YTSEJAM Digest 5769
Today's Topics:
1) Re: Australia
by "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
2) Napster
by "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
3) RE: AudioGalaxy
by "Jan-Michael" <jmsouter@airmail.net>
4) Re: Freak Kitchen
by Jan Melander <jan.melander@got.wmdata.se>
5) 70's prog question
by Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net>
6) RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 1/2]
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
7) RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 2/2]
by "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
8) Re: Napster
by Damon Fibraio <dfibraio@home.com>
9) madster
by Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net>
10) RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 2/2]
by Robb Muise <robbm@primushost.com>
11) yadda yadda
by Zartan4@cs.com
12) RE: Napstah! Buh-bye!
by "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:25:41 +1100
From: "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Australia
Message-ID: <000b01c0970f$c50ad920$ea8836cb@PaulTadday>
I'll keep the list posted...
you can also go tho www.vanishing-point.com.au for more details.
--Paul
----- Original Message -----
]From: Graham Borland <graham@picsel.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:40 PM
Subject: Re: Australia
>
> .. and Vanishing Point. Where can I find out more about live shows in
> Oz?
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:38:24 +1100
From: "Paul Tadday" <dreamryche@bigpond.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Napster
Message-ID: <001701c09711$84248d00$ea8836cb@PaulTadday>
----- Original Message -----
]From: Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com>
> But how did you know what band to search for on Napster?
Word of mouth... ever heard of it??
>If someone told you the name of the band to check out, why wouldn't it be
just
> as easy to go to that band's website and download the MP3 songs and/or
> samples that the artist themselves have placed there (and bands that
aren't
> already doing this need to get with the program). Then once you hear a few
> tracks or whatever the artist wants to put on their website (hell, many
> might put the whole album up if _they choose to_) you can buy the album.
Well guess what... not all bands do have samples on their pages...
That's if they even have websites at all!!!
> Also, I found it interesting that Napster, Inc. stated that if
> they started charging a measly $4.95 for their service, they expect the 50
> million users they now have on the free system to drop to about 20,000
> (that's a lot of cheap skates!) ;-)
I somehow doubt that...
But then again, let's hear it for the fickleness of human nature!
Anyway,
I see both sides of the argument and can relate to Jens' side just a little
more since talking to him about it.
--Paul.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:14:58 -0600
From: "Jan-Michael" <jmsouter@airmail.net>
To: <jmsouter@airmail.net>
Subject: RE: AudioGalaxy
Message-ID: <000601c09762$0f4f0540$0238240a@airmail.net>
One of the better features of AudioGalaxy is that since it is web-based, you
can queue up all of the songs you want and walk away.... they will NOT
timeout on you. It will keep trying to locate the songs even if a person
disconnects from the net while you are downloading it..
Hell, you can leave your computer on at home, and from WORK login through
the AudioGalaxy web page and send stuff to your satellite at home!!!
It's -that- cool.
JM
-----Original Message-----
]From: Shadow Dancer [mailto:ktheos@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2001 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: AudioGalaxy
Jan-Michael wrote:
> I've got to pass the word about AudioGalaxy being a fine
replacement for
> file-sharing software. It's actually web-based for file lookups and
> automatically chooses the best bandwidth path from you to grab your
files.
> It has auto-resume, and it will queue files you are searching for
even if
> those files aren't "online" at the time. It will keep them queued
until
> someone with those files comes online. Very nice interface. Check
it out.
>
> www.AudioGalaxy.com
I will second that. AudioGalaxy is very nice... has never let me
down...!!!
*** Shadow Dancer ***
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 18:39:21 +0100
From: Jan Melander <jan.melander@got.wmdata.se>
To: ytsejam <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: Re: Freak Kitchen
Message-ID: <B6B1D2D8.22B7%jan.melander@got.wmdata.se>
> I just want to know how the hell a band this good can
> have four albums out and we're just now discussing
> them. What's up with that? We need a collective
> clue...
>
> Mike
Think how I feel...
Living in the same city, been reading glowing reviews, read IA's column in
Sweden prominent guitar magazine FUZZ for a year....
Still I never heard them until last week!
I downloaded from napster some songs from their first album to check out if
they were of the same caliber as the ones on Dead Soul Man.....
