The phone company that was supposed to install a line so I can get dsl access messed up. And lied about it to. Got me ****ed. No I have to wait until August first. Got a discount out of it, basically because I was hot and made the first supervisor cry. Okay, I didn't want to make her cry, all I said was that the service guy who lied and said I was not home, when I was waiting at home with my family, was a monkey.

Then napster gets shut down, a few weeks before I am online. Now you see, this makes me wanna put on the Omen and turn into the Antichrist.

God have mercy on me...

[copywritten article removed from message board. please do NOT post copywritten content to MovieMusic.com servers. if you are looking for news on Napster, visit any major news source online, thanks.]

Personally, this whole trial thing is bull ****. For one thing Napster is SHAREWARE! HELLO?! ANYONE CAN USE IT, IT's FREE!!!!!

This topic get me really upset because it realy is bull ****. Just like the Microsoft trailer, don't even get me started...

S Smith, you are not alone. Napster is used 99% of the time for illegal activity, so it needs a little punishment. Personally, I like the idea of online distribution. Perhaps Napster's aggressiveness will bring the record industry onto the real playing field, making online distribution an asset for BOTH consumer and industry. Consumers have been suckered into higher and higher prices for stuff that's gotten cheaper to make for too long now.

PeterK

Scott has to be more specific. Sorry. Napster received a gag order by a judge with the name Patel (my uncle's last name, hehehe). On Friday they are to go off line until the trial is completed.

My question, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
'
Ok, it's not a criminal trial I know...

Btw, it takes between $0.80 to $3.00 to produce a cd. Why in the world are we paying over $15.00 now?

Someone else sees something wrong with that?

You're right; "innocent until proven guilty" is a criminal law concept. You might say that in a civil case like this, there should be a similar rule. But the issuance of a preliminary injunction, such as this one, means that the judge believes that the plaintiffs have demonstrated a high degree of likelihood (the standard of probability varies according to the venue) of prevailing in the trial. Since that's the case, logically the defendant should have to desist from practices that cause the plaintiffs economic harm until the trial's outcome is decided.

As a legal matter, it seemed pretty clear to Judge Patel that Napster is "guilty" of contributory infringement--that is, of enabling and assisting (if not outright encouraging) others to infringe on copyright. Contributory infringement is a federal offense just like "pure" infringement. Since the judge views the case that way, the standard for issuing the injunction had been met, and there we are.

As a laywer, I pretty much agree with the judge's analysis (not that I've done any independent research on the subject). But I hope that the revolution continues, so that some way, whether through the Internet or not, prices go down and availability goes up. Especially for soundtracks (gratuitous attempt to bring post within topic).

P.S.: I think it's unfair for the artists and the people who need Napster to cut their music archiving costs down- just for the short of it. I'm an independent recording artist of my own volition, and right now, I don't think I could get a record deal, and I probably wouldn't take one, given the nature of the industry chasing the almighty dollar.

My problem with Napster isn't with their technology, it's with their ATTITUDE! They come out saying "SHARE THE MUSIC!" and every kid in college yelps "RIIIIIGHT ON!" Ok, so Napster is allowing millions to share other company's intellectual property. But what happens when someone asks to share Napster's technology? Napster has two words: "GET LOST!!!" A bit of hypocrisy? Indeed. They cannot be so self-righteous about leading the revolution. They need a big spanking, and I am glad they are getting it. It the meantime, let's shake up the record industry and, like widescreen suggests, show them we're not stupid. We're smart.

But, if you're just a kid and you like downloading as much free music as possible, Napster's disappearance isn't the end of the world. Gnutella, napigater, the list goes on and on... will continue to go on and on.

PeterK

[sigh...]

Sadly,
Jeron

There must be a compromise somewhere, somehow. That will undoubtedly take tremendous effort and time to accomplish, not to mention an unparalleled willingness to negotiate.

***********************************************************************

What is the difference (aside from the quality question) between downloading music form naptster or recording it from the radio?

The views expressed hear I agree with.

