PDA

View Full Version : My thoughts about Garth/Napster



Darrell
07-29-2000, 05:19 AM
It seems as if I am in the minority on this discussion but I support Napster 100%. I see no difference between me downloading a song than borrowing someones CD or casette and making a copy of it. Same thing right? The artists and songwriters aren't compensated for that. Besides, I've gotten Garth songs I might not have ever been able to get on a cd. "You may be right", "Keep your hands to yourself", "New York State of Mind", and "American Pie". They are all now stored on one CD along with some other rare favorites. I think Napster is a good thing for Garth fans. Lets face it, the man has more money than his great great grandkids will ever spend. I think I've supported him enough finaincially throughout his career by buying concert tickets, tshirts, and every cd the man has. I hope I haven't offended any Garth fans because I am one of his biggest supporters. I just feel a little different about the Napster issue.N

Pilgrim
07-29-2000, 06:20 AM
You haven't offended me:):)
<br>
<br>But I disagree with you BIG TIME!!!!:)
<br>
<br>You can't compare it to borrow CD's from your friends etc.
<br>
<br>Brian:)N

garthsgirl
07-29-2000, 07:01 AM
I agree with the artists on the Napster issue. If a song is available to go out and buy, I should go out and buy it. Not take it off the internet. However, I did download WYCBTMA from them for obvious reasons. If or when the song is made available for the public, I will go out and buy it. I have not used Napster before or since. I believe they should get their royalties on the songs they created, no matter how much money they have.N

cybersadie
07-29-2000, 08:30 AM
I agree that musicians should NOT have to work for free. But I feel like the best defense that napster has put forward so far is that the music industry hasn't been hurting. Sales are up and according to a Jupiter survey, napster users are doing much of that buying.
<br>
<br>I know I've said all this before in some other forum. But I guess since I use napster, and I still buy CDs (about a dozen this summer so far), I take the attack that some of these artists are making against the fans kinda personally. I hate buying a CD for one song ($17.99 is a little too steep for that). So I download it. When more songs come out that I like from the album, I go out and buy it and then delete the mp3s.
<br>
<br>I just don't think that the really vocal musicians (like Lars) are pausing long enough to try and work out some sort of arrangement with napster. As far as I can tell, the musicians are either too fuming mad(and swearing like Eminem) or too misinformed by the record labels to make clear-headed decisions about the whole thing.
<br>
<br>Maybe there should something about having to register each song you upload/download; or pay a monthly fee for napster use, proceeds of which would go to the RIAA; or block music by any artists who don't CHOOSE to be part of the napster community. There's got to be a solution but with people who don't know anything about technology making these decisions, I doubt any reasonable compromise can be struck.N

CountrySpirit
07-29-2000, 02:10 PM
I myself also support napster. Out here where I live it is roughly 100 miles to the nearest music store. Not to mention we only have 2 country radio stations that don't always come in. napster gives me a way of listening to the music until I can get to the music store. Not to mention I know several people who never invested much in CD's until I introduced them to napster. Once they started hearing songs they liked on napster they starting buying the cd's napster gave them a way to preview the music and decide if they liked it first.
<br>
<br>DaniN

no1cowgirl
07-29-2000, 05:48 PM
Okay, guys. Please don't think that I'm attacking you, 'cause I'm not, okay? But let me give you my side of this--
<br>
<br>A lot of people complain that we have to pay $17 bucks for a CD. Lets just make it clear that that is not the artists' fault. That is the record companies. Us, as consumers are not the only ones getting screwed out of money, y'all. So do the artists. A lot of people also have the misconception that artists are always rich and living the good life. While this is true for most of the artists, it's not true for all. Some artists have a lot less money than people think.
<br>
<br>Garth, as a recording artist has been very lucky--because of his past successes and his perserverance--that he has gotten an awesome contract with Capitol Nashville.
<br>
<br>Mind you, I believe that Garth is not in this for the money. Well, I take that back. I believe he IS in it for the money, but not so he can make more millions. I think, like some of the other people around here, that Garth is in this for the other artists. I also believe that he is trying to, along with most of the other artists that are in this fight, are in it for control of their music.
<br>
<br>The thing I really appreciate from the people who have posted in this thread is that y'all think that singers/songwriters should get paid for thier work. THANK YOU! I really appreciate your understanding, because it's people like you that help us in the music business out. :)
<br>
<br>I do agree with you guys--$17 is too much for a CD. I suppose I've never thought twice about spending the money 'cause I love the music a lot. It's not fair to us, though. And again, this is because of the record companies.
<br>
<br>Anyway, I just thought I would share. Thanks fer listenin and thanks fer understanding.
<br>
<br>
<br>KristaN

