I don't need an excuse to download mp3s. ..i have a reason. To me, mp3s are a form of protest. ..but not a protest against something as silly as the high prices of CDs. CD prices are ridiculously high, but that's not why i sometimes use napster to download those few songs i've been itching to hear. ..it's because i don't think the recording industry is worthy of my support (money). The RIAA, the lawyers, and the industry execs are all leeches who suck on the talent of the artists and who insist on trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of an antiquated distribution model.
And no, this isn't about disrespecting the artists. Even though i don't think it's a right (as many music industry lawyers would have youbelieve), I think that musicians should be able to be compensated for their work. This is one reason why i buy as many independantly released lps and cds as i can afford. This is not only because indies generally put out (in my opinion) better music, but because they actually treat thier artists well. If you want proof of how majors shit on thier artists, read this.
So please, before you post another reactionary rant, think about the fact that there are actually people out there using napster who are not whiny, spoiled little kids and who have put more thought into the implications of thier use of mp3s than the fact that if they download rather than buying, they'll have more of mommy and daddy's money left over to buy pot.
could you explain please exactly how napster works again? you said in a recent interview that napster "takes your music". how does napster do this? it's a website, right? i've never heard of any websites like that. ..but it sounds pretty cool. i'm assuming that since you are suing them they must have a centralized server somewhere with lots of your music stored online, free for the taking. do you know the URL?
i'm glad they say they respect my privacy, but if it is true that all program tracking is done locally on the user's machine, then there would really be no need for the phone connection it has. ..the show schedule updating (which is currently obtained when the machine calls home every night) could be sent to you over your cable or satellite signal instead..
i was lucky (?) enough to catch an infommercial for one of the brands of these (tivo i believe) some late night and it scared the life out of me when they mentioned the "feature" where the unit tracks what shows you like (through thumbs up and down buttons on your remote) and then tapes other shows it "thinks" you might be interested in while you are away. ..that just takes it too many steps down the road to 1984 if you ask me.
the point: this merger is a bad idea not because of the direct consequences it will have (although they will be extremely less than ideal) but because of the precident it sets for how large and powerful a company we are willing to let exist. as companies like this get bigger and bigger, it won't be long until the three or four media conglomerates left decide that it's in thier best interest (read: that it will make them more money, not that it will allow them to do what they do better) to join forces, even informally. . ..bad news. some of the earlier posts have covered the impact of conglomerated media pretty well, so you get the picture. . .
"and you can feign ignorance, but you're not stupid, you're just selfish. you're a slave to impulse. .."
Slashdot Mirror
umm. . . i think what hemos meant is that Boies is the lead prosecuting attorney against micro$oft, not napster.
;-)
Use the Preview Button!
I don't need an excuse to download mp3s. . .i have a reason. To me, mp3s are a form of protest. . .but not a protest against something as silly as the high prices of CDs. CD prices are ridiculously high, but that's not why i sometimes use napster to download those few songs i've been itching to hear. . .it's because i don't think the recording industry is worthy of my support (money). The RIAA, the lawyers, and the industry execs are all leeches who suck on the talent of the artists and who insist on trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of an antiquated distribution model.
And no, this isn't about disrespecting the artists. Even though i don't think it's a right (as many music industry lawyers would have youbelieve), I think that musicians should be able to be compensated for their work. This is one reason why i buy as many independantly released lps and cds as i can afford. This is not only because indies generally put out (in my opinion) better music, but because they actually treat thier artists well. If you want proof of how majors shit on thier artists, read this.
So please, before you post another reactionary rant, think about the fact that there are actually people out there using napster who are not whiny, spoiled little kids and who have put more thought into the implications of thier use of mp3s than the fact that if they download rather than buying, they'll have more of mommy and daddy's money left over to buy pot.
could you explain please exactly how napster works again? you said in a recent interview that napster "takes your music". how does napster do this? it's a website, right? i've never heard of any websites like that. . .but it sounds pretty cool. i'm assuming that since you are suing them they must have a centralized server somewhere with lots of your music stored online, free for the taking. do you know the URL?
i'm glad they say they respect my privacy, but if it is true that all program tracking is done locally on the user's machine, then there would really be no need for the phone connection it has. . .the show schedule updating (which is currently obtained when the machine calls home every night) could be sent to you over your cable or satellite signal instead..
i was lucky (?) enough to catch an infommercial for one of the brands of these (tivo i believe) some late night and it scared the life out of me when they mentioned the "feature" where the unit tracks what shows you like (through thumbs up and down buttons on your remote) and then tapes other shows it "thinks" you might be interested in while you are away. . .that just takes it too many steps down the road to 1984 if you ask me.
the point: this merger is a bad idea not because of the direct consequences it will have (although they will be extremely less than ideal) but because of the precident it sets for how large and powerful a company we are willing to let exist. as companies like this get bigger and bigger, it won't be long until the three or four media conglomerates left decide that it's in thier best interest (read: that it will make them more money, not that it will allow them to do what they do better) to join forces, even informally. . . .bad news. some of the earlier posts have covered the impact of conglomerated media pretty well, so you get the picture. . .
."
"and you can feign ignorance, but you're not stupid, you're just selfish. you're a slave to impulse. .