Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To all the Napsterheads out there.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To all the Napsterheads out there.

    You better get out there and get your pirated music files while you can.

    Court Says Napster Must Stop

    Updated 3:17 PM ET February 12, 2001

    By RON HARRIS, Associated Press Writer
    SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Napster Inc. must stop allowing the millions of music fans who use its free Internet-based service to share copyrighted material, a federal appeals court ruled Monday.

    In a ruling that Napster officials said could force the file-swapping clearinghouse to shut down, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Napster must prevent users from gaining access to copyrighted content through the lists of songs archived by its users.

    "This is a clear victory. The court of appeals found that the injunction is not only warranted, but required. And it ruled in our favor on every legal issue presented," said Hilary Rosen, president and CEO of the Recording Industry Association of America.

    In a statement, Napster it was "disappointed" by the ruling and said it would appeal. "We look forward to getting more facts into the record. We will pursue every avenue in the courts and the Congress to keep Napster operating."

    In a 58-page opinion, a three-judge panel told a lower court judge to rewrite her injunction to focus more narrowly on the copyrighted material. The panel also directed the Redwood City-based company to remove links to users trading copyrighted songs stored as MP3 files.

    The appeals court said it was apparent that "Napster has knowledge, both actual and constructive, of direct infringement."

    Napster has argued it is not to blame for its subscribers' use of copyrighted material, citing the Sony Betamax decision of 1984, in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hold VCR manufacturers and videotape retailers liable for people copying movies.

    But the appeals court said no such protection extends to Napster because the company clearly knew its users were swapping copyrighted songs.

    Napster can stay in business until U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel retools her injunction, which the appellate court called overly broad. In fact, minutes after the panel's decision, thousands of Napster users were still trading music files on just one of the company's more than 100 servers.

    "We, therefore, conclude that the district court made sound findings related to Napster's deleterious effect on the present and future digital download market," the appeals court ruled. "Having digital downloads available for free on the Napster system necessarily harms the copyright holders' attempts to charge for the same downloads."

    Millions of users had flooded the company's computer servers this past weekend to download free music, fearing an immediate shutdown of the service that has changed the face of music. Napster claims to have an estimated 50 million users.

    Webnoize, which monitors the digital entertainment economy, estimated that 250 million songs were downloaded using Napster over the weekend. Webnoize said that, on average, 1.5 million users were logged on to the system at any one time.

    Major record labels hope Monday's ruling will force millions of computer users to start paying for music the online music swapping service has allowed them to get for free.

    The digital music technology Napster made popular is here to stay either way. The recording industry appears stymied by the notion of funneling music to consumers via the Internet for a price while freely available computer applications allow even the computer novice to do it for free.

    The five largest record labels - Sony, Warner, BMG, EMI and Universal - sued as soon as Napster took off, saying it could rob them of billions of dollars in profits.

    In May 1999, Napster founder Shawn Fanning released software that made it easy for personal computer users to locate and trade songs they had stored as computer files in the MP3 format, which crunches digital recordings down to manageable lengths without sacrificing quality.

    The concept of "peer-to-peer" song trading quickly proved too popular to contain. As Napster users grew by the millions, other file-sharing programs also popped up, such as Gnutella and Freenet. And the labels themselves are looking to use the same technology, only with paying subscribers and secure digital formats that prevent copying.

    After the appellate judges began deliberating in October, Napster made agreements with former business foes like Bertelsmann AG, the parent company of the BMG music unit. The German media giant has promised much-needed capital if Napster switches to a subscription-based service that pays artists' royalties.

    The other four major labels not reached any similar agreement.

    Joel
    Libertarian is still the way to go if we truly want a real change.

    www.lp.org

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

    System Specs: AMD XP2000+ @1.68GHz(12.5x133), ASUS A7V133-C, 512MB PC133, Matrox Parhelia 128MB, SB Live! 5.1.
    OS: Windows XP Pro.
    Monitor: Cornerstone c1025 @ 1280x960 @85Hz.

  • #2
    Bah! Only AOL kiddies use Napster nowadays anyways...
    Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject.

