No, I wouldn't like that, but I would be fearing for my job if I constantly put out an overpriced product that was a piece of crap. Some clients may fall for it, others decide to use a source (a.k.a. Napster) to determine whether your services are worth the money. I've been ripped off too many times by bad artists making bad albums. So, I prefer to be the latter of those two clients. I still pay for good albums, but I no longer purchase crap.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. Music is art, and art belongs to us all. I'm a writer and if someone wants to distribute my work, I say go for it, baby! Greed is the issue, and perhaps that is truely why Napster was created--to get as much music as possible as quickly as possible. But it has gone beyond that, and if let loose from the legislation trying to bury it, it could move the taste of the general populace towards the good. In other words, away from prefabricated music and closer towards a beauty in this art not yet discovered.
If you could buy what you couldn't 'steal' from Napster, then you're doing it ALL wrong. And to answer your question: Yes, I would encourage to someone to take something I created--the musicians didn't 'make' the CD, they created the music on the CD--and do with it what they will. That's the point of art. I wouldn't want someone to take a copy of my book that I wrote off of my shelf. But I would want them to read it and copy it if it moved them (and they didn't want to pay the outrageous $7.99 for a paperback), and pass it on to others. If the musicians don't want someone listening to their music without paying, then they are not musicians, and essentially their music is worth nothing. Art belongs to us all, CDs belong to individuals. As far as I know, no one has ever received a CD from Napster, only the music from a CD.
Same with me. I was buying twice as much as I did when I was a teenager in my first few months with Napster. I could actually listen to the whole album that I had been eyeing (yet never buying) in the store for years previously. And most of those were great albums that I would still be eyeing if Napster wasn't around. However, since the lawsuits, I haven't bought a thing. Why should I give my money to these idiots who are trying to limit my freedoms and taste. And the musicians--they're supposed to be fighting for our (as humans) freedoms and tastes. I'll buy the stuff used and beat up just so they don't get my cash now.
If an individual realized that he could produce energy from his own farts, don't you think the power companies would be a little pissed and try to stop him from diseminating the though process that led to use of that energy by everyone?
If a simple tool was created by an blacksmith that allowed one to perform their own dentistry, don't you think that the medical/dental industry would be a little embarrased and shut him down before he passed the blueprint of an inexpensive tool on to everyone?
The RIAA is just pissed that a kid harnessed a power that they were dicking around with (if they were even doing that). And they are greedy. They have the corner on the music market and are quite simply afraid of losing it.
Yes! If Napster is shut down due to the RIAA, I am NEVER purchasing another new CD again. I will sit my ass down and wait until I can find my favorite bands' new releases on used media. I use Napster primarily for downloading songs that are either out of print or very tough to come by. If the RIAA decides to remint and make readily availible ALL out of print tunes/albums, then they have a case. Otherwise they are just a bunch of greedy bastards, and I will not give my money to those who limit my freedom as a consumer. Nor should anyone else with a brain.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wouldn't like that, but I would be fearing for my job if I constantly put out an overpriced product that was a piece of crap. Some clients may fall for it, others decide to use a source (a.k.a. Napster) to determine whether your services are worth the money. I've been ripped off too many times by bad artists making bad albums. So, I prefer to be the latter of those two clients. I still pay for good albums, but I no longer purchase crap.
I could easily reiterate and possibly add to your comments, but you've said everything so perfectly. Let me just say...right on!
Finally, someone who agrees with me. Music is art, and art belongs to us all. I'm a writer and if someone wants to distribute my work, I say go for it, baby! Greed is the issue, and perhaps that is truely why Napster was created--to get as much music as possible as quickly as possible. But it has gone beyond that, and if let loose from the legislation trying to bury it, it could move the taste of the general populace towards the good. In other words, away from prefabricated music and closer towards a beauty in this art not yet discovered.
If you could buy what you couldn't 'steal' from Napster, then you're doing it ALL wrong. And to answer your question: Yes, I would encourage to someone to take something I created--the musicians didn't 'make' the CD, they created the music on the CD--and do with it what they will. That's the point of art. I wouldn't want someone to take a copy of my book that I wrote off of my shelf. But I would want them to read it and copy it if it moved them (and they didn't want to pay the outrageous $7.99 for a paperback), and pass it on to others. If the musicians don't want someone listening to their music without paying, then they are not musicians, and essentially their music is worth nothing. Art belongs to us all, CDs belong to individuals. As far as I know, no one has ever received a CD from Napster, only the music from a CD.
Same with me. I was buying twice as much as I did when I was a teenager in my first few months with Napster. I could actually listen to the whole album that I had been eyeing (yet never buying) in the store for years previously. And most of those were great albums that I would still be eyeing if Napster wasn't around. However, since the lawsuits, I haven't bought a thing. Why should I give my money to these idiots who are trying to limit my freedoms and taste. And the musicians--they're supposed to be fighting for our (as humans) freedoms and tastes. I'll buy the stuff used and beat up just so they don't get my cash now.
If an individual realized that he could produce energy from his own farts, don't you think the power companies would be a little pissed and try to stop him from diseminating the though process that led to use of that energy by everyone? If a simple tool was created by an blacksmith that allowed one to perform their own dentistry, don't you think that the medical/dental industry would be a little embarrased and shut him down before he passed the blueprint of an inexpensive tool on to everyone? The RIAA is just pissed that a kid harnessed a power that they were dicking around with (if they were even doing that). And they are greedy. They have the corner on the music market and are quite simply afraid of losing it.
Yes! If Napster is shut down due to the RIAA, I am NEVER purchasing another new CD again. I will sit my ass down and wait until I can find my favorite bands' new releases on used media. I use Napster primarily for downloading songs that are either out of print or very tough to come by. If the RIAA decides to remint and make readily availible ALL out of print tunes/albums, then they have a case. Otherwise they are just a bunch of greedy bastards, and I will not give my money to those who limit my freedom as a consumer. Nor should anyone else with a brain.