News 'Legitimate' Napster launch due

The only thing I can see is your avatar...

 

Yeah, for god's sake Hwu I told you to change that! It's sick.

And about that intelectual property. If you think it's stupid that people are able to 'own' an idea or concept imagine what it would be like if that wern't the case. For example, someone might spend thousands researching some new process for efficiently making electricity from potatos. They publish there ideas, someone takes the idea and funds the production of a few potato plants around the country and makes millions. The original researcher would never have received a single penny from all their hard work.
That kind of thing would hardly encourage people to invent and research things if they never get anything in return.

The same thing applies to the Dodge and to music. If people are not able to make money from their intellectual property they aren't going to be encouraged to spend thousands producing and marketing it.

 

Two things I'd like to know (and haven't found on the napster website)...

- How exactly does it stop you from registering / buying music if you're not in the US?

- What 'restrictions' are there on MP3s you download? Can I only play them on my PC? Do they 'expire'? What bitrate are they?

 

iTunes music store is still the best

 

Like iTunes it might just know

 

iTunes requires you to have a US postal address when you sign up.

 

Nah iTunes still knows what country your in before you sign up



It probebly bases this of something your ISP reports in the back ground.

 

youre right, bad wording(again) on my part. its not the point of intellectual property, its a side effect, and its wrong IMO.

uhmmm, to use your own words, you just made yourself look like a total idiot. its not my fault that your band sucked so much that they couldn't make enough money.

no. music that i wouldn't go through the trouble to buy i will listen to just for something different to listen to. if there were no means to get it from the internet i would only listen to it on the radio, then when it is no longer played on the radio i wouldn't listen to it anymore. all downloading it has done is prolonged the musics lifetime in my presence, i would have never spent any amount of money on it.

very good points. but, going back to the tired viper analogy, i dont think they (dodge) should be able to own the concept of a viper or a car that looks and runs like a viper (since its not the same its a replica). it would take a lot of work to create one by yourself, just as it takes more work to download the correct mp3s from a source (albeit much less work) than to buy a ready made cd. what the problem is on their (record label's) end is that their product isn't attractive enough for me to get the origional, when a copy works almost as good. it is when the product is very nicely presented, and the music is so good that i want the origional cd to work in all players that i buy the cd.


blegh! sorry about all the quotes and the overall length of this. i never meant to open this can of worms.

 

Okay ladies and gents... The bottom line to all this is that if you have a copy of any song and didn't pay for it, receive it as a gift or in trade, that's piracy and is quite illegal. In order to create that song, people worked at a job whether it's the doughnut guy, the sound mixer or the artists. They did not create the music you listen to just because they are generous folk or it's "fun", they create the music to have heat in their homes, food on their table, clothes on their backs and medicine for their kids.

Just because the RIAA is only going after the big name swappers, doesn't make it any less illegal for you to pop on Kaaza or Usenet to get a few tracks. It just makes it more difficult to prosecute.

I'm NOT a fan of the RIAA (or the MPAA to a lesser extent), but they do have a point eventhough their tactics are wrong.

Would you tap into cable lines to get "free tv"?
Would you by-pass the electrical usage meter to get free electricity?

 

And here is where your complete lack of understanding of the music industry shows through.

How old are you, exactly?

*n

 

dad - i never said that downloading songs wasn't illegal, other people did (something which i haven't yet researched). all i said was that i didn't see anything wrong with downloading songs that i never intended to purchase. but they not only put food on their table but they need to have a solid gold rocket car and still have to sue poor college students, and old women.

penski - where is my complete lack of the music industry? my post implied that if this band can make enough money without my support of buying their cd, then they should still be able to make it if im not supporting them and downloading their songs. wheather or not i download their music doesn't effect them whatsoever since i would never buy it. and if i did like it a lot then i would buy it, just to own a stamped cd.

even though my age makes no difference, im 18. YOU are the one making statements like, "I'm going to personally kick your ass," and "The record label kicked their asses." i should ask you how old you are.

 

Nineteen

If you don't like them, why are you downloading their music?

*n

 

Your suggesting a type of communistic economy. Intellectual property is VITAL to a capitalist economy. If you have no incentive to develope a new thought or idea, you won't. Russia was in the space race for the simple fact that they were FORCED to do so, not because any of the intelligent population decided to develope an idea on how to make space travel possible. We ALL saw how well that went. Again to reitterate, intellectual property is a crucial part of any capitalist economic system.

No, if the band didn't make enough money it was because so many people had the same view as you do. Nobody bought their music because they stole it. Thats what penski was getting at.

Theres a huge difference between the radio and listening at your own convenience. A radio station buys the rights to play songs on the radio and they pay for it by advertising. When you just download music and listen to it you are STEALING. Regardless whether or not you never inteded to buy the album, you still listened to the music more than once. Like I said I am a proponent of listening to music before you buy, but if you continually listen to it you are stealing, not sampling.

Re-read Hwulex's post, you missed a few of the key points.

You can find the DMCA here. And I quote:

I'm not really good at legal mumbo jumbo, but according to this (and the Copyright Act which I have read) only distribution is illegal. So yes, its legal to download copyrighted music. I do feel it is morally wrong though and is theft.