We don't regret to inform you that Napster...

Welcome to the board, Legolas! Enjoy your stay... check out all the various forums, of course. Make yourself comfortable...

Now, could you explain your statements in more detail? Why do you think what you think about Napster?

Welcome to the board Legolas. That's quite a contraversial first post!

Legolas, are you a member of Metallica??

The recording industry charges something like 20 bucks for a CD at full retail price. Often, you only want one or two songs on the CD, and if you want more than 2 CD's it can get ridiculous! With Napster, you can get those one or two songs that you actually want. Hopefully programs like Napster will make the recording industry charge much less.

I've never used Napster and propably never will either... They just don't have the music I long for.

Actually, price isn't the problem. I use Napster to sample one or two selections from a given band or something that was recommended to me - and if I like it, I buy the CD. It's just that I don't want to buy a CD without knowing whether or not I'll like what's on it.

Hmm... bmilder, you seem to be saying that 'the CD's cost a lot, so it is okay for me to not pay for them'.

I have heard people say that Napster is okay because recording companies are greedy. This is half-true; Naptser is not okay, but most recording companies are fairly greedy.

The trouble is, the musicians whose work is taken and put up on Napster do not recieve any pay for their work. I have also heard people say 'Musicians do not have to work hard. They get paid for taking it easy and playing a little music, so they should not get paid'. This is definitely not true.

My father is a musician; he has to work quite a lot. If he goes to play somewhere, he oftentimes has a commute that puts most '9:00 to 5:00' workers in the shade; the job is not easy, and the client does not always pay.

So musicians do work hard, and recording companies screw them out of their money. Then along comes Napster, and they get even less money. So yes, I am opposed to Napster, and I will be extremely glad if it is shut down.


Legolas

Yes but Metallica is a bunch of millionaires. Even if they never get another penny, they will still be about ten times as rich as us normal people. The ironic thing is that apparently Metallica became popular through a bootleg tape (which btw is illegal). Napster actually helps new or obscure artists through their New Artist Program. And if you aren't Britney Spears, people really aren't going to go out in droves for your stuff. If they're able to sample it first, they might be more likely to. Hundreds of artists have authorized their files to go around Napster.

You're both missing something important. The recording artists hardly make anything from the sales of CD's, they make their money from concerts. They really should'nt care, it hardly effects them, unless the record labels told them to.

Many people I talk to who use napster use it pretty much the same way IP does. If you don't have a high-speed modem, cd burner, mp3 player, or minidisc player, there is virtually no point to have a large collection on Napster. Most just sample music on Napster, and buy the cd. It was actually been proven that record sales have been higher since Napster became popular.

"Naptser is not okay"

Sure it's okay. Why?

Because there are artists who distribute their music that way. Not only are there the thousands of unsigned garage bands, there are also big-name artists (Public Enemy, Offspring, and Limp Bizkit) who have given either implicit or explicit approval of having their music distributed over Napster.

And as far as the Metallica thing goes...

I personally would give my left {sorry, have to edit this out} to have three hundred thousand people listening to my music. The money that I'd get when those people decide to buy my CD is the icing on the cake.

Good point.
Last [can't let the kiddy's see that]...:lol:

Metallica hardly makes any money from cd sales anyways. Their money comes from concerts. The label they're on probably told them to complain.

whoa...wats with the censorship on the word "testicle"???????????????????? The word "testicle" is the name of part of the male reproduction system. Its not considered a curse or a bad word. Sure, there are sland terms which could be censored, but the actual name, "testicle shouldn't be.

I'm with you Thrawn... Wassup with the word testicle? We're not talking of.................... we'll we're not.

Testicle is fine as long as it is being used to talk about the male anatomy, and the last time I checked this thread was about Napster, not anatomy. And if you think about starting a thread about the male anatomy just to use the word, that is not acceptable either.

personally i don't use napster & used to be anti-mp3, but the more i thought about the whole issue the more i think it should be up to the artists themselves. if Metallica doesn't want their mp3s passed around, take them off but leave the music of people who don't care or want their music up.

i do think artists should get paid for their music, & that record labels should make "customizable CD's" - as in, you go to a website, choose the songs you want, pay a small price (most CDs are US$15-20 & have 12-15 songs per CD - $1.25 per song?) & the label sends you the files so you can burn your own CD.

as for the US government, i do think they have a right to enforce copyright laws. i'm a writer/artist/singer, & i sure don't want my work being exploited - not just by Napster (i know i'll never make real money by my singing) but by printers or plaigarists as well. & without enforced copyrights, people's work WILL be exploited. just think - someone could make a LotR/Booty Call crossover & sicken us all beyond belief...

for those musicians who don't care about money or sales, Napster is a great idea, & i can see why artists & listeners would want Napster to stay up.

aryne *

Sorry about that.

Then I guess I'd give Anduin a million bucks.

If I had it, of course.

(All right, I get the idea)

Many artists do make money from selling CD's. For many smaller independent artists not always capable of hosting or attending grandiose concerts, CD sales represent a primary source of income.

The trouble with Napster is that it doesn't consider the implications of its actions. It says that people buy CD's in addition to downloading music, but empirically not everyone is as well-intentioned as IronParrot.

Realistically, people can and do "steal" music from Napster without later buying CD's. This puts pressure on artists, many of whom are now bankrupt or close as a result of having their music ripped.

Besides, does it make it okay to download pirated music/software/anything just because it may not represent a significant source of income for its creator? As in, "this cereal isn't generating a lot of money for Kellog's, so it's okay if I take it?"

No hard feelings on this my first post... I just don't like Napster.

hello DS, welcome to Entmoot!

i agree with several of your points, but for me the problem is: who is to blame (from a legal pov), Napster or the Napster users? i think that napster is as unlegal as a copier machine.