Feelings on Napster?

Perhaps I was ambiguous. I do think that piracy is wrong, I just think that it's sometimes tricky to define piracy. Most of that difficulty stems from the fact that 'mine' and 'yours' are not always clearly defined. Possession is a social construct, not an inherent concept, so it is not surprising to see that definitions become muddied every once and a while. The industry will protect its margins, and watermarking (not that I like it) is exactly the kind of strategy that I was reffering to. By the by, piracy is illegal, but so is price fixing. Why is it that after 20 years, we're still all paying for R&D costs to develop the CD format? Why does every single (mainstream) music company charge about the same amount for CD's? And why do CD's cost more than tapes (which are more expensive to make)? Not that any of this justifies stealing. For the record, the only mp3's I've ever downloaded are from live shows which are not available for purchase by a band whose entire back catalog I own. Even with these I feel a slight ethical twinge.

To answer Robba's questions: These things happen and continue to occur because consumers do not have as much political clout as the special interests (I know; campaign finance reform is a different discussion group). I don't like it, but do recognize how the system works. One can rage against the machine, something I've always been prone to, but with age has come the understanding of how to do it more successfully and at less of a personal cost (i.e., anxiety, frustration, etc.). Civil disobedience has its costs. Is getting free music worth the price being paid, especially considering the alternatives and consequences? For now I consider the music companies a necessary evil. Without them the quality and variety of products would be diminished. Online distribution does have potential to increase variety, but unless there is a way to generate sufficient revenues it will be damaging to the overall quality of what is available. It's simply not a cheap endeavor to produce an excellent recording.

Fpeel - you've recognized that the system allows for record companies to avoid fair market pricing and you act according to that recognition. All I suggested in my original post was that record companies recognize that the system will allow for electronic piracy and act accordingly. I personally think that excessive litigation is akin to the machine raging against us, with similar frusterating and trivial effects (for them). It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. I admit that it takes a lot of money to record a quality pressing, but to paraphrase a poster in another thread, I'd rather listen to a horrible reproduction of great music than a great reproduction of horrible music. I guess I'm more of a music lover than an audiophile.

Me: I'm greedy and want great recorded music. Poor recordings hurt my ears and if the music isn't any good it won't get played. No, I want it all. We agree about "the machine raging against us" and that how all this shakes out will be interesting. The industry did recently get its collective hand slapped for price fixing, but it appears that's all it was. Now the table is turned and let's see if that works the other way or not. Thanks for the exchange.

a few thoughts - 1st, dekay, your comments about napster & the like spelling the death of new music was *exactly* the same argument that was made when cassettes 1st came out. the reality is that the advent of the cassette *spurred* the growth of the music industry. sure, some guys dint buy the commercial software, cuz they had it on prerecorded cassette, but lotsa guys did - for the better sound quality, liner notes, bought another album from the same artist, etc. i tink the same thing will happen in this instance - it's only the profesional pirateers, who hawk their wares on city street-corners, etc, that have any real negative impact on the music industry. and, that's not what the lawsuit against napster is about. as far as the cassette, btw, the riaa gets a royalty from *every* blank cassete sold now, thanks to their legal efforts. (ps - if ya like the buena-vista social club on cd, ewe should here it on *vinyl*!) legally, i tink robba_hmm sums it up correctly when he compares napster to smith & wesson: providing a legitimate product is *not* illegal, yust cuz there are some out there that may use it for illegal purposes. on another note, i find it a bit amusing that such strong rite-wing proponents like carl & grumpy have no qualms taking *illegal* adwantage of napster, not using it the way napster sez it's meant to be used. more'n a *bit* of hypocracy, no? ;~) re: socialists trying to get everyone to have the same walues, i guess it's yust the other side of the same coin; *conservatives* also have their *own* agenda for homogenizing the populace; it's not one i find too appealing. regards to all, doug