Black Text- Poster
Red Text- Editor
Green Text- Original Article
Orange Text- Different Post Referred
Dan,
I liked that a lot. I've sort of been following the controversy (to be
honest, I don't much care what the major labels and their bands do), and I
find it pretty amusing.
My only other comment is on your last few lines. Copyright infringement
isn't the only way to fight back. I'd much rather people just stop
supporting bands that go to major labels, and instead stick with bands on
smaller labels or bands doing it themselves without a label backing. Or you
can just buy the major label stuff used. I can see both sides to the
copyright argument, and I understand that both have merit. It just seems
that there are other ways to fight back. Let's face it, some of these bands
are just as greedy as the labels they are on. I've interviewed plenty of
them to know that's the case.
Good work!
-Doug (Bauknin@aol.com)
Hey....I just want to say. I had never heard of this site. But I like this guy, this
e-zine, and its content. Suhweet.
Well if you wanna list other artists....Public Enemy and Billy Idol are also on our
side. ;)
Ray (macabrestalker@aol.com)
Fact is, the recording
industry has made a living out of ripping consumers off. And now that the consumers
have a real alternative to their monopoly, they're getting pissed.
Even if this is true about the record industry where is this alternative? And what monopoly?
Ed: The alternative is Napster/MP3. The problem is with the Record Industry's
ridiculously expensive means of distribution of music. Napster is the alternative means of
distribution. As far as the monopoly goes, it's not just one company, but rather the big
record companies working together as one. See here
to see what's being done to prevent it. Also see the following post.
While the show didn't really introduce anything new or surprising, it did clue the
world onto where a lot of musicians stand on the topic. While a good portion are
anti-Napster, the software does have its share of big-name supporters, like
Bloodhound Gang, Offspring, Courtney Love, Kittie, and of course Limp Bizkit (whose
free summer tour is being sponsored by Napster).
Would that be the same Bloodhound
Gang, Offspring, Courtney Love, Kittie, and Limp Bizkit that are active members of the
recording industry that you claim rip consumers off? Courtney Love has a well
documented history of abusing, threatening and bullying journalists, so she's
obviously a keen exponent of free expression.
Ed: Actually, for the most part artists are also victims of the recording
companies. The way a recording contract usually works is, if a band doesn't make it, they
have to spend the following however many years of they're life paying back the record
company the money it spent on them. They're not who I'm talking about when I say "record
companies."
....
Please name three smaller bands that have made it on their
own, or even three bands that have been promoted solely due to the activities of
Napster? Legally Stealing? Is that like quick slow or good bad? Fight the System? What
are you writing about? Has your capacity for social or political activism been reduced
to piracy? Do you honestly feel liberated by this? When I consider all the struggles
of many people across the globe, mp3 piracy is not an issue that's included. One issue
I will add is the growing number of internet users that choose to adopt an
ill-informed and cynical attitude and communicate it as enlightenment, whilst ignoring
the possibilities of seriously researching subjects via the internet. salut!
Ed: Napster is still relatively new, but many bands have had MP3's to
thank for their growing success. Visit here to see what
Napster is doing to help upcoming bands use the software for self-promotion. The power
of the internet allows world distribution of information/music without the need of a
corporate men-in-suits company.
Philip Page (arache@zoom.co.uk)
Even if this is true about the
record industry where is this alternative? And what monopoly?
The 4 company
monopoly of Warners, Seagrams, Sony, and BMG who control 80% of the music biz. And by
the way NAPSTER never was investigated for Price FIXING which the other 4 agreed to
quit, AFTER overcharging consumers $500 million dollars in the last 2 and 1/2 years.
And that was this year! See Musea for more.
Art S Revolutionary.
Tom Hendricks
(editor of the zine Musea 112374.474@compuserve.com)
> keeps the big bands from getting too rich
I hope you don't plan on ever getting 'too rich' yourself. I would certainly
oppose that.
joan (joan8904@aol.com)
*APPLAUDS*
*CHEERS*
*WOO-HOO*
Well
said that man. Got it exactly. If I could have been bothered when we had this argument
before thats exactly what I would've said. Nice one.
Stevie (steven@waters2000.freeserve.co.uk)
Dave wrote: >I do not just speak for myself
when i say that Napster is the reason for a lot of the Cds I have bought. I download
a few song by a band and if I like them I buy the CD, if not, the Mp3 is deleted.
Ditto. I do the same thing. I hear of a band people say is cool, so I download a few
MP3s. If I like, I buy the album. It's that simple. That's how I got hooked on the
Skatalites, Desmond Dekker and Hepcat. Flogging Molly and Great Big Sea were two
examples of bands I saw live but couldn't find their album, so I download a few songs
until I do find the album. It's simple.
Napster seems completely wrong and illeagal, but what they're doing isn't entirely bad, I think.
Bah. Whutever. the DE
Rude Boy (nendawen@aol.com)
> > Fact is, the recording industry has made a living out of ripping
consumers off.
> So that means consumers have the right to rip off hard working artists and
basically say f*ck copyright infringement laws.
Do you seriously think that good music would cease to exist if it wasn't
(highly) profitable? If the artists really had to work hard (i.e day jobs)
to support their love of making music?
Do you also think people would stop playing baseball/soccer/other sports if
there wasn't multi-million dollar industry based around these sports?
Copyright and patent law was intended to promote creation and innovation. It
is currently being used by the 'media cartels' to *reduce* creation and
innovation (attempting to criminalize new technology to protect profits, and
to help dominate the market - preventing fair competition). Which is why
many people don't feel bad about ripping off the big record companies (who
are, after all, often ripping off the artists)
So I suppose, to some extent, yes, f*ck copyright laws! - when all they're
doing is protecting the megaprofits of the megacorps at the expense of
consumers and artists. And especially f*ck the new copyright laws (the DMCA
in particular) created by Corporate America and being forced upon the
worldwide Internet community to protect American profits.
