#31
messiah wrote:
and just to prove my point. last month in the USA the president singned this bill where it said electronic singnatures are equally valid as your real signature. This is a major landmark and turning point. Business is going to change as we know it. Now that people dont need to sing papers they wont have to mail so much and i dont think the post office is going to be left out so hence comes electronic stamps.
And as for who’s been able to control it thats no problem. How does the internet work? on telephone lines- you can cut them off if no one obeys- that is very easy to control.
That is what is happening and so damn fast you dont even know it.
Posted on Tue, 1 August 2000 at 18:46
#32
hellbelly wrote:
Yes, I totally agree, bussiness is going to change, lives are going to change, but not as radically as you think. Shit in the real world takes ages, eons, Aeons, to transpire. By then it’s someone elses problem. Live in the now. Enjoy the now. by the time you die it’ll be too late
Posted on Tue, 1 August 2000 at 23:16
#33
johnnyboy wrote:
yo messie learn how to sign is spelled you wrote
it wrong both times in your last reply
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 11:57
#34
messiah wrote:
check out your grammer! ha ha ha ha
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 13:59
#35
johnnyboy wrote:
you check out your grandma
its grammar not gremmar or grammer or what you wrote you fukin idiot
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 14:02
#36
messiah wrote:
obvioulsy you didnt get the ironey!
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 14:22
#37
johnnyboy wrote:
ok messiah napster is bad
but i’m a bad boy
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 14:45
#38
Suffragette wrote:
Regardless this whole debate will end up making people stop and think about the liberties that everyone has online. The Napster issue is frustrating and is going to get exhausting. The point remains that it is STILL against the law to infringe on copyright laws. (I think that is what I am trying to say) I have a huge problem with individuals finding it alright to steal from others ‘lifelines.’ Regardless of how much huge bands or artists make in revenue the ones who will suffer will always be the ‘lille man.’ It is not fair. If anyone posts that life is not fair and to get over it, I will lose it. lol. On all accounts, why not go and support you favorite band sites and pull your mp3’s from there?
I haven’t checked on the latest status with the appeals and I am way lazy today, so, if anyone has an update please post it. Thanks!
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 14:50
#39
johnnyboy wrote:
the update is , i wanna fuck you in the ass
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 14:59
#40
Dermot (The Derm) wrote:
Thats nice. Is it a big point?
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 18:25
#41
messiah wrote:
hey kate napster got an injunction to prevent it from shutting down. that means they just have more time to convince everyone why they shouldnt shut down. i think the burden is on them.
personally i dont think napster has much of a case if you go by the copyright laws which says ‘any means of reproduction , duplication’ is a violation of applicable copyright laws’. if you use that word ‘any’ then napster comes under that and they dont have much of a case.
but i just want people to realize that what they’re doing is wrong not only wrong but dumb whether napster gets shut down or not because if they realize that then it wont be an issue any more.
Posted on Thu, 3 August 2000 at 20:47
#42
Evil Genius(Im evil) wrote:
rene, who is this fuckwit johnnyboy. i used to be annoying but this guy is just beyond a joke
Posted on Mon, 7 August 2000 at 21:24
#43
johnnyboy wrote:
Posted on Tue, 8 August 2000 at 14:12
#44
johnnyboy wrote:
anyway you cant find that many songs by unknown bands
in ze napsta it does hurt the big bands primarily
i never found much from therapy neither
Posted on Tue, 8 August 2000 at 14:58
#45
Evil Genius(Im evil) wrote:
jb, you cant expect to tell every1 to fuck up and annoy the fuck out of them, and then type a serious post and expect people to read it!
Posted on Wed, 9 August 2000 at 00:02
#46
johnnyboy wrote:
so what , you read it and just because you dont know what to say
you write such trash
are you aware of how stupid you are
your dad is lookin after you already with a kitchen knife
cos he wants to stab you he never wanted such a stupid child
Posted on Wed, 9 August 2000 at 00:31
#47
johnnyboy wrote:
people have to be aware of the fact that they are allowed to
exchange messages with the mighty johnnyboy
Posted on Wed, 9 August 2000 at 00:33
#48
Michael wrote:
What most labels and bands do not realize, is that the selling price of their cd’s are a huge threshold. In Holland, you can’t buy ‘popular’ cd’s for less than $16, so in a way, it’s their own fault that Napster has become so popular. Besides, because of Napster, the bands will be heard more often than without it, because it’s way cheaper. If they really want Napster to be banned, they should change themselves, and not Napster, because Napster is a consequence of their own policy.
Posted on Wed, 9 August 2000 at 20:19
#49
messiah wrote:
the point is’nt whether the bands are heard or not, the question is are they getting paid for thier work? if not then there’s a problem.
and the ratio of known to unknown bands downloaded on napster was 10:1 , so to say it promotes unknown bands is a myth.
i live in the USA and i pay 11.99 plus tax for new released cd’s. i buy them at an independent store. i would be paying 18.00 for the same cd if i bought them at the mall. so it is YOUR fault that you pay so much because no one is forcing you. any yes there are a lot of independent stores around and i live in a town of about 20,000 people not in a big city where they are around every corner. i just have to walk ten minutes longer to get there<- — and time shouldnt be an excuse.
the fact is that you want something that means so much to you but yet you do not want to pay for it. i find it hard to respect anyone like that. if it means so much to you then go buy it but to say oh it’s expensive is no excuse to download it, your rich enough to buy a computer and a cd burner , you should be able to pay 16 dollars for you favorite artist.
and i am very sure that even if prices were to go down to ten dollars people would still download it. but by all means if paying that much offends just dont listen to it- simple as that.
last year the only new cd i bought was rage against the machine’s batle of los angeles. i’m a fan of rhcp and nin but i didnt buy their cd’s and i didnt fucking download it. maybe when i get the money i’ll buy them- that’s my respect and also my independence as i dont have to buy and that i dont have to download as an excuse for not buying. i cant be talking against something and doing the same thing myself.