Chris Gaines
07-29-2000, 05:55 PM
well said Krista... :)
<br>
<br>I htink ya said it just right. I'll just "ditto" you lol ;)
<br>
<br>JasonN

no1cowgirl
07-29-2000, 07:07 PM
Here's one of my favorite quotes from this whole thing...
<br>
<br>
<br> "It's clear, then, that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable...the diverse voices of the artists will disappear. The argument I hear a lot, that 'music should be free,' must then mean that musicians should work for free. Nobody else works for free. Why should musicians?"
<br>
<br>
<br>KristaN

no1cowgirl
07-29-2000, 07:17 PM
There was just a couple of things I wanted to say...and I can't edit my post! *L*
<br>
<br>First, I wanted to make it clear that I don't think that all artists are poor. I know not all are. But, I do know that a lot of artists strugle through many years of their careers.
<br>
<br>Second, I also wanted to say that my post might have hinted that I thought that y'all didn't care about the music. Not once did that thought enter my mind, so don't think I do! :)
<br>
<br>Just wanted to say that!
<br>
<br>
<br>Thanks,
<br>KristaN

iluv2paintball
07-29-2000, 07:55 PM
My thoughts of the matter are, that garth and other musicians are making more money because of napster. I cant speak for other people but what i basically use napster for is to test songs before i buy. I personally own all of garth's cd's, and if you are a true fan, than you probably would rather buy the cd's than download them i guess its just a loyalty thing, but what im saying is for mostly other artists. I test and if i like i buy. thats it.
<br>N

Chris Gaines
07-29-2000, 09:00 PM
iluv2paintball,
<br>
<br>unforuntely not everyone does that.. there is more then a handful that use it to get "Free" Musci and burn it on CD so they don't have to go buy it in a store..
<br>
<br>Ask a college kid with no money that uses Napster what he/she does with the song once they download it. ;)
<br>
<br>JasonN

iluv2paintball
07-29-2000, 09:10 PM
Chris Gaines,
<br>
<br>You are absolutely right there are some people who abuse it. but isnt that true with most things these days. If it is possible to abuse someone will do it. That shouldnt give people the right to take something like napster away from its obeying users does it?N

Pilgrim
07-30-2000, 03:28 AM
Glad you said that with a college kid Jason:)
<br>
<br>here in DK a huge school/college had to shut down their i-net because the students was misusing it and downloading songs from Napster.
<br>And it was A LOT of songs.
<br>They were caught and said they did it because therer was no way they would buy CD's when they could get the songs free off the net.
<br>
<br>So, I am totally in for a Napster "meltdown" ;);)
<br>Not for artists like Garth, Metallica (Especially NOT Eminem who also should be "closed down) but more for future artists like Krista, Steph, Scott, Rachel etc.
<br>
<br>Brian:)N

Darrell
07-30-2000, 03:40 AM
Well since I've noticed a few Napster fans around, does anyone have "The Hungry Years?" shhhhhhhh don't let the RIAA and the anti napsters in here hear ya *lol* Just kidding guys..I respect each of your opinions...N

JustJack
07-30-2000, 06:12 PM
Hi everyone!
<br>
<br>this is my very first post here so I figured I'd say hi! My name is Brian and I am college student in MN.
<br>
<br>I have some thoughts on this issue.
<br>
<br>In response to the idea that downloading was nothing like borrowing a friend's CD, I totally disagree. IF I borrow a friend's disc and make a tape or cd copy there is no difference to downloading and making a tape or cd copy except where I got it. The artist is still not being compensated at all.
<br>
<br>I'm one of the minority who downloads songs and buys the disc when I get the chance. It's really opened my up to a lot of newer and rarer music I wouldn't have found otherwise.
<br>One thing that needs to apparently be brought up all the time though is that fact that record sales have increased and haven't fallen at all. So I'm all for the artists rights.....but what are they losing? If it's about the money ( which I know it isn't) they aren't losing any. If its about taking someone's "intelletual property" (which it is) that is wrong......but it's leading people to go out and buy it.
<br>
<br>I don't however support Napster 100% because their argument that they are just third party and not responsible for their users actions is a cop out. They know what they're doing.
<br>
<br>So I see the artists side and the "pirates" side too.
<br>
<br>BrianN