    Comment


    • #3
      You know Napster has always kind of amazed me.
      The way I see them it's a bit like a computer vendor selling pirate copies of MS Windows and then getting all upset when MS knock on the door and say stop.
      Not really sure how they ever expected to get away with a site that allowed you to download copyright material for no cost.
      Saying that, you crazy American's have some crazy laws so I'm sure they will call on some law from 1654 when it was legal to borrow your mates mule without asking the permission of the owner
      It cost one penny to cross, or one hundred gold pieces if you had a billygoat.
      Trolls might not be quick thinkers but they don't forget in a hurry, either

      Comment


      • #4
        That's similar to saying that we should close down flea markets because people can easily sell stolen goods. We should ban encryption because people can use it to secretly make drug deals.

        Napster simply provides a medium of transmission. It has many legitimate uses. For instance, a band could easily self-promote themselves using such a service to distribute their music, without having to go through a major record label.

        The problem does not lie with the tool itself, but rather the problem lies within how the tool is used. If an air hammer is used to kill somebody, that doesn't mean we outlaw air hammers.

        Granted, it takes slightly more than a single brain cell to realize that a system providing such easy access to MP3 distribution will be used to the fullest extent and primarily for getting free illegitimate songs. However we shouldn't ban technology simply because it can be used for such purposes.

        People will still find ways to copy music even without Napster. The RIAA is fighting a losing battle. Quite frankly, I am not willing to pay $18 for a new CD in a store, which is probably why I don't really have any new music. While I may like some of the songs, they are not worth it to me. Besides, they will be played out before too long and I probably won't like them anymore anyways. So I just don't buy the stuff, listen to it on the radio a little, and then move on with my life.

        Please excuse the ranting.

        b
        Why do today what you can put off until tomorrow? But why put off until tomorrow what you can put off altogether?

        Comment


        • #5
          I used to be against Napster, but then I started using it... It sure hasn't made me buy less records. I just use it to get some songs from an unknown album or something like that and if I like it, I'll buy it.

          Anyway, I still think that MP3s have a crappy sound (depending on the type of music you listen to), so it will never replace CDs or other high definition mediums...

          Just my way of seeing things...

          Fred

          Comment


          • #6
            It's seems to me more like closing down Konica or Xerox because the technology they sell is used for wholesale copyright infringement.

            Paul
            paulcs@flashcom.net

            Comment


            • #7
              I cheer for napster because record company execs are pricks from hell. They are total sleazebags who try and steal the intellectual property from artists and enrich themselves. They do nothing of worth and just use lawyers to make slaves outta their artists. If it was really the artists hurting because of napster that would be one thing, but record companies ? Who cares?

              Comment


              • #8
                Just to reinforce what KV said, what major industry has been so tied into organized crime. None. Nothing the IT industry could do could equal the cheating and stealing the very people the anti-Napster folks are defending.

                This industry was born in extortion, murder, and fraud. Why do these people lose in court every time an artist with the financial resources to sue them lose? They deserve what they get.

                I say this as someone who worked for years in the publishing industry. I believe in copyright laws. I believe painters, for instance, are underprotected in the US and the UK. But Napster is just "just deserts." Napster was just the tip of the iceberg. Let's see what the jerks can do about USENET. (I'm old fashioned. I can't help it.)

                I guess they'd have to find it first.

                Paul
                paulcs@flashcom.net

                Comment


                • #9
                  KH,
                  The Napster execs aren't any better. That kid they always parade, Shawn Fanning (?), owns about 2-3% of the company.
                  Gigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Paulcs makes a very valid point.

                    I am againist the blatant pirating of copywrited materials and I think it should be stop but Napster in this case is not the one that should be punished. For me Napster serves the purpose of allowing me to find songs that I can't find in other media form now days. Things we will never see available because the RIAA doesn't see any profit in producing it. Or new songs from artist who don't want to be a slave to the RIAA. For the most part CDs cost almost the same today as they did when they were first introduced. Whatever happened to the notion that the price would come down as CDs caught on. Of course that is what the RIAA told us should happen. Talk about price fixing, they have even gone so far as to threaten anyone who tries to sell CDs below a certain price point. Sounds alot like the same tactics that MS used on OEMs concerning installing IE instead of any other browser software.

                    Joel
                    Libertarian is still the way to go if we truly want a real change.

                    www.lp.org

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

                    System Specs: AMD XP2000+ @1.68GHz(12.5x133), ASUS A7V133-C, 512MB PC133, Matrox Parhelia 128MB, SB Live! 5.1.
                    OS: Windows XP Pro.
                    Monitor: Cornerstone c1025 @ 1280x960 @85Hz.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X