They were...
So I'm getting the other three CD's this weekend, and I'm going to see a gig
with them on the 31 of March.... :-D
And to all of You on this list that haven't yet checked 'em out yet, go
visit www.freakkitchen.com now!
Cheers,
Janne
(still kicking myself for having spent to many days of my life without being
a Kitchen Freak!)
NP - Ugly Side Of Me (Freak Kitchen)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Melander
WM-Data
jan.melander@got.wmdata.se
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Until the circle breaks and wisdom lies ahead,
The faithful live Awake, the rest remain misled"
Innocence Faded - Dream Theater
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:27:03 -0500
From: Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: 70's prog question
Message-ID: <3A8C1F77.35487DA7@optonline.com>
Teery stamp. Anybody ever hear of teery stamp? Obsucre 70's stuff going
on here...
josh
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:32:58 -0500
From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 1/2]
Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C61775@arcadia.schliz.com>
>From: Coldfire The Gallery Mistress [mailto:coldie@bellatlantic.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:43 PM
>Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jam
>He's baaaaaaaack!
Actually, I thought he was back until I read his post.
He's back but out of shape! Most times he comes through with some=20
strong points in his arguments, but this time he's letting his
unnecessary argumentative (did I mention pompous too?) tone try to=20
make his points for him. =20
>From: Chris Ptacek [mailto:someone@digitalrodent.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:55 PM
>To: Multiple recipients of list
>Subject: Napstah! Buh-bye!
> You are the FIRST person I've met who used Napster and didn't go
for
>full albums. =20
I don't know where you've been since Napster was released, but I would
bet money that most Napster subscribers split their downloads between
downloading full albums and downloading individual tracks. Do a search
on Napster for those one-hit wonders you heard growing up as a kid. For
sake of argument, try searching the artist "Men Without Hats". Your
search comes back with about 80 of the 100 results being "Safety Dance"
which I would imagine was their big hit back in the day because I see it
on all those silly 80s 2CD collections on TV. Now, do a search for
a group that has lasted the tests of time, and you'll see that the
results
returned are of greater variety. You'll also see that more albums are=20
grouped together which means that people usually go for the more
successful
artists by the album. =20
If anything, the only artists that should be complaining about Napster
are
the one-hit wonders. Since CD sales do generate some sense of income
for
the artist, the one-hit wonders are getting ripped off because most
people
won't buy a CD for just one song these days (unless it's a single). I
guess
that's why you'll always see compilations of these one-hit wonders
because
then the entire CD has some value.
> Well, you don't seem to SPEND your money on music, so I'd have to
be
>left with the conclusion that you have plenty of it lying around.
I understand that those "damn college boys" are probably the audience=20
that gives Napster its negative tone. They are the ones who most of the
time are strapped for cash. They don't spend their money on music --
they
spend it on their social life. And I apologize for stereotyping here,
but
it's impossible to argue about audiences without making some rash
generalizations. However, you seem to do very well at making rash
generalizations AND coming off like an asshole to those you generalize,=20
Mr. Ptacek. I thought you'd be a bit better than a "if you don't spend=20
your money on music, then you don't spend it on anything" argument. You
have no background on who Chris Elder is. What if he's paying his
entire=20
way through college and can't afford to buy a CD because he just put
down=20
$8000 on a tuition payment? What if he has every intent once he gets
some=20
cash to buy CDs of the music he downloads? Sure, CD sales on campuses
that=20
allow Napster have gone down; this can be attributed to that software.
But,=20
has anyone done research on people who have graduated from these
campuses, gone=20
out and gotten a decent paying job to see if they started buying CDs? I
would
put my money on it that these people begin to start buying the music
they
liked in college because now they can afford to have the CD. Suddenly,
these graduates aren't spending their money on 30-packs of beer or on
women
in their futile attempts to get to know them better. And who is to
blame
a college student for wanting to go out and have a good time as opposed
to
buying a CD? College is the ONLY time in your life where you'll be
surrounded
by thousands of people your age who have similar agendas to you. Once
you
graduate, you are less inclined to do those Taco Bell runs at 4am
because you
don't have 10 other people around you who are able to do that. And you
know
what? I wouldn't trade all my experiences like that for 10000 CDs. But
then again, I was lucky enough to be able to enjoy the college
experience
and buy my CDs, as a good little college boy should, right? =20
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:34:00 -0500
From: "Nick Bogovich" <bogie@schliz.com>
To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com>
Subject: RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 2/2]
Message-ID: <D42A162CC83A7F40AD63994DE54129C61776@arcadia.schliz.com>
> Should and could are different things. Do you honestly believe
that
>there are many musicians in the world who DON'T want their music
released in
>the US? Do you know ANYTHING about the process of recording and
releasing
>music? Do you know anything about record contracts and distribution?