iluv2paintball
07-30-2000, 06:26 PM
Just Jack,
<br>
<br>I realize your point about what napster knows that they are doing, and that is very true. On the other hand, what napster is doing and what it was designed for is to give new bands some free advertisement and it is still used for that purpose among others. The thing is, I am a napster user, and even if they do shut napster down permanently there will be others like it, infact even now i know of several. And the thing is that with the other newer programs there will be more tools and they will most certainly be easier to use and if the music buisiness shuts down napster they will have more problems with new ones.N

JustJack
07-30-2000, 08:46 PM
Exactly. I just posted that in another thread that there are many other programs that do the same thing and shutting Napster down will not solve the problem at all.
<br>
<br>I watched an interview during the week with the two guys who came up with Napster and they both said they created the service to swap songs. The whole new band promotion thing was a good afterthought.
<br>
<br>BrianN

redstrokes77
07-31-2000, 03:28 AM
I don't understand why they couldn't have nipped this thing in the bud by actually paying the royalities in the first place. After all the writers of a song are paid a whopping 3 cents per song when a CD is sold!
<br> Another thing I don't understand is that Napster claims that there is no money made by Napster off of the trading of songs. So how come they can support concerts of bands. That plus RIAA has to post a 5 million dollar bond for any "loss of income" incurred during the trial.
<br>I know, I know....advertising right? Well who would advertise on a site unless they were popular enough to make money off of it.
<br>
<br>
<br>deb
<br> N

iluv2paintball
07-31-2000, 06:22 AM
If what you are tryinig to say is that napster isnt "that" popular, you are dead wrong. Napster has over 2 million users, I think that is plenty popular to make some money off of it.:)N

cybersadie
07-31-2000, 06:32 AM
Poor college kid here! I am 21 (just had a birthday) and putting myself through school without any parental contribution.
<br>
<br>For the most part, we poor college kids understand better than lots of others what it means to work your tush off for little or no pay. We don’t want to put others through that. We just don’t want to, like I said before, spend $17 for one song (actually even CD singles cost about $5). The chief reason I remain torn about the whole issue is that I keep thinking about the “little guys,” not the artists themselves who have royalties as their chief source of income and don’t live in palatial estates. And by the way, CD burners are really expensive and I don’t know a lot of poor college kids who can afford them.
<br>
<br>But morality aside, I agree with whoever said that music fans are more loyal than people give us credit for. Just like all of us own more than one copy of DL and went out and bought the Limited Series even though we owned all the albums already, there are others that feel that way about their musician of choice.
<br>
<br>Actually, the thing that upset me the most about the whole napster controversy is the way that it was initially dealt with. Metallica’s people never got in touch with napster’s people to say “hey guys, this really isn’t right we should be getting royalties” and then worked out an amicable solution. Instead, they secretly monitored napster, garnering the IP addresses of 300,000 people who downloaded Metallica (former fans, no doubt), notified napster they were suing, and then went to MTV to give a napster-bashing interview. C’mon guys, you have to admit that was not a grown-up way to deal with it. GB wouldn’t have done it that way (remember how well he dealt with the Warren G thing). I just think they put the words “new” and “technology” together in their heads and freaked out. And it would be too embarrassing to back down or compromise now.
<br>
<br>Most of the napster users I know appreciate the convenience of it more than the free-ness. I know plenty who’d pay for napster if it were reasonably priced. Even for those of us who don’t live miles from the nearest music store, how many times have you been sitting around with friends and thought “remember that song from 10 years ago” and wanted to hear it, but didn’t have the CD? Or gotten one line from a song that you may not even particularly like stuck in your head and just need to hear the whole thing to get it out of your head? Or, (and this has happened to me) were working on a paper late at night on Cole Porter or the role of women in the rap music industry and wanted to quote a lyric in it but needed to hear the song again? (As far as I know, HMV is not open at 3am when I work on my papers.)
<br>
<br>Maybe it’s the whole turn of the century thing. Charles Dickens went through a whole intellectual property thing at the end of the Victorian era. That has seemed to work out okay….
<br>N