"First off, Napster does not encourage people to buy more CDs. In some cases, as (some have saide), you might just use Napster as a sampling device to try out CDs. But by and large, this is not the case. CD sales near college campuses, where T1 lines and Napster are most used, have dropped precipitously since Napster arrived.

Yes, the music industry must adapt, and believe me, they're working on solutions similar to the "buy a song online for a fee, make your own CD" approach talked about earlier. But the difficulty remains, how do you police it? Once I've downloaded a song, what's keeping me from uploading it for everybody else to download free? Clearly, some sort of copy protection or encryption is required, but getting something like that to prevent piracy but not hurt the legitimate consumer is the trick. And as DVD encryption (cracked while the format was still in its infancy!) had proved, it's nearly impossible to stay one step ahead of the pirates. And while piracy has always been an issue in music distribution, it's never been so effortless and all-encompassing as it is with Napster (or Gnutella, or whatever else comes along).

Naturally, the true Napster believers like to imagine themselves striking a blow for individuals and against unfeeling corporate behemoths. Nonsense. But even forgoing the usual ethical/moral arguments (which I wholeheartedly endorse), let's get down to the nitty gritty. On a purely practical level, who will pay the enormous costs of producing a professional quality song, score, whatnot if piracy removes the profit?

Clearly, there's no going back to pre-Napster days. But what lies ahead is unclear."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ford A. Thaxton:
CD sales near college campuses, where T1 lines and Napster are most used, have dropped precipitously since Napster arrived.

---

Just a note, but I saw this same "statistic" in Newsweek. IT WAS TAKEN DURING THE SUMMER BREAK!!!
I guess that would explain why sales near college campuses have dropped.
Just another example of how you can never trust statistics.

Speaking for myself, the only "complete" albums I ever get from Napster are the rare bootlegs (ie Star Trek: The Motion Picture Complete - a revelation BTW, Aliens complete, Back to the Future, etc.)

I only download 1-2 tracks from commercially available albums, and have eventually bought nearly all of them legitimately. I think this pattern of behavior could be applied to most film score collectors - I'm always surprised at how many score albums any given Napster server contains.

Clay G.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andrew Drannon:
Just a note, but I saw this same "statistic" in Newsweek. IT WAS TAKEN DURING THE SUMMER BREAK!!!

---

Well considering who owns Newsweek, I am not surprised how they conducted this survey. Tricky, tricky, tricky.

Still, no one has explained to me what is the major difference between downloading songs and simply recording them from the radio.

I am eagerly awaiting the answer.

Scott

It's a far better informed view then many of the ones I've seen expressed here.

The views expressed hear I agree with.

And is is my UNEDITED OPIION.

MR. KELLY DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO ALTER MY OPINIONS IN ANY MANNER, Either remove the whole post or don't screw with it.

Have I made myself clear?

"First off, Napster does not encourage people to buy more CDs. In some cases, as (some have saide), you might just use Napster as a sampling device to try out CDs. But by and large, this is not the case. CD sales near college campuses, where T1 lines and Napster are most used, have dropped precipitously since Napster arrived.

Yes, the music industry must adapt, and believe me, they're working on solutions similar to the "buy a song online for a fee, make your own CD" approach talked about earlier. But the difficulty remains, how do you police it? Once I've downloaded a song, what's keeping me from uploading it for everybody else to download free? Clearly, some sort of copy protection or encryption is required, but getting something like that to prevent piracy but not hurt the legitimate consumer is the trick. And as DVD encryption (cracked while the format was still in its infancy!) had proved, it's nearly impossible to stay one step ahead of the pirates. And while piracy has always been an issue in music distribution, it's never been so effortless and all-encompassing as it is with Napster (or Gnutella, or whatever else comes along).

Naturally, the true Napster believers like to imagine themselves striking a blow for individuals and against unfeeling corporate behemoths. Nonsense. But even forgoing the usual ethical/moral arguments (which I wholeheartedly endorse), let's get down to the nitty gritty. On a purely practical level, who will pay the enormous costs of producing a professional quality song, score, whatnot if piracy removes the profit?

Clearly, there's no going back to pre-Napster days. But what lies ahead is unclear."