He may not know much about the recording industry, but I've done my fair
amount of research. It's unfortunate that most artists in foreign
countries
(outside of Europe and the US) can't get on big labels. Because
distribution
to the US is so difficult outside the two major music markets (that
being=20
the US and Europe), the costs of getting a CD from those small random
labels
is very high. And this goes back to my argument above. If someone
can't
afford to buy a CD that's released in the US, how do you expect them to
buy
some insanely expensive import CD? (Don't answer yet -- I'm not done
picking
your email apart.)
Small, unknown artists on small, unknown labels should be grateful their
music=20
gets distributed on Napster. Napster is a source of strong, free
promotion.
Let's say 1000 people download an MP3 album of some unknown artist. 50
of these=20
people might not like the album at all and delete it from their system.
Of the
remaining 500 people, how many people might buy it? Let's make things
even
and say 250 people buy the CD and the other 250 don't and just continue
to listen
to the MP3s. Since this is a small, unknown label, the artist probably
gets=20
more money per CD sold...let's say $5 a CD for each CD sold. 250 x $5 =
=3D
$1250
for the artist. However we still have "unsold" copies of the album
floating
around. 250 x $5 =3D $1250 the artist didn't rightfully get, right? =20
Now, imagine a world without Napster. I would argue that the amount of
CDs
sold through promotion channels other than Napster remains constant with
or
without Napster playing a role. That is, a set of potential customers
who see
magazine ads for an album, hear some song on the radio, or hear about
the band=20
via a flyer that was passed out at a concert is constant, and the subset
of=20
people who buy the artist's CD through these advertising channels is
constant,
regardless of Napster. So with or without Napster, let's say our little
small,
unknown artist sells 1000 CDs of their album and gets $5 for each copy
sold.
That's $5000 in proceeds from their album! Good work!
Let's look at the numbers. With Napster in place, the artist receives
$6250 in album sales...but look at this...$1250 didn't get to the
artist! Uh
oh...let's get rid of Napster! Ok...now the artist only has $5000? But
wait,
I thought Napster was stealing money from the artists! WHAT HAPPENED???
MY FEEBLE LITTLE MIND CAN'T PROCESS THIS MUCH DATA!!!
Allow me to shift our little model over to the world of the Big 5. For
those of you who don't know, the Big 5 are the 5 largest record
companies in the
world. That is to say, Universal, Sony, Time-Warner, EMI, and BMG. If
you
want me to do a similar argument for artists on labels under the Big 5,
I will.
Don't worry, I won't draw it out too long...I can prove my point very
easily.
Remember the $1250 above that didn't seem to get to the artist on the
small,
unknown label? Let's assume that since we're dealing with big labels,
we're
dealing with a much larger order of magnitude...how about $1.25 billion?
So, Nick, you're meaning to tell me that $1.25 billion a year doesn't
get to
the artists? Well, that's not necessarily true with the Big 5. Artists
on
labels in the Big 5 don't get $5 a CD. Heck, they are luckily if they
get 25
CENTS on a CD. But think about it -- $0.25 x 4000000 copies sold =3D $1
million.
The majority of the money goes to the label for marketing and promotion
purposes.
So that $1.25 billion that doesn't get to the artist in the above
example is=20
actually not going to the Big 5. Get it? The Big 5 is seemingly
getting ripped
off by $1.25 billion due to the advent of Napster. However, they tend
to really
overlook the fact that they are getting $1.25 billion from Napster that
they
never would have gotten!
This leads to the question then, "If Napster generates more money for
the big
5, then why are the Big 5 against Napster?" Money isn't the issue here.