Cheryl
07-31-2000, 06:43 AM
Seems to me that this isn't really all that complicated at all. Seeing as how Napster is there "to help the artist" :rolleyes: Napster shouldn't have a problem with this suit. After all, the artist just want the right to say whether they would like the "help" or be able to say no thanks. Kinda makes ya wonder what all the fuss is about, dont it???? After all, assuming that they are performing such an invaluable service for these artist, it would lead to follow that the artist would be begging them to contine. So, then, dont ya just gotta ask yourself what Napster is so afraid of????? Maybe they are just upset that the RIAA and some of the artist who are being "helped" are un-greatful instead of just giving them the pat on the back they deserve for all their unselfish hard work. Gee, Napster should really welcome this clearing of the air....after all, just think of how much better they would be able to "help" those that want it, once they weed out all of the artist undeserving of their services. Napster's objection couldn't possibly be that they are afraid of losing some of that money, could it? Money that they are making from somebody else's life work? Copywrited work that Napster is using without regard to copywrite laws? Nah....course not!
<br>
<br>BTW....my sarcastic comments are not intended towards the Napster users, just Napster itself. My problem isn't with people who use it....it's with the fact that Napster tries to justify what they do as being good for those they are stealing from.
<br><P>(This message has been edited by Cheryl)N

iluv2paintball
07-31-2000, 06:48 AM
you have a lot of good points. Most people cant afford a burner. I only wish i could write as much as you did:)N

iluv2paintball
07-31-2000, 06:56 AM
Napster cant just ban certain songs because even if they put a ban on a certain song name or artist. People would just rename the song and continue passing it on. Originally napster was set up to help give new bands some free advertisement. But it has turned into much more, and that much more is actually making the RIAA and individual artists and bands more money.N

iluv2paintball
07-31-2000, 06:56 AM
Napster cant just ban certain songs because even if they put a ban on a certain song name or artist. People would just rename the song and continue passing it on. Originally napster was set up to help give new bands some free advertisement. But it has turned into much more, and that much more is actually making the RIAA and individual artists and bands more money.N

cybersadie
07-31-2000, 07:18 AM
oops. sorry i guess that was kind of long. my congratulations to anyone with the patience to read it. N

no1cowgirl
07-31-2000, 07:43 AM
*LOL*
<br>
<br> AMEN CHERYL!
<br>
<br>
<br>KristaN

redstrokes77
07-31-2000, 01:37 PM
cybersadie:
<br>
<br>You said, "Actually, the thing that upset me the most about the whole napster controversy is the way that it was initially dealt with. Metallica’s people never got in touch with napster’s people to say “hey guys, this really isn’t right we should be getting royalties” and then worked out an amicable solution."
<br>
<br>Don't you think the onus should have been on Napster to ask the artists first????? After all it IS the artist's music NOT Napster's to begin with.
<br>
<br>debN

Chris Gaines
07-31-2000, 03:46 PM
so everyone knows...
<br>
<br>Napster has 20 Million users (not 2 million as previously noted)...
<br>
<br>they also funded LIMP BIZKIT 6 concert free tour for a WOPPING 1.8 MILLION DOLLARS
<br>
<br>;)
<br>Jason<P>(This message has been edited by Chris Gaines)N

iluv2paintball
07-31-2000, 04:11 PM
Chris Gaines
<br>
<br>My bad 20 million, which even better proves my point.N

cybersadie
07-31-2000, 04:49 PM
Deb --
<br>
<br>I see your point! It would have been the smart, business savvy thing to do to get permission from major record labels before mounting napster largescale. But the one thing that I think is forgotten when people talk about napster is that it was created by a 19-year old college student with too much time on his hands and not a seasoned veteran like Bill Gates. He never set out to screw people out of their money, just an easier way to get a hold of mp3s (a technology which he did not himself invent) and trade them with his friends.
<br>
<br>The fact that artists weren't consulted and that he never imagined some sort of controversy like this would arise was very, very naive on his part. Perhaps if he were better advised or a little older and wiser, we'd all be talking about this great new artist-approved way of getting music online instead of about intellectual theft.
<br>
<br>Maybe I'm naive too (being only 1 year his senior) but I feel kinda sorry for him. At 20-years old, he was riding high on what he thought was a good thing and within the same year he's been shot down and sorta left in the cold to defend himself.N