It seems this editing job of mine is a case of "attitude" over "opinion."

Mr. Ford, I do NOT appreciate your NASTY emails you are sending to me. It's unfortunate you have to start something with me in front of everyone here. I guess if people know who you really are, it's just your style. I figured you would want to butt heads with me sooner or later in public. Your nasty personal emails sent over the last couple of weeks, filled with explitives and other "street speak," just wasn't enough.

Ford, people around here KNOW I do NOT tolerate people who think they are better than anyone else. Everyone eats, sleeps, and yes, has to go to the bathroom 3.2 times a day. Your little line about "It's a far better informed view then many of the ones I've seen expressed here" is an attitude choice you've decided to make, and has nothing to do with your opinion on the subject matter. Why even suggest that your friends have far better informed views than anyone on this message board? Who cares? That's not what this is about. This is about actual opinions on things, not opinions on opinions (which = "attitude" in this case). I removed the second line, your ATTITUDE, from your post. Your opinion... errr... your friend's opinion, still stands.

Does it not?

Rhetorical question, the answer is self-evident. This argument is closed, Ford. Back to the subject...

PeterK

Why not just try recording something from the radio and then downloading the same song and compare?!

When you record songs off the radio, you are making a copy of the song. Downloading something is more than just a copy, it's a REPLICA. In the digital world, this is known as a CLONE. Wondering if there is a difference is like wondering if apples and oranges are the same.

It's as different as putting a microphone in front of the speakers to record something versus connecting the audio components with RCA cables to record something.

PeterK

> diff 1 2
1a2,3
> It's a far better informed view then many of the ones I've seen expressed here.
>
2a5,12
>
>
> And is is my UNEDITED OPIION.
>
> MR. KELLY DOES NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO ALTER MY OPINIONS IN ANY MANNER, Either remove the whole post or don't screw
> with it.
>
> Have I made myself clear?
>
Since I have not commented on this topic yet, I'll add...

<sarcasm> <rant mode>

My personal "uninformed" opinion on this matter is that the Napster thing is a big circus.

I think the next action to prevent piracy is to shut down all FTP, WWW, IRC, and usenet news machines, since these can also be used to distribute pirated music and other copyrighted items.

Actually, we should just remove all networking protocols (focusing on the speedy removal of TCP/IP, since it is what the evil internet runs on) from all computer operating systems. Modems, Network cards, and etc. will be banned and should be removed from computers immediately. We'll have a network peripherals burning heap where everybody can joyfully place their networking hardware on the flaming pile! Mmmm... I can smell the burning plastic already!

CD-R, Cassette, and all other recording media should be taxed quite heavily to compensate those whose copyrighted material is stolen.

</sarcasm> </rant mode>

NP: Raiders of the Lost Ark (I own it, BTW).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeron:
Hmmmm.... I used Napster today and it was working fine. What's the big deal?

Jeron

---

Well, Jeron the only reason you were able to use Napster was because a 2-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of the injunction against Napster.

Scott

I do understand what you were trying to say. But if you re-read my initial post or question, I wanted the difference besides the quality issue. If you really want a song, the quality is an added bonus yes, but you will also due with radio type quality. Furthermore, not all mp3s download perfectly, there is a slight loss in quality, anyone who knows about mp3s and computers can tell you that.

So in essence, no one has explained to me the difference. Because there is no difference, besides the quality. Cassettes, tapes, cdrs, radio, tv, internet all of these media have not stopped people from buying music. It's a debate as old as the very first sound ever recorded. This is just another attempt by big boy corporate America trying to make wind over nothing, spearheaded by a group that hasn't had a hit since Hanson cut their hair. Oh, ehm, I mean since Hanson got out of wearing diapers.

When you go anywhere and buy something, the action is wholly yours, from selecting the product to purchasing it. Same for Napster. The actions are all yours. You do a search for a song, you find it, you download it (you will soon pay for it).

For radio? The scenario doesn't compare at all. You turn on the radio, you hear music, but you didn't make the choice to play that song on the radio. You can only listen. One way street. If you want it the way you want it, it usually costs money, because you are paying for the service that provides you the opportunity to personally choose what it is you want. But radio has never worked that way (aside from payola) - it's a form of mass communication that only works one way.