So,
it's got to be something else. The Big 5 are basing their argument on
copyright
infringement, but their real motives are much deeper. The advent of
Napster=20
was a wakeup call to the Big 5 that they weren't embracing the digital
community
as well as they should have. In hindsight for the Big 5, Napster should
never
have happened. So what you are seeing in the courts is really a power
struggle.
The Big 5 is really in the courtroom for one thing: to gain control of
music
distribution in the digital community that they think they should have.
And that's all it really comes down to, a struggle for power. In the
end,
the Big 5 will probably win and Napster will be shut down. You Napster
haters
will probably hate whatever the Big 5 come up with even more. It
doesn't
mean your money will rightfully get to the artists under these labels;
it
means the Big 5 will get the money they lawfully (not rightfully)
deserve.
I'm hoping that a shutdown of Napster will lead to the advent of
something
bigger and better that the Big 5 won't have the ability to shut down.
That's
why I'm hoping Gnutella or some other P2P client really takes off.
After=20
all, how can the Big 5 take 50 million people to court? =20
-Bogie
NP: Dave Matthews Band -- Everyday (Yes, the full album. And yes, it
doesn't
come out until February 27th. And yes, I downloaded it off Napster.
And why
yes, I'm going to buy the CD!)
-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--
nick bogovich
http://www.schliz.com/
you have been schlizzed
-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:49:30 -0500
From: Damon Fibraio <dfibraio@home.com>
To: ytsejam@torchsong.com
Subject: Re: Napster
Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215134505.009feec0@mail.avnl1.nj.home.com>
You know what, I would pay $4.95 to subscribe to Napster and be able to
download songs. I come from a bit of a different camp though. Firstly,
going out to buy CDs for me is sometimes a pain in the ass, and yes, cdnow
and stores like it do exist and I do buy from them, but sometimes you just
want a song and you want that song now. What about out of print music? I
have found stuff you can never buy through stores on Napster. What about
rarities and bootlegs? I found a great amount of Genesis, Rush and Yes shit
on Napster. yes, I have downloaded songs that are commercially available.
And I would still do it if Napster charges. I don't see a $5 a month
subscription fee as a problem, and I am currently unemployed. I am a
musician and would hate to be ripped off by thievery, but I think the issue
is more a record industry vs napster than the musician vs napster. I have
not been following this thread much, just jumped in here, but still,
sometimes you just want one song off a CD, for instanc3e, I kind of like
one of the Lincoln Park songs, can't remember the name, but I am not
interested in the whole CD. I downloaded it from Napster. now, if there was
a way to just pay for that song, i would do it as well. I am not against
paying or not paying, I think the big appeal of Napster for me is I can get
the songs I want right away without having to wait for CDNow to send them
to me. I cannot get to a record store on my own, and everybody knows why,
since certain individuals hate when I bring it up. So, for me, Napster is a
source of independence for me. If I had to give a credit card number and
pay $50 or even $2 a song, I will do that. No problem.
At 01:33 PM 2/15/2001, you wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>]From: Michael Kizer <mike@ivorygate.com>
>
> > But how did you know what band to search for on Napster?
>Word of mouth... ever heard of it??
>
> >If someone told you the name of the band to check out, why wouldn't it be
>just
> > as easy to go to that band's website and download the MP3 songs and/or
> > samples that the artist themselves have placed there (and bands that
>aren't
> > already doing this need to get with the program). Then once you hear a few
> > tracks or whatever the artist wants to put on their website (hell, many
> > might put the whole album up if _they choose to_) you can buy the album.
>
>Well guess what... not all bands do have samples on their pages...
>That's if they even have websites at all!!!
>
> > Also, I found it interesting that Napster, Inc. stated that if
> > they started charging a measly $4.95 for their service, they expect the 50
> > million users they now have on the free system to drop to about 20,000
> > (that's a lot of cheap skates!) ;-)
>
>I somehow doubt that...
>But then again, let's hear it for the fickleness of human nature!
>
>Anyway,
>I see both sides of the argument and can relate to Jens' side just a little
>more since talking to him about it.
>
>--Paul.
