What nonsense
Posted by: Misterpomp ()
Date: February 18, 2001 09:17PM

There are some legitimate arguments about Napster's validity, the problem is that you seem to have avoided all of them to make spurious and invalid points

...FORD wrote:
>>>>>> If Metallica's own employees or their label, Elektra records, can't stop a song from being leaked, then that is not the fault of Shawn Fanning, nor is it the >>>>>>fault of Napster users.

So? Lars didn't say he condoned the leaking but not its dissemination. Lars doubtless deplores the original leak exactly as much, if not more, than the Napster-isation of the track. Your argument, extrapolated, runs along the lines of "Don't arrest me for buying what I know to be stolen goods, if the original owner didn't protect them sufficiently to stop their theft I'm at arms length from that theft and therefore can't be guilty". Bollocks.

>>>>>Furthermore, Lars has forgotten how he got his own band signed in the first place. Make no mistake, if Napster had existed in 1982, Metallica would have used it to spread their demo "No Life Til Leather" internationally. Even with the limits of early 80's technology, it was one of the widest circulations of a demo tape in music history. And it paid off.... They got signed by small indie labels both in the States and Europe and did well enough in those markets to interest Elektra >>>>>who signed them in 1985.

Again. So? You're probably right. Metallica would have used Napster. That would have been their choice. You sit there making judgements and decisions for the artists - "Metallica would want to use Napster as a fledgling unsigned band, ergo I can download all their current catalogue for free". There is no comparison between the knowing act of the artist and you deciding to have their music for free.

>>>>>The band also, in the tradition of fellow Bay Area rockers the Grateful Dead, encouraged their fans to bootleg live shows and trade tapes.

So? They encourage you to bootleg live shows. That's their choice. When did you get the right to extend their offer to commercially available material?

>>>>>> Now all of a sudden, today's young "Metallicas" want to use the technology at their disposal to get the word out, and Metallica fans want to trade their rare stuff in a more efficient manner, and suddenly its WRONG?? @!#$ You Lar$.

And if that was all it was, I doubt Lars would have opened his mouth. Lars does not oppose the free distribution of music by any artist who consents so to do. You are hiding the theft by Napster users behind the possible legitimate uses.

>>>>> Would Jerry Garcia have opposed Napster... I don't think so!!

No - but he would have released 30 years of shite music.

>>>>> Here's something Lars, the RIAA and the label PIGS don't get....
>
> Napster hurts BOOTLEG sales far more than commercial sales. For years the RIAA has tried to get bootlegging practically made a death penalty offense in order to stop it. I never have been able to understand why, since boots almost never contain material that is otherwise for sale, they hurt neither label or artists' profitability. In any event, since the invention of Napster and high speed internet access, I have not paid for a single bootleg. This is what I use Napster for. Not for the CD's I can buy at any store, but for the rare stuff that would cost me $40 a disc, if I could get it at all. Those stupid greedy fucks should be ENCOURAGING
this technology, not hypocritically trying to destroy it..

It's far more insidious than that though, isn't it? If I am consumer X who has limitations on time, not money, a sad fact of modern life is that this is quite a lot of us - ie I can afford as many CDs as I want, but never get the chance to listen to them, then the limitation on my CD habit is the number of minutes music I can handle. Therefore, when I buy/trade/swap/steal/boot/pirate an "illegitimate" piece of music I am inadvertently reducing the amount of "legitimate" music I buy. Ergo, somebody somewhere is losing out. Probably not the artist I (in the industry's eyes) "ripped off" but in fact the next best artist who I didn't buy as a result. Also, I think the advent of better printing technology at home will mean that a large number of people only keeping themselves mainly legit because of the attraction of the packaging on the CD will end up thinking "I'm prepared to take CD to mp3 deterioration, and I'll do that with the packaging too - why bother buying anything". Finally, your use of Napster may well be morally defensible but I'd hate to think anybody, whatever side of the argument they are on, is ignoring the massive amount of muisc being made available on mp3 that does not fit into the "rare & live" category .. just visit a pub / boot sale / ask that dodgy guy at your work .....

Navigate: Previous MessageNext Message
Options: ReplyQuote


SubjectViewsWritten ByPosted
Napster thought of the day 104 The Other Joe 02/16/2001 06:49AM
Re: Napster thought of the day 90 Filip Bondy 02/17/2001 06:27AM
the hypocrisy of Napster's enemies 88 FORD 02/18/2001 09:19AM
What nonsense104 Misterpomp 02/18/2001 09:17PM
Re: What nonsense 95 Eric Abrahamsen 02/18/2001 11:36PM
I agree but... 85Surfpunk02/19/2001 06:14AM
Re: I agree but... 98 ddregs 02/20/2001 07:58AM


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Powered by Phorum.

Disclaimer: melodicrock.com takes no responsibility for the contents of messages posted on this open forum, or for the sanity of those posting.