Does this make sense? It's hard to draw a comparison between downloading songs off of Napster and recording a song off the radio. They aren't even close to the same thing.

As for MP3 files, transferring them a million times results in NO loss of quality, because you are CLONING the file, they are digital. Ones and zeroes, ones and zeroes. There's no way a transfer over a T1 sounds better than a transfer over a 56k modem. Has nothing to do with the actual file, it has to do with the speed of the download. Whomever is telling you that there is a loss in quality when transferring a digital file is full of it! I am surprised to hear that anyone who knows about computers and MP3s even thinks this. I don't know anyone, and I've been in the digital world for a long time now....

Anyway, I hope I've made myself clear. I don't know if I've answered you sufficiently. Logically, it's hard to compare the two.

PeterK

PeterK, thanks for trying. On the surface you seem to be right. I can however record a song I want off the radio, I used to do it all the time. The top 40s, you just record and re-record later the songs you want. Bottome line I wind up with a recording of a song I wanted and didn't go out to buy it.

As far as Mp3s are concerned, you are correct. Yet, if your download is not perfect, your clone won't be either. I have heard countless mp3s that were butchered because of glitches during download. Furthermore, mp3s are only clones as long as they are recorded digitally. Some mp3s out there were recorded analogically (is that the correct word?) or worse converted from a wave file into mp3s. So, the quality isn't always there.

I guess what it comes down to is quality (which I already agreed to), and convienence. You don't have to wait for the song to appear you just search for it and download it. I can accept that. Not that I have any choice in the matter...hehe.

Thanks PeterK, as always.

Scott

quote:

---

NP: Star Trek:First Contact. (Playing it at work. Recorded selections from CD to tape. Hope the Government isn't here)

---

I know this is probably a joke, but seriously... the government couldn't nail you for this. It's your cd, and you've recorded it to tape for personal use. That's completely acceptable... otherwise, what are cassette tapes good for? Recording your own music?? Mwahahahahaha... Yeah right.

Jeron

Actually, if you do a reverse encode on a MP3 you end up with a wave file. The format is not the problem. It is only analog if that was the way that it was originally encoded.

The real problem with MP3 is the number of Kilobits per second or KBPS. Most people find 128 KBPS to be acceptable. I disagree; the higher rates such as 160, 192 or even 254 have enough range so as to retain decent sound. The downside to these higher rates is that are much larger files, taking much longer to upload and download. Broadband (DSL and Cable) have allowed for higher encodes and larger files.

In addition the codec that is used to encode makes a difference. Codecs like Xing, which are extremley fast, are also notorious for producing bad quality MP3. I suggest using a high quality low speed encoder lake LAME which is available as freeware. It is 1:1 recording speed, but does an excellent job of sound compression at 160 to 192 KPBS.

There are other factors to consider as well, Variable Bit Rate, Joint Stereo, Quality of the encode (Low to High) even if you are trying to do something else on the system at the same time that you are encoding. All of these can make a difference.

But the absolute worse problem with MP3's is that you can't tell what any of these variables are until you download and play them.

However to address your question:

It is possible to get MP3's that are IDENTICAL to the music on CD. You can then convert the MP3 back to Wave and burn it onto CD. I can tell you that unless you have extremely sophisticated equipment, you will not be able to tell the difference between a high quality MP3 reverse encode and the original. It takes just about an hour for an hour’s worth of music.

How is this different than recoding off of radio? Because there is no generational loss as there is with analog recording. Every time you move a away from the original recording some small amount of quality is removed. In your example of taping off radio, the quality loss can be staggering, but even if it is near perfect, it will still not be as good as a digital copy would be.

Ethically, you are quite correct in noting there is no difference. I am quite sure that the RIIA wouldn't approve of home taping at all, in any format.

Consider the struggle that ensued when Cassette tapes and DAT's first came out. The record industry opposed those formats and the same grounds and with less reason.