-- Damon Fibraio Musician, comedian, lover, and public menace email dfibraio@home.com aol instant messenger screenname: nhblive MSN Messenger screenname: dfibraio Yahoo messenger name: Damon_m_f cohost of No Holds Barred Radio: see http://www.nhbradio.com for details------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:27:11 -0500 From: Joshua Rasiel <megafunk@optonline.net> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: madster Message-ID: <3A8C2D8F.D3F92513@optonline.com>
>You wouldn't even spend money on your GF...
now that was just plain cold.
>I challenge you to show how the two are statistically or factually >related. I would like to know how that's related to Napster and not a >booming economy. It's a point that so many Napster users love to dangle and >prance about, but I have yet to see the two points linked.
i'm gonna speak for myself here, and put put forth a compelling, yet incredibly unscientific argument for how napster (perhaps modified) could serve both listener and artist. I use napster all the time, but I believe my support of the artist has not decreased a bit.
There's basically two scenarios:
1) I'm trying to find some hit song from 5-15 years ago that i liked, and once I figure out what it was, I'll generally napster it. Now, I probably won't buy the CD from that. But I might. And I would never have before. Most recently I bought an Adam Ant CD just because i liked the song 'Wonderful' so much. I napstered 'Wondeerful' and finally purchased the CD. And sometimes, I'll find out there's a lot of songs from that artist that I also liked and didn't know it was the same guy, or, during my napstering, discover songs from them that I like. Then, once again I'll sometimes buy the CD where I wouldn't have before. I did that for INXS recently. Actually I knew how good they were but somehow I forgot.
2) The other scenario is, I read or hear "if you like X then you should try Y" and in the past I would typically say "well, I don't know...". When I first started reading the ytsejam, I was hearing lots of testemonials for two bands in particular - FW and Savatage. I didn't go running out and buying their stuff. It was some time before I, on my college budget at the time, had the cash to make that gamble instead of sticking with safer bets on my music runs. So FW and Savatage waited for me, and I eventually got their stuff and I'm a huge Sava fan, FW not so much but i have some of their stuff as well, it's excellent. Anyway...the obvious point is that these days, with napster, i can find out more about a band i've never listened to before, and generally if I like them so much that I download their catalogue, then I'll probably by their stuff. Most recently i did for I Mother Earth. I bought 2 of their CDs and I'll soon buy one more. i also bought 2 Catherine Wheel CD's. All 5 I listened to their albums first on napster. And oh yes, napster also helped me decided NOT to buy U2's latest...and I have every album before that one, so if there was even a smidgen of a chance that i would have liked it, then I would have bought it. It wasn't bad, I might still get it, but not at the moment.
I have a bit more money these days but there's still a budget for music and there's always some cd's that get bumped from my list. Napster helps me figure out which ones deserve my cash. Listen before you buy, that's all. In my case, napster has helped the artist. It's probably not so much i'm moral as it is I like the packaging, being a designer.
Now, all that said, I know that's not most people's plan of action, and I do believe under the current system, napster can be unfair to artists. So i've always been in favor of some system that allows users the access that napster gives them, with some way of rewarding the artist. MP3.com has something like this. Kevmo has made $1,500 from people listening to his music on that website, where he's got just two songs.
The obvious proposal is the subscription based service with the funds going to the people that make the music. Or, to keep it free, maybe napster has a link to amazon.com, and in order to use napster, you must buy a cd from clicking on that napster link, a given amount of times in a given time period. once a year, twice a month, i don't know. Even better, base it on the number of songs you napster. You would download your 50 Britney songs(Don't deny it, chris) and a little napster box pops up to say, "you haven't fulfilleed your latest requirement yet. If you like this artist, click here to do so!" With this second method, napster would get their profits from the kickbacks of amazon's associate program,but more important, the artist sells his cd. You could only listen to music if you intend to buy music eventually. You wouldn't be able to listen and listen, and buy nothing. I'm stressing this over and over because, chris, I think I already hear your response: "So people get to steal all they want, and then retrospectively get to decide if some band is good enough that they'll pay them back for it?"
My responce to that is to remind you that under this plan, the arists would sell at least as much music as before, probably more. They'll have lost nothing.
