I lost the comment that said 'napster is being a wuss, cause they could stand up or argue this metallica-bullying in half a dozen ways'. But why should napster bother? This way, they ban 300 thousand screen names and everybody who isnt us or them thinks to themselves "boyo! Napster sure is in complete cooperation with metallicas paperheads." But/we/ know that banning 300k screen names wont do jack, i think napster also knows it. So they dont actually harm any users and yet they appear to be cooperating with the offended party. This is good, cause we have to admit, a lot of stuff on napster that falls into the 'illegal' category. For napster to say they wont keep people from doing illegal things would be bad for them. Now my complaint about Metallica. Artistic vision? My ass. To me, it sounds as if metallica is crying over money they think they could be making if their music wasnt being pirated (this I doubt. If any of the people I know didnt have MP3s, they probably wouldnt buy jack.) Maybe when I become a world renown artist I will see their point, but personally i would frickin happy as hell to find out people were making copies of my artwork, illegal or no. But if metallica/were/ to say 'we want our money' they would receive a negative response (again..my feelings) from the public because they are already fabulously rich! Ok. Im done. -------------------------------------------------- vpu O ew;;U Xmr arMS RJWAW aX lwuvpESA/ --------------------------------------------------
I havent done this before, but isnt zero post supposed to be good? has anyone tried sending other files through napster simply by renaming them? Is this wrapster a big deal? Napster seems like a really good idea for file sharing - im not sure why they wouldnt have included something like this to begin with. Anyone know why they didnt?
Even though the company is a collection of shareholders, very often those individuals have no say or even knowledge regarding what the company does. The company (often times) is still controlled by a board of big money executives who work in their own interests, and not necessarily the interests of the shareholders.
Slashdot Mirror
I lost the comment that said 'napster is being a wuss, cause they could stand up or argue this metallica-bullying in half a dozen ways'. But why should napster bother? This way, they ban 300 thousand screen names and everybody who isnt us or them thinks to themselves "boyo! Napster sure is in complete cooperation with metallicas paperheads." But /we/ know that banning 300k screen names wont do jack, i think napster also knows it. So they dont actually harm any users and yet they appear to be cooperating with the offended party. This is good, cause we have to admit, a lot of stuff on napster that falls into the 'illegal' category. For napster to say they wont keep people from doing illegal things would be bad for them. /were/ to say 'we want our money' they would receive a negative response (again..my feelings) from the public because they are already fabulously rich! - vpu O ew;;U Xmr arMS RJWAW aX lwuvpESA/ --------------------------------------------------
Now my complaint about Metallica. Artistic vision? My ass. To me, it sounds as if metallica is crying over money they think they could be making if their music wasnt being pirated (this I doubt. If any of the people I know didnt have MP3s, they probably wouldnt buy jack.) Maybe when I become a world renown artist I will see their point, but personally i would frickin happy as hell to find out people were making copies of my artwork, illegal or no. But if metallica
Ok. Im done. -------------------------------------------------
I havent done this before, but isnt zero post supposed to be good? has anyone tried sending other files through napster simply by renaming them? Is this wrapster a big deal? Napster seems like a really good idea for file sharing - im not sure why they wouldnt have included something like this to begin with. Anyone know why they didnt?
Even though the company is a collection of shareholders, very often those individuals have no say or even knowledge regarding what the company does. The company (often times) is still controlled by a board of big money executives who work in their own interests, and not necessarily the interests of the shareholders.