Hey, I'm starting a web company called...
www.breakin.com
it's going to list city by city the best houses to break into based on
how much good music there is to steal. Cause you know, music should be
free right. It's the right of a free society to have free music even
though someone might have spent a lot of money producing that music and
their very lively hood depends on it. Anyone that tells you different is
obviously 'censoring' you or even worse could be a 'capitalist'. So
anyone that really beleives in this free music for all concept, let me
know your adress so I can get you up on the site right away.
for the record, I think there are positive aspects to online music, and I
still havn't decided yet whether the piracy outweighs the promotion and
we still sell a good amount of records so I don't lose to much sleep over
it, but both sides of this argument are so extremely up their own asses
in bogus theory, that I'm kind of tired of even bothering to explain.
Jeff
quoted 46 lines DISCLAIMER - I do not intend for this message to precede a debate on
>DISCLAIMER - I do not intend for this message to precede a debate on
>copyright laws !
>
>
>Anyone interested in the ongoing Napster debate may want to check the
>latest news....
>
>Part 1 - Metallica brought a list of more than 317,000 Napster usernames
>to the company, alleging that each of those individuals had illegally
>made the band's songs available for copying online. Napster says more
>than 30,000 members have taken the company up on that offer, swearing
>under penalty of perjury that they have been misidentified by
>Metallica's online search. The company now will present those names to
>Metallica, which will have 10 days to sue the 30,000 members. If the
>band decides against taking action, the names will be reinstated. So
>far Metallica has received appeals from 17,000 users.
>
>Part 2 - 4,294 students at 10 New England colleges were polled and
>58.5% said they would be willing to pay $15 a month for subscription
>services. Webnoize analyst Ric Dube said "If the music industry could
>embrace the Napster concept and get people to spend $15 a month on a
>subscription basis, they'd convert some people who spend less than $10 a
>month and could grow the music market,".
>
>In short my friends this isn't about the rights of the artist it's about
>the rights of the industry to make money - which I feel is valid -
>unfortunately they are pointing out how unfair it is to the ARTIST.
>Anyone who has ever released music on a major label will know that about
>.30 cents actually makes it to the artist per average $15 sale for a cd.
>It's not about the artist. It's about the industry. Once the industry
>figures out how to get their 'cut' this will all be over..... They
>probably couldn't give 2 shits whether the artists are getting their
>royalties off the illegal trading of MP3's.
>
>Part 3 - Napster may be making moves against NetPD and other companies
>that would serve as copyright police. In the most recent version of its
>software license, Napster writes that people may not use the program to
>"invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal
>information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any
>Napster account holder or user."
>
>
>Full Story Here.....
>http://technews.netscape.com/news/0-1005-200-1888080-0.html?pt.netscape.fd
>.hl.ne
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org