Lowell Miller
08-01-2000, 12:34 PM
Well, I have to tell you. I just downloaded Napstar, and I'm like a kid in a candy store. It's just the coolest thing. I do agree that songwriters should get paid what they deserve. I can understand not being able to download new songs. But "most" of the songs I have downloaded are old. Songs like "Seasons in the sun" and "Wildfire." You can't find these anymore and Napstar is great for old songs. The songs are clear and if you download windows media player you can have all these cool effects while the song plays. I do like downloading new songs, you can't help it. But I can understand artists getting upset. I think there should be a timeframe for new songs. But the old songs should be available.N

littlebit
08-16-2000, 10:29 AM
To all you so called "poor" college students.
<br>
<br>1. i never HAD the money to go to college.
<br>
<br>2. i know some of you work, do you think it's fair for me to come in on YOUR job WITHOUT Your PERMISSION and skim some money from YOUR PAYCHECK? didn't think so...and for those who do, i'll be right over!
<br>
<br>3. Yes people abuse things, that's no reason for you to, if Napster jumped off a cliff does that mean you will too? Or can ya'll think for yourselves, and not let Naptster tell you what to think?
<br>
<br>4. Garth and the other artists worked hard just to get where they are at.
<br>
<br>In other words, for all of you going for that degree in college right now, does this mean i should be allowed to go in take YOUR homework and papers and get an A on YOUR WORK? Hey it's free, i don't and never had the money to go to college, so i might as well use YOUR stuff, what the heck, you paid the money ALREADY, "might as well help myself becos i'm poor."
<br>
<br>do you see what i'm saying. Garth PAID to get into the recording studio. Ask Krista she knows. She's been there. how many of you have done the same? He and the other artists get their money BACK when we buy the cds.
<br>
<br>5. Several of the big music companies have just been busted for inflating the price of cds. Mind you the artist's didn't get busted, the music companies did. So much for the arguement that the artist's are getting rich.
<br>
<br>Garth has not only tried to keep on lid on the prices of his cds but also his concerts. Montgomery Gentry is charging 3 times the amount Garth did for a concert here in Cerritos! And while i like their music i CAN'T pay that to see them!
<br>
<br>When you copy of friends cd, the royalties where paid. He BOUGHT the cd. When you just download it for FREE. NO ONE GETS PAID.
<br>
<br>When ya'll get out of college and are working full time, is it still okey for me to come in WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION and take part of your paycheck? i'll be right over!!
<br>
<br>if this sounds like attack, i'm sorry. But i feel Napster attacked all artist's when they started this. Had they asked persmission and done it right the first time i might feel different.
<br>
<br>think about it!
<br>
<br>deAnnalynn<P>(This message has been edited by littlebit)N

littlebit
08-16-2000, 10:30 AM
Sorry, don't know how this got on twice.
<br>
<br>To all you so called "poor" college students.
<br>
<br>1. i never HAD the money to go to college.
<br>
<br>2. i know some of you work, do you think it's fair for me to come in on YOUR job WITHOUT Your PERMISSION and skim some money from YOUR PAYCHECK? didn't think so...and for those who do, i'll be right over!
<br>
<br>3. Yes people abuse things, that's no reason for you to, if Napster jumped off a cliff does that mean you will too? Or can ya'll think for yourselves, and not let Naptster tell you what to think?
<br>
<br>4. Garth and the other artists worked hard just to get where they are at.
<br>
<br>In other words, for all of you going for that degree in college right now, does this mean i should be allowed to go in take YOUR homework and papers and get an A on YOUR WORK? Hey it's free, i don't and never had the money to go to college, so i might as well use YOUR stuff, what the heck, you paid the money ALREADY, "might as well help myself becos i'm poor."
<br>
<br>do you see what i'm saying. Garth PAID to get into the recording studio. Ask Krista she knows. She's been there. how many of you have done the same? He and the other artists get their money BACK when we buy the cds.
<br>
<br>5. Several of the big music companies have just been busted for inflating the price of cds. Mind you the artist's didn't get busted, the music companies did. So much for the arguement that the artist's are getting rich.
<br>
<br>Garth has not only tried to keep on lid on the prices of his cds but also his concerts. Montgomery Gentry is charging 3 times the amount Garth did for a concert here in Cerritos! And while i like their music i CAN'T pay that to see them!
<br>
<br>if this sounds like attack, i'm sorry. But i feel Napster attacked all artist's when they started this. Had they asked persmission and done it right the first time i might feel different.
<br>
<br>think about it!
<br>
<br>deAnnalynn<P>(This message has been edited by littlebit)N