’ i’ve got to expose hypocrisy in my own self, before i ever stand up and speak for other individuals who are trying to do the same.’
- zack de la rocha
Posted on Wed, 9 August 2000 at 22:15
#50
hellbelly wrote:
I just heard a headline on the news over here. It would appear that Prince and David Bowie have spoken out in favour of Napster and against Metallica. I haven’t heard there arguments yet. I couldn’t give a fuck what Prince has to say but Bowie has got to be listened to. He almost is the music business.
I know there both big and can afford to have music stolen from them.
It’s a vicous circle, record companies put up the price of CD’s to make up for the losses due to piracy. People pirate music because the record companies put up the price of CD’s. I think it’s about time the musicians spoke up as Metallica, Prince and David Bowie are doing. Once we know what the artists think, then we, the people, can decide how we want to get the music.
Posted on Thu, 10 August 2000 at 12:49
#51
messiah wrote:
elton john , madonna , dr dre and other big artists have spoken against it. the artist camp is divided. but like i said let those that dont want to be there not be there because it’s so easy to talk in favor when you’ve made millions in royalties.
i’m not a bowie fan neither am i a metallica fan and they dont decide what i think i’ve looked at the situation and realized something’s wrong that’s why i’m speaking out against it.
Posted on Thu, 10 August 2000 at 18:11
#52
Michael wrote:
Messiah, I totally disagree with you. First of all, it was NOT me who paid for the computer and a burner. I’m a graduate student: you know how expensive it is to study at a university these days? Expensive, believe me. Of course I have enough money to buy a CD of my favourite artist, but the thing is, I do not have one favourite artist. I love the music of, for example, Therapy?, Bush, Foo Fighters, Metallica, In Extremo, Undeclinable Ambuscade, and so on. These bands all produced great albums, which would cost me a fortune to buy. Thanks to Napster, I am able to listen to their music (although I DID buy the T? albums). In addition, some albums are very hard to get (like In Extremo and Undeclinable Ambuscade, or B-sides).
And you can’t buy newly released Cd’s in Holland for less than 16 dollars, unless it’s burned. So do not judge me because I can’t afford to buy all the great albums that exist. Besides, you’re pretty shallow if you can’t respect a person because he uses Napster…
Posted on Sat, 12 August 2000 at 16:10
#53
Dermot (The Derm) wrote:
Yeah in the UK it costs about 16 pounds for a new CD which I guess is about 25 US Dollars. Last year the only new CDs I got were GYBE!, Mogwai and RATM, I didnt even buy SPYF.
Posted on Sat, 12 August 2000 at 17:28
#54
si wrote:
if napster agreed not to advertise on their site I wouldn’t see the problem with it
the main point of contention here is that napster are making piles of advertising money using your hardware and other people’s music!
Posted on Sat, 12 August 2000 at 20:23
#55
messiah wrote:
hey micheal you should be speaking about yourself. most people who have computers and burners can afford cd’s too.
it’s just another example of greed. the fact is that you can get away with it that’s why you do it. even if prices were lowered it wont stop because people think there’s nothing wrong with it. i am trying to get them to think that it is wrong and to think what they’re doing mow is going to mean very bad things for the future.
but had you read carefully what i said in my earlier posts i said it should be people without computers that should be complaining not those who get everything by a click of a mouse.
but yes i find it hard to respect anyone who can afford it but doesnt. and my main concern is that people get paid for their work and nothing’s going to change my mind on it.
Posted on Mon, 14 August 2000 at 14:27
#56
Michael wrote:
Messiah, I respect your opinion, it’s a free world. I think, however, that the largest part of a ‘popular’ rockband does not come from their record sellings, it comes from concerts and sponsors. In this way, Napster can be a useful tool to familiarize people with their music. I DO know, however, that what I (together with millions other people…) do, is illigal, and in some ways even wrong. But you can’t blame people for buying illigal cd’s (e.g. downloaded from Napster) for say 3 bucks instead of buying it in the stores for 10 times as much. In my case, not only does it save me a lot of money, but also time.
Finally, the reason I use Napster and burn cd’s is pretty much the same reason that bands are against Napster: it’s all about money. I respect your opinion, now try to respect mine…
Posted on Tue, 15 August 2000 at 19:55
#57
messiah wrote:
what happens if you get paralyzed and cant tour no more? and you recieve no roylaties because people are taking your stuff for free?
Posted on Wed, 16 August 2000 at 18:32
#58
Michael wrote:
And just how many rockbands with paralyzed members do you know? Example: the drummer from Def Leppard has only one arm… He’s playing the drums like a madman!
Posted on Thu, 17 August 2000 at 19:07
#59
Michael wrote:
I forgot one thing: ever heard about insurance?? Do you think Metallica dares to perform without insurance? I don’t think so!! If they would get paralyzed, they won’t have to work for the rest of their lives (of course, they can’t work if they’re paralyzed…)! Do you think Ronaldo is not insured? If his career is ruined because of his knee, he won’t be left without money! People who are dependent on one particular talent, whether it’s soccer or singing or whatever, and they are successful with it, they are smart enough to get insurance…
Posted on Thu, 17 August 2000 at 19:12
#60
messiah wrote:
you see metallica , def leppard are all big bands. they are insured. small bands prolly are too but not in the same league.
only big bands make more on touring and merchandize than cd’s. club type bands do not. for them it’d fifty fifty they make more on cd sales.
and you can only do it for a certain time. then you retire and hope to get by on the roylaties. other people have pensions , musicians will be left out on the cold.
Posted on Thu, 17 August 2000 at 22:12