Also, AFAIK, all MP3 files were once wave files at one time. To convert CDs into mp3s, the CD audio must first be ripped onto the hard disk to wave files. Then, a rather cpu-intensive process of encoding the wave files to MP3 files must occur. It takes much longer to encode (create) a MP3 than it does to decode one. Decoding is done in real time on Pentium class computers as you play the file.

I personally encode my MP3s at 160kbps variable-bit-rate (VBR). I think that 160kbps VBR files give the best sound for the amount of disk space. Your mileage may vary.

As for "analog MP3s," naturally the resulting MP3 is only going to be as good as the source it came from. There could be an analog source, but of course the MP3 format is a digital one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MWRuger:
Scott

Ethically, you are quite correct in noting there is no difference. I am quite sure that the RIIA wouldn't approve of home taping at all, in any format.

Consider the struggle that ensued when Cassette tapes and DAT's first came out. The record industry opposed those formats and the same grounds and with less reason.

---

MWRuger,

thank you, that is the answer I was looking for.

Case closed.

Scott

You are going to finally get your GTE DSL.

You are going to download all kinds of music for free? Except for original scores, that is, because of the 1,500,000 songs on Napster, only 100 are scores.

A possible scenario of "Napstering" a niche market:

Right now, there may not be much by way of original scores (the stuff we're into) on Napster or Napigator or Gnutella. In the future, there will be, as more and more people register with these file sharing sites. When every score CD finally hits the sharing sites, everyone will download their scores for free, and record labels like Varese will fold and go out of business. But who cares? Scores are being produced for inclusion on DVDs as isolated features, right? That's where the files that show up on the sharing sites will come from. But but but... what if there is no score CD and there is no isolated score on a DVD? Hmmm, no produced score. Death to the market.

Yikes!! It is ethically right to pay for someone else's work, from the composer to the studio that made the recording possible (sound stage, mixers, microphones, etc.) BUT, it's not right to pay insane amounts of money just because there happens to be a strong labor union that demands expensive health benefits and guaranteed royalties, or a record label that claims the costs of marketing are too high (blarney).

Anyway, make your own decisions about how you want to participate in obtaining music. Just remember, a market will ultimately die if an exchange isn't made sooner or later. You can't keep taking and taking and taking for nothing and expect goods to keep coming.

PeterK

but you see, you got me wrong. I will get my DSL. I don't know if I will download any music, that I will have to decide once the time comes and in accordance with my faith. What I was after was the difference between recording from the radio and downloading. Ethically there is no difference. That's what I was after.

Napster does make me uneasy. Yet it intrigues me as well, especially considering how we were misled as far as the CD prices are concerned.

Will napster bring forth the demise of the record industry? I seriously doubt it.

What makes me uneasy is that I do believe the composers, artist deserve to get paid. Yet on every CD they get a ridiculous amount of money. They should get the biggest share.

I would be for charging some kind of amount to download music. Have no problem there.

All I wanted to know was...well, I am repeating myself here.

So, no I will not go and download files after files of Mp3s, for one thing I just ain't got the time, money and patience to do this.

I am getting my DSL for the following reasons:

1. I am sick and tired of using the computer at work and my nephs computer to get on the net and post my thoughts and read the great threats on this site. Just to imagine that I can sit down and take my time while here at MovieMusic.com, being able to post as much as I want to without time constraint is just a dream.

2. I can be on AIM as long as I want and communicate with the great people I have met over the net.

3. I will be learning how to compose by a very gracious composer, conducter. I may never amount to much, but to learn it is a thrill for me.

4. I will be starting my own business, where the net will be a big part of the business.

5. Knowledge is power. the more knowledge I can get the better..

6. Need to buy a lot of soundtracks over the net.

7. MovieMusic.com...oh...I already mentioned that haven't I.

So, those are the primary reasons. No napster, no porno, no murder, no mayhem...

I know, sounds boring, but that's just who I am.

Home taping has a lot of gray areas, with the Sony Betamax case and Home Recording Act of 1992 your prime guides. Scott, under these you can make a single non-commercial copy of an over the air radio program without fear of prosecution.

Non-commercial means you don't receive something of value in exchange for your copy.