Now i have to play 17 hours of everquest. so if anybody wants to give me some everquest stuff, maybe it'll be a free ytse-shirt for them... lvl 7 pali at the moment, terris thule server.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:45:45 -0500 From: Robb Muise <robbm@primushost.com> To: ytsejam@torchsong.com, Multiple recipients of list <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! [part 2/2] Message-ID: <5.0.2.1.2.20010215144511.0190fcc8@pop.ecosoft.com>
very well said Nick..
-Robb
NP: Ayreon, Isis and Osiris
At 11:08 AM 2/15/2001 -0800, Nick Bogovich wrote:
> > Should and could are different things. Do you honestly believe >that > >there are many musicians in the world who DON'T want their music >released in > >the US? Do you know ANYTHING about the process of recording and >releasing > >music? Do you know anything about record contracts and distribution? > >He may not know much about the recording industry, but I've done my fair > >amount of research. It's unfortunate that most artists in foreign >countries >(outside of Europe and the US) can't get on big labels. Because >distribution >to the US is so difficult outside the two major music markets (that >being=20 >the US and Europe), the costs of getting a CD from those small random >labels >is very high. And this goes back to my argument above. If someone >can't >afford to buy a CD that's released in the US, how do you expect them to >buy >some insanely expensive import CD? (Don't answer yet -- I'm not done >picking >your email apart.) > >Small, unknown artists on small, unknown labels should be grateful their >music=20 >gets distributed on Napster. Napster is a source of strong, free >promotion. >Let's say 1000 people download an MP3 album of some unknown artist. 50 >of these=20 >people might not like the album at all and delete it from their system. >Of the >remaining 500 people, how many people might buy it? Let's make things >even >and say 250 people buy the CD and the other 250 don't and just continue >to listen >to the MP3s. Since this is a small, unknown label, the artist probably >gets=20 >more money per CD sold...let's say $5 a CD for each CD sold. 250 x $5 = >=3D >$1250 >for the artist. However we still have "unsold" copies of the album >floating >around. 250 x $5 =3D $1250 the artist didn't rightfully get, right? =20 > >Now, imagine a world without Napster. I would argue that the amount of >CDs >sold through promotion channels other than Napster remains constant with >or >without Napster playing a role. That is, a set of potential customers >who see >magazine ads for an album, hear some song on the radio, or hear about >the band=20 >via a flyer that was passed out at a concert is constant, and the subset >of=20 >people who buy the artist's CD through these advertising channels is >constant, >regardless of Napster. So with or without Napster, let's say our little >small, >unknown artist sells 1000 CDs of their album and gets $5 for each copy >sold. >That's $5000 in proceeds from their album! Good work! > >Let's look at the numbers. With Napster in place, the artist receives >$6250 in album sales...but look at this...$1250 didn't get to the >artist! Uh >oh...let's get rid of Napster! Ok...now the artist only has $5000? But >wait, >I thought Napster was stealing money from the artists! WHAT HAPPENED??? >MY FEEBLE LITTLE MIND CAN'T PROCESS THIS MUCH DATA!!! > >Allow me to shift our little model over to the world of the Big 5. For >those of you who don't know, the Big 5 are the 5 largest record >companies in the >world. That is to say, Universal, Sony, Time-Warner, EMI, and BMG. If >you >want me to do a similar argument for artists on labels under the Big 5, >I will. >Don't worry, I won't draw it out too long...I can prove my point very >easily. >Remember the $1250 above that didn't seem to get to the artist on the >small, >unknown label? Let's assume that since we're dealing with big labels, >we're >dealing with a much larger order of magnitude...how about $1.25 billion? >So, Nick, you're meaning to tell me that $1.25 billion a year doesn't >get to >the artists? Well, that's not necessarily true with the Big 5. Artists >on >labels in the Big 5 don't get $5 a CD. Heck, they are luckily if they >get 25 >CENTS on a CD. But think about it -- $0.25 x 4000000 copies sold =3D $1 >million. >The majority of the money goes to the label for marketing and promotion >purposes. >So that $1.25 billion that doesn't get to the artist in the above >example is=20 >actually not going to the Big 5. Get it? The Big 5 is seemingly >getting ripped >off by $1.25 billion due to the advent of Napster. However, they tend >to really >overlook the fact that they are getting $1.25 billion from Napster that >they >never would have gotten! > >This leads to the question then, "If Napster generates