Re: (non-roc) Stop Napster???

["Wm. Josiah Erikson" <scirocco@absomotherfuckinlutely.com>]

I only have one thing to say to that...
	Read this, and you may feel differently (and you may not):
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
	It's a great article by Courtney Love on the subject, makes the
whole picture much clearer. It's not about artists, it's about record
companies.
	-Josiah

'84 GTi
http://bork.hampshire.edu/josiah

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, Jan Folkson wrote:

> This certainly doesn't apply to this list but...
> 
> Stealing is stealing, you can try to justify it to yourself however you
> want.
> 
> Piracy of music has become a tremendous problem for people trying to make a
> living in the music industry.  As somebody who makes their living in this
> industry I can see the damage that something like napster can cause.  When
> an artist creates an album, their making that album with the intention of
> selling it.  If it sells enough, they can then have the opportunity to make
> another.  Their creating a product to be sold.  Copying it without
> permission is the same as stealing it right out of the record store.
> 
> Tape recorders and minidiscs have been controversial since their inception,
> but piracy was taking place on a much smaller scale than on the internet.
> There's nothing wrong with copying something for your own use.  For
> instance, using your own cd collection for making a compilation cd for
> 'driving' is fine.  If you want to share it with a friend, that's getting
> into a grey area.  But once the copying reaches a certain level that it
> adversely affects the sale of an album, you're only hurting the people
> creating the music that you're a fan of in the first place.  If you're a fan
> of somebody's music you should support them by buying their record, not
> stealing from them.  Some artists have embraced the internet and have sold
> or distributed material directly to their fans by bypassing the record
> companies altogether.  That's fine, that's their decision.  But most artists
> are affiliated with a record company because that company can put it's
> muscle behind an artist and get their music properly produced and heard by
> the masses.  That artist then has to recoup all of the money spent creating
> that record with the money that they get from record sales alone.  For
> instance, if a band gets $1 Million to create an album, they don't make ANY
> money on mechanical royalties until that $1M is recouped.  The only one who
> does make any money before that is the person who wrote the song, they get
> paid from performance royalties.  Which is often only one person in a band.
> The rest get NOTHING.  They do however, make money from touring.  But most
> bands tour to support a new record.  If they don't sell enough of their last
> record, there is no new record.  Also Chris, these people don't make enough
> $$ from their position in the media and their radio exposure.  Trust me.
> Again, the ONLY person in the band who makes ANY MONEY from the song being
> played on the radio is the writer of the song.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the way that some huge record companies operate, but
> "copying" music via napster or gnutella or any other means will eventually
> shut down the creative process.  People that spend their time creating,
> producing and practicing will no longer be able to do that because they
> can't survive without making any $$.  I agree that $18 for a CD is a lot of
> money and that the artist doesn't get enough of it.  But stealing it really
> isn't the answer.
> 
> I don't really know how this thread appeared on a list like this, but I felt
> obligated to respond.
> 
> - Jan Folkson   www.janfolkson.com
>     
> '86 16V            
> '99 Passat 1.8T  
> '00 Beetle GLX 1.8T
>  


--
Email problems to: scirocco-l-probs@scirocco.org  To unsubscibe send
"unsubscribe scirocco-l" in the message to majordomo@scirocco.org