Feelings on Napster?

The big difference, Ralph, is that record companies have agreed to allow radio/television stations to us their media. They have not made similar considerations to .mp3 software sites. It's like saying that you can take all of my stereo equipment because I choose to give my little brother some extra ic's.

Robba: Here's the basic problem - there are really two parties involved in the Napster ripoff, the big bad record companies and the poor starving atrists. Most people don't seem to care if they hurt a record company but people really don't want to hurt some poor artist (unless of course they are not all that poor). I still that the record companies need to find a new way of doing things. CD's are way over priced, the radio sucks, music is pigeonholed into meaningless catagories and Napster solves a whole bunch of what's wrong. Napster is a sympton of an underlying disease and in classic American fashion we attack the sympton while the disease goes untreated. And I never said that it's okay to "steal" via an mp3 site - just that one can understand why many people feel it's okay to do so.

Ralph, if you read my posts in this thread you may see that I agree with you for the most part. I agree that record companies need to change their distribution paradigm, although not for the consumer's benefit but rather for their own. I also completely understand why people download music (although I don't for anything that is available for purchase).

No Carl, I'm not the same person, and Ralph, you are wrong... you exagerate the conflict between record label and artist. Their relationship is one of neccessity... a partnership. Record companies provide an invaluable service to artist. They put up capital (risk), find and coordinate the producer/engineer/graphic artist, they promote the product, and set up distribution. Only a very small percent of artist can do all this alone. As for MTV and radio... each pay licensing fees for the use of music. Roll a tape all day long. What you'll get is a low quality copy of music you may use, legally, for personal listening. If that's the way you like to listen... knock yourself out. Distribute this home recording or re-broadcast it and that's a differnt issue. If you want to check out music so badly find the website for the artist, go to the lablel's website and listen, go to your local cd store which offers "try before you buy".... just don't steal it and tell me you're justified... payback for those greedy labels? No way, you're ultimately cheating the artist and anyone whose livelyhood depends on cd sales. Would you steal a car just because you don't like dealing with salesmen and not to mention those greedy auto manufacturers? You probably would if someone could pipe it over the net to you.

Pghedge - What do you think about d/ling titles from labels that don't have a website or aren't available for preview in stores? There's a record store in town that offers previews, but certain record labels won't allow them to open their cd's and sell them as new. Is is appropriate/ethical to d/l these titles and then delete them later when you've decided whether or not you want to buy them? What about songs that are no longer in print so they can't be bought in any way that would profit the record company or artist? What about songs that never will be in print such as bootlegged concerts? (The last two types are the only time I d/l .mp3's) I agree that for the most part it is unethical to d/l music instead of buying it, but I think it's absurd to think that the issue is black and white. Also, I think most people would be happy with a quality of music akin to a tape recorded of the 'waves if they could get the music for free (remember that 'philes are hardly who the record companies are worried about losing).