more money for >the big >5, then why are the Big 5 against Napster?" Money isn't the issue here. >So, >it's got to be something else. The Big 5 are basing their argument on >copyright >infringement, but their real motives are much deeper. The advent of >Napster=20 >was a wakeup call to the Big 5 that they weren't embracing the digital >community >as well as they should have. In hindsight for the Big 5, Napster should >never >have happened. So what you are seeing in the courts is really a power >struggle. >The Big 5 is really in the courtroom for one thing: to gain control of >music >distribution in the digital community that they think they should have. > >And that's all it really comes down to, a struggle for power. In the >end, >the Big 5 will probably win and Napster will be shut down. You Napster >haters >will probably hate whatever the Big 5 come up with even more. It >doesn't >mean your money will rightfully get to the artists under these labels; >it >means the Big 5 will get the money they lawfully (not rightfully) >deserve. >I'm hoping that a shutdown of Napster will lead to the advent of >something >bigger and better that the Big 5 won't have the ability to shut down. >That's >why I'm hoping Gnutella or some other P2P client really takes off. >After=20 >all, how can the Big 5 take 50 million people to court? =20 > >-Bogie > >NP: Dave Matthews Band -- Everyday (Yes, the full album. And yes, it >doesn't >come out until February 27th. And yes, I downloaded it off Napster. >And why >yes, I'm going to buy the CD!) > > > -.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.-- > nick bogovich > http://www.schliz.com/ > you have been schlizzed > -.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.---.----..-.--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robb Muise What do we want? "Brains!" Escalations Manager When do we want them? "Brains!" PRIMUS Managed Hosting Solutions Email:robbm@shore.net Phone:781-586-6181 Cell Phone: 978-884-6423
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:03:09 EST From: Zartan4@cs.com To: ytsejam@torchsong.com Subject: yadda yadda Message-ID: <76.7ca09e6.27bd8ffd@cs.com>
as usual the ytsejam has become a bitchfest of who is wrong and who is right. who gives a fuck about the effect napster had on the music industry? well, obviously some people do so i guess ill shutup about that one. uhm, anyway, i always wonder how rude or obnoxious some of us would be if we were arguing in person. especially with korg who would probably have a .45 in his belt. come on people, ive been flamed plenty of times and its neither funny nor considerate. please do us all a favor and be NICE! it doesnt make any sense to propose an argument about integrity but simultaneously be a bitch about it because you know you can hide behind your computer screen.
preparing for flames, jon ps: that band, uhhh, what are they called? oh yeah! dream theater! theyre awesome!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:15:57 -0600 From: "Todd O. Klindt, MCSE" <todd@klindt.org> To: <ytsejam@torchsong.com> Subject: RE: Napstah! Buh-bye! Message-ID: <00e401c0978c$1beee2f0$3464a8c0@klindt.org>
This argument goes both ways. I would like to see the Big 5 provide any proof that Napster has cost them a single penny.
Both sides only have anecdotes and no facts to back them up. The Anti-Napster side has "I know this guy that hasn't bought a CD in a year. He just downloads them all and burns the CD himself". The Pro-Napster side has "I know this guy that's bought 50 CDs this year alone because of music he heard using Napster". I don't think either side can prove anything. I don't know that money is necessarily what's at stake. It's control. I use Napster. I've bought a helluva lot of CDs because of it. I also pay for the software I use. When I was in college there were times I couldn't afford food, I sure as hell wasn't spending $17 a piece for CDs. Now that I'm out of college and making money, I pay for what I use. I'm not saying pirating music or software is ever right, but I think most folks are honest if given the chance. I don't want to see Napster go away, but I think it will.
tk -----Original Message----- ]From: ytsejam@torchsong.com [mailto:ytsejam@torchsong.com]On Behalf Of Chris Ptacek Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 11:55 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Napstah! Buh-bye!
I challenge you to show how the two are statistically or factually related. I would like to know how that's related to Napster and not a booming economy. It's a point that so many Napster users love to dangle and prance about, but I have yet to see the two points linked.
- Chris
------------------------------
End of YTSEJAM Digest 5769 **************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:11:00 EST