OFF: Napster in the news

[Stephen Swann]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2000 at 05:55:39AM -0400, DASLUD at aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/00 5:46:29 AM, fofp at HOLYROOD.ED.AC.UK writes:
>
> <<
> Is there some reason why rock musicians shouldn't be paid for their
> work, whatever its artistic merits?
>  >>
> ======
> that was not of which i wrote.
> i wasnt expecting such _posturing_ from a member of metallica.
>
> any guesses as to what they "lost" via napster?
> wanna count it in pennies?

Actually, Metallica is not an example of a band who is being cheated
of its bread and butter by Napster.  If you want to know a band that's
getting raped, think of Stroke 9, whose Little Black Backpack is
genuine college radio sensation, but who are being traded like mad on
Napster, rather than making CD sales.

I toyed with Napster for a couple of hours, before I decided that it
was the worst case of mass piracy in action I had ever seen.  Napster
has no economic model by which artists will ever get paid.  It's just
outright theft of copyrighted materials.  I posted a much fuller
description of my experience with it (and why I decided that it was
thoroughly evil), but that appears to have been during a time when the
list software was fucked up, so the post disappeared into the void.  I
didn't retain a copy before sending.  Sigh.

Steve