Dave (D.M.Reed@btinternet.com)
I totally agree that the prices should be lower, but
I still don't agree with the concept of totally free music off Napster etc. I'm sure
the record companies would make just as much money if they lowered the prices because
far more people would buy the records. I know if it was me and they halved the price,
I'd buy twice as many.
Rowan (rowan_wood@hotmail.com)
All i know is there's something wrong when it's cheaper for me to buy CD's from the
U.S.A. And it's still cheaper even with shipping charges.
£12.24 is lower than all
major record stores sell here.
Example:- i looked in HMV records in Nottingham,
England for The White Album by The Beatles and it was on sale for £29.99 or $45. I
bought it on holiday/vacation in Orlando for $19.99.
The record industry deserve all
thats going to happen to them over here over the next few years eg:- Napstar, and what
ever replaces them when they're shut down.
I agree with you though that artists
certainly should get their rightful payments and control but unless Record companies
and shops lower prices they're certainly going to have a few rocky years ahead.
Kev Harrison. (kev.harrison@ntlworld.com)
I'll weigh in here.
I'm no fan of what
Napster does. I think the artists should be paid for the work they do and be able to
control the distribution of the product they produce.
That said, I also think that
record companies have been screwing over the music-buying public for a while. I see
no reason why we need to pay more than $10 a CD. And I'm personally a big fan of the
eMusic concept. We should be able to buy music on demand and have it now, for less
money, and be able to buy just the songs we want rather than the whole album if we
choose. This alienates some people, but I was alienated from CDs for the longest time
and I survived.
Bottom line: I think artists deserve compensation for the service
they provide us, the consumer, and I am willing to give them my money, hand over fist,
as long as I feel the deal is fair.
"makebase" (makebase@tmbg.cc)
FED UP W U
(poem)
fed up w the shit coming fru ur mouth
fed up w napster - fed up w assholes
fed up w ur behaviour
fed up w u polluting newsgroups
fed up w ur hypocrysy
fed up w ur name
u say u fight tha system
u say u'll free all of us from economy
u try to seem friendly
u'r just another gates
another knight
BUM = MTV
.com is tha new eldorado
for dictatorship
shut up / u make me sick
and i say phuck u
coz i'm fed up w u
Ed: While he really didn't say anything interesting, i thought it was funny
enough that someone spent the time writing this to print.
"koma" (koma@wanadoo.fr)
One thing you left out of your "big bad industry vs. little consumer" rant about Napster was
that when we don't buy these albums, the artists don't get SoundScanned. This hurts the artists,
not the companies. Artist doesn't sell enough albums, artist doesn't get the label support,
artist out of a job.
Ed: Keep in mind, this article is about the fact that with the new technologies
available, artists no longer need label support to have a job like they did ten years ago.
-John (pen-pen@uswest.net)
I'll go ahead and give my 2 cents as well. Napster can
be a wonderful thing, if used in the right way. I have actually bought MORE cds since
I discovered mp3s and Napster, because they offer a kind of "try before you buy"
deal. If there's a band I'm interested in hearing, or a band one of my friends is
trying to turn me on to, all I have to do is download a few mp3s. If I like what I
hear, I'll go buy the CD, if not, I delete the mp3s and there's no harm done. I for
one am much more likely to buy a CD if I can listen to a few songs from it first,
instead of spending as much as $17.99 for a CD, not knowing if I'll like it or not.æ
Especially since most of the bands I've been getting into lately are not the type of
bands you're going to hear on the radio. I realize that some people are just going to
download whole CDs and never actually buy the thing, and I don't agree with that. But
there's a potential for misuse with just about any kind of product - everything from
VCRs and CD burners to guns and knives. Just because some people will take technology
and use it in an illegal way doesn't mean that those of us who use it in a perfectly
legitimate and reasonable way should be punished (and I'm speaking from experience
since I'm no longer allowed to use Napster on my own computer when I'm in my dorm
room). So there's my opinion.
Shannon (nanachic99@aol.com)
I agree that we
should fight the system of big, loads of money making record companies. I'm on Napster
too and I like it especially because you can sometimes find there some bootlegs or
obscure remixes which you can't find in the store. However I'd like to add another
major expense for record companies (apart from the already named royalties and insert
design): studio-time. One hour recording in a professional studio cost loads of money;
well, there are plenty of (big) bands like Radiohead or The Cure who spend six months
or more in the studio to record an album... Another thing is, when a record company
makes lots of money out of a band, they can invest in a new, not much selling band.
I'm not saying that all record companies do that, but some do. An example is dEUS, a
band from my homecountry (Belgium). They have a record deal with Island. Island keeps
investing in them, and they are getting little by little a bit bigger. But when
everybody starts copying the albums on CD-R or mp3, dEUS doesn't sell more albums, so
Island will say: Sorry guys, the game's over. Now whith such actions we may have
stated a big fuck you to the music industry, but we also have effected that a
brilliant band is out of record deal. (This is hypothetic of course.) Taking all this
into account, it is easy for rich boy Billy Corgan to say that music is ultimately
gonna be free. Don't get me wrong however, I agree that we pay way too much for a cd,
and now we maybe have the means to change something.
-Mich (tarampi@hotmail.com)
I don't think there's anything wrong with artist's getting paid money, and established
companies investing in that potential - it's the clamping down on the redistribution
of the output that bothers me.
The current system of music distribution relies on
making money by _preventing_ people from listening to the music. In reality, we can
all just copy the music we