am 100% anti-Napster if someone is using it to deliberately never
buy the music they listen to. =20

In regards to you not believing I've done my research, I came up with
those seemingly hypothetical numbers as I was looking at 4 reports about
album sales and Napster surveys. I totally generalized the results I
found into numbers I could work with and others could understand while
quickly scanning over my long post. I'll send you those results in
private Chris because I know you'll be interested. :) They aren't
random, meaningless, and non sequitur. If you read the end of my
argument, you see that I'm arguing that this Napster battle has nothing
to do with money as much as the Big 5 would like you to believe. I put
those numbers together quickly to get to that point. The Big 5 is
completely aware that they're beginning to lose control over what they
force the masses to listen to. =20

I don't deny that Napster needs to be reworked. But the technology
behind how it works is beautiful, and if there is some way artists can
control their involvement with whatever The Next Big Thing is and if
there is some way that we can get rid of the abusers of this technology,
I will be behind it 100%. I want to make it clear that I'm not
pro-Napster/whatever 100% yet. And in some Bizarro world, I think
that's what you're arguing too Chris. There are issues to be dealt with
and when those issues are resolved, I hope we have some system where we
can evaluate music for free AND decide what we want to evaluate. It
would be a shame to have a system where we have to pay to think for
ourselves. =20

-Bogie

-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--
nick bogovich
http://www.schliz.com/
you have been schlizzed
-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:43:44 -0500
From: Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: where has ptacek been anyway?
Message-ID: <3A8D58C0.B1957F35@optonline.com>

cuz it was getting boring!

>And in the end, that's what it's all about. A musician should be able
>to CHOOSE his path, and CHOOSE what he wants to give
>away, and what he wants
>to save, in hopes of making a living.

Very true! It's your right, and you don't even need a reason. Which is
good - because so far the only one you've presented is the record sales
thing. And as we all know that ain't gonna help you much. I don't even
know if solid proof EXISTS to favor that point, which is why I think
what you said above makes more sense. It shouldn't matter.

One good reason, if they must be demanded, is one that lars presented in
his little 5th grade essay to congress that started it all. He was
pissed that their new album was released before they wanted it to be,
before they had fully completed it and gotten it just right. That truly
would piss me off. that's fucked up.

BTW, did anyone see lars on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? He's sitting
there with regis, and regis is like, "so how do you like our music?" and
lars just kind of deadpans "yeah, where'd you get it anyway? napster?"
I laughed.

josh

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:39:46 -0800
From: "Dr. Mosh" <drkhoe@xinu.irv.concentric.net>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: Napster - Gun maker analogy
Message-ID: <20010216103946.A15700@xinu.irv.concentric.net>

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 07:39:13AM -0800, Steve Johnson wrote:
>
> What a bunch of shit that arguement is (suing Napster is like suing gun =
> makers for muders committed with their weapons)...Gun makers make product =
> for legal use only (licensed hunting, use by governmental organizations, =
> etc.). No gun manufacturer makes a product specifically for criminal =
> murder (vs. a war). Napster's entire product is based on explictly =
> assisting in the illegal (by letter of law and finding by courts) =
> distribution of copyrighted property. Napster doesn't hold and distribute =
> the material, but it (using your analogy) becomes the party supplying the =
> gun to the murderer....these people are charged and usually sentenced for =
> breaking the law. THERE'S a correct analogy.

Uh, no... Napster's default media is mp3, but that does not mean it was
made to distribute illegal mp3s. What makes mp3s illegal in the first place?
It's not from a technical standpoint. It's NOT a perfect digital copy of
the song originally. I can understand if everyone was downloading 44.1khz
PCM audio WAV files and then burning them to CD's. Or people were downloading
pure ISO's of CDs... but mp3s themselves aren't illegal. Napster provides
a method of transport and a supported medium, how you use that medium depends
upon you, if I made a bunch of music myself and transported them by napster, that's
a perfectly legitimate use, whos to say they didn't mean it for that?

You're about as correct as a cuban preaching dictatorship.

-The Doc

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 13:46:46 -0500
From: Jens Johansson <jens+@panix.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Napster versus Post Office and Hatch (short one, I promise!)
Message-ID: <3.0.3.32.20010216134646.03890d80@localhost>

On 03:53 2001/02/16 -0800, you wrote:

> They provide a distribution mechanism, just like the Royal Mail in the
> UK, or the US Postal Service (whatever it's called) provide a way for
> you to physically distribute stolen CDs or illegal material if you
> choose to. That doesn't make them responsible for it.

This is true.

By the way, I just wanted to point out that postal services all over the world currently _do_ impose severe restrictions on what you can put in the mail. And there are numerous safeguards and stiff penalties for lawbreakers.

If I were to make wild analogies myself, Napster is (was) more akin to a machine that could teleport a duplicate of a kilo of heroin across a national border over the internet. You invent something like that and see how long it would take for its use to be restricted. :)

> I find that most people who are opposed to Napster simply have no clue
> about how it works.

That may be. But I doubt it can be said for the RIAA legal team or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Also, FWIW, US Senator Orrin Hatch has joined the fray (defending Napster):

http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=23618&pod_id=9

--- Jens. <jens+@panix.com> (http://www.panix.com/~jens/)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:59:36 -0600 From: "Souter, Jan-Michael" <JSouter@healthaxis.com> To: "'ytsejam@torchsong.com'" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Hatch (short one, I promise!) Message-ID: <74ACE5A6CB89D3119E6F00609720274A037D18BB@ISDCRE00>

Well well well.... it's about time that old son-of-a-bitch Hatch finally got his head screwed on RIGHT.... He's always been a pain in the past jumping on issues that he had no clue on. He's defending Napster? Atta-Boy ! Finally.

>>Also, FWIW, US Senator Orrin Hatch has joined the fray (defending Napster):

>> http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=23618&pod_id=9

--- >>Jens. <jens+@panix.com> (http://www.panix.com/~jens/)

> -----Original Message----- > From: Jens Johansson [SMTP:jens+@panix.com] > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:00 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: Napster versus Post Office and Hatch (short one, I promise!) > > >

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:03:27 -0800 From: "Paul Evans" <evansp3@corp.earthlink.net> To: "ytsejam" <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: %#$#^!! Napster, of course Message-ID: <026c01c0984b$253085c0$305ad9cf@it.earthlink.net>

One of our illustrious Grahams wrote:

>I find that most people who are opposed to Napster simply have no clue >about how it works.

I find that most pro-napster people bring this up all the time (Nick especially), as if it somehow changes the fact that due to Napster's service (and services like it) being available, artists have lost control of the distribution of their music. That's the bottom line.

Sheesh. Give it up, Napster defenders. For whatever your reasons, you're defending the illegal distribution of music. That's all there is to it.

Paul

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:06:47 -0500 From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Napster - Gun maker analogy Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C61F46@arcadia.schliz.com>

Actually, my analogy was correct.

Napster is the gun. MP3s are the bullets.

How you use the two together decides whether or not it's good or bad. You know that saying, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." ? It's how people are using Napster which makes it considered this evil software. Maybe we should start putting guns to the heads of Napster abusers and teach them a thing or two.

-bogie

-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.-- nick bogovich http://www.schliz.com/ you have been schlizzed -.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:19:23 -0500 From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Napster - Gun maker analogy Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C6177F@arcadia.schliz.com>

And before someone can even jab at me about neglecting to talk about the artists...cuz God forbid we forget to talk about the ones who are getting hurt, right? Yes, Napster is also considered evil because there is no way for an artist to control distribution.

-bogie

-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.-- nick bogovich http://www.schliz.com/ you have been schlizzed -.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:52:47 -0800 From: "Dr. Mosh" <drkhoe@xinu.irv.concentric.net> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: Re: %#$#^!! Napster, of course Message-ID: <20010216115247.A15844@xinu.irv.concentric.net>

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 11:10:16AM -0800, Paul Evans wrote: > > One of our illustrious Grahams wrote: > > >I find that most people who are opposed to Napster simply have no clue > >about how it works. > > I find that most pro-napster people bring this up all the time (Nick > especially), as if it somehow changes the fact that due to Napster's service > (and services like it) being available, artists have lost control of the > distribution of their music. That's the bottom line.

This is what most anti-napster people say, all the time. Your bottom line is false. What about tape trading? I buy a CD, tape it, give it to a friend, he tapes it, gives it to a friend? You've lost control of "distribution" of your music. You want to control "distribution" of your music?? Simple, don't release your music. The only thing musicians and others have against napster is it's convenience and the misconception that you're getting a perfect copy of the original song. If making tapes were as easy as pointing and clicking and distributing them among a million of your friends, you people would be against tape making too.

> > Sheesh. Give it up, Napster defenders. For whatever your reasons, you're > defending the illegal distribution of music. That's all there is to it.

Yeah, you blow the same rusty pipe as the rest of the people.

-The Doc

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:35:30 +0100 From: CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk> To: Ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Freak English Message-ID: <3A8D56D2.A02FB88B@mol.com.mk>

>Disagreements with the political content of the lyrics >aside, they also suffer a bit from the Yngwie school >of "not quite proper" English at times. Only an issue >if you're a picky bastard. ;o)

And you are one right? :oP

Doh, just the other day I was listening some balladic stuff of Freak Kitchen and I was amazed how good they sing in English.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 17:51:35 +0100 From: CyberDuke <duskob@mol.com.mk> To: Ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: Napsteriada Message-ID: <3A8D5A97.4581E93B@mol.com.mk>

> And in the end, that's what it's all about. A musician should be able > to CHOOSE his path, and CHOOSE what he wants to give away, and what > he wants to save, in hopes of making a living.

Idealistically that would be cool. Too bad most of the time the record companies are the ones who CHOOSE how and what can be done. Poor debut musicians are happy if they sign a contract deal at all. Even the big names complain many times for these things.

How was that, Mr. Vai said, ... in the long run the BEST way is to make your own company to deal with the issue. Now why did he say that?

p.s. We're fool if we think we are FREE to CHOOSE certain things. The 35 and 17 $ examples are reasons enough for some people.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:07:10 -0500 From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: %#$#^!! Napster, of course Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C61F47@arcadia.schliz.com>

Artists lose control of their work the minute they share it with the rest of the world. If an artist wants complete control over their work, then they shouldn't release it period.

Until the world produces thousands of musicians that have the integrity of a Howard Roark, I don't see this power battle among musicians, record labels, and music lovers ending any time soon.

-bogie

-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.-- nick bogovich http://www.schliz.com/ you have been schlizzed -.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--

-----Original Message----- ]From: Paul Evans [mailto:evansp3@corp.earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 2:10 PM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: %#$#^!! Napster, of course

One of our illustrious Grahams wrote:

>I find that most people who are opposed to Napster simply have no clue >about how it works.

Sheesh. Give it up, Napster defenders. For whatever your reasons, you're defending the illegal distribution of music. That's all there is to it.

Paul

------------------------------

End of YTSEJAM Digest 5771 **************************

Next message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 5769"
Previous message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 5782"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:10:59 EST