Since I'm a regular./ reader, a metallica fan and a napster user(why do I feel like I'm not the only one here?),I 've read the chat transcript and I wanted to know what your real motivations are? When a fan asked you about the problem that your new song was available throught Napster thought it wasn't released yet, you answered that it was not related. I'm just wondering if after all you realised that problem and got scared,and filed this suit. Besides, you say money is not an issue in this case, but you also say that you're scared of not being paid for your work (and eventually you would have to get another job to go on and make music if you were not paid tomorrow). -So, is this all about money or not? -why do you guys, who have sold millions of albums, should care so much about money? -and finally, don't you think there could be a way to satisfy users AND artists? Like music bands adhering to an online place where you could download for free and bands who would be partner of this place would be retributed by some kind of advertising system. All bands registered to this web system would eventually get sponsored by this entity, plus the most downloaded artists(=most listened to by users) would get more sponsoship (==money). I know its weird to combine "free" and "money" in the same sentence, but at least, on a theoric point of view it conciliates free minded./ers, music fans, and anxious artists... Now realise that this is not an utopia for everybody, when you think about what I said it's close to what limp bizkit is doing with napster right now: they "admit" that napster is used to trade their songs (but also to promote them), while napster supports (== partly pays) their live shows. This is not the description you metallica guys gave about limp/napster during the online chat. If you ever read this, keep up the good music, metallica. I already own all your cds, and I encourage you guys to try the napster program where you could maybe meet and hear artists that are pleased to be able to be heard by any people...(I'm not necessarily talking about limp Bizkit here!) Money is clearly not an issue for some of them, but if Napster could sponsor them it'd finally make a sense, don't you think? alhought I can understand this is quite far from some other bands 'business model'...
I can also understand this is quite long for a question submit, but after all the question is in the title;) , and I also wanted to react on this "live" interview because some of the answers just sounded like let's-skip-to-the-other-question-now-that-I've-mad e-my-statement sorry for the poor english
this article is (so far) an open road to nowhere
on
Attacking Open Source
·
· Score: 1
ok, I won't explain or talk about what this guys wrote, everyone understood what it was worth. The only problem is that the author (Mr Taschek) explained his point with only 2 examples (mozilla and red hat if I can remember) and then he concluded with a general idea about open source. Come on, when you have something to explain or to argue, you don't bring 1 or 2 examples and put a general statement from them! examples are useful to explain an idea, not to make one... what would you think, Mr John Taschek, if I said "John wrote an awful article, so he is dumb." I don't think a statement like that would have anything to do with truth....(althought I feel better now:))
ok this is maybe an utopia but I 've been thinking about a way to pay artists and keep nusic free in the last few weeks.There must be a legal way to make this happen... for instance, if there were a web site with commercial mp3s to download, it could live with advertising and give the ads money to the most downloaded artists? so artists would be paid, users would download all day for free and most of all, music companies would be useless. the problem is that it would maybe be difficult for a web site to survive while giving all (or part of) the money earned with advertising, but if that kind of thing happened I would be pleased to be part of it and help it for free. (sorry for my english)
Slashdot Mirror
Since I'm a regular ./ reader, a metallica fan and a napster user(why do I feel like I'm not the only one here?),I 've read the chat transcript and I wanted to know what your real motivations are? When a fan asked you about the problem that your new song was available throught Napster thought it wasn't released yet, you answered that it was not related. I'm just wondering if after all you realised that problem and got scared,and filed this suit. Besides, you say money is not an issue in this case, but you also say that you're scared of not being paid for your work (and eventually you would have to get another job to go on and make music if you were not paid tomorrow). ./ers, music fans, and anxious artists...
;) , and I also wanted to react on this "live" interview because some of the answers just sounded like let's-skip-to-the-other-question-now-that-I've-mad e-my-statement
-So, is this all about money or not?
-why do you guys, who have sold millions of albums, should care so much about money?
-and finally, don't you think there could be a way to satisfy users AND artists? Like music bands adhering to an online place where you could download for free and bands who would be partner of this place would be retributed by some kind of advertising system. All bands registered to this web system would eventually get sponsored by this entity, plus the most downloaded artists(=most listened to by users) would get more sponsoship (==money). I know its weird to combine "free" and "money" in the same sentence, but at least, on a theoric point of view it conciliates free minded
Now realise that this is not an utopia for everybody, when you think about what I said it's close to what limp bizkit is doing with napster right now: they "admit" that napster is used to trade their songs (but also to promote them), while napster supports (== partly pays) their live shows. This is not the description you metallica guys gave about limp/napster during the online chat. If you ever read this, keep up the good music, metallica. I already own all your cds, and I encourage you guys to try the napster program where you could maybe meet and hear artists that are pleased to be able to be heard by any people...(I'm not necessarily talking about limp Bizkit here!) Money is clearly not an issue for some of them, but if Napster could sponsor them it'd finally make a sense, don't you think? alhought I can understand this is quite far from some other bands 'business model'...
I can also understand this is quite long for a question submit, but after all the question is in the title
sorry for the poor english
ok, I won't explain or talk about what this guys wrote, everyone understood what it was worth. The only problem is that the author (Mr Taschek) explained his point with only 2 examples (mozilla and red hat if I can remember) and then he concluded with a general idea about open source. Come on, when you have something to explain or to argue, you don't bring 1 or 2 examples and put a general statement from them! examples are useful to explain an idea, not to make one... what would you think, Mr John Taschek, if I said "John wrote an awful article, so he is dumb." I don't think a statement like that would have anything to do with truth....(althought I feel better now :))
ok this is maybe an utopia but I 've been thinking about a way to pay artists and keep nusic free in the last few weeks.There must be a legal way to make this happen... for instance, if there were a web site with commercial mp3s to download, it could live with advertising and give the ads money to the most downloaded artists? so artists would be paid, users would download all day for free and most of all, music companies would be useless. the problem is that it would maybe be difficult for a web site to survive while giving all (or part of) the money earned with advertising, but if that kind of thing happened I would be pleased to be part of it and help it for free. (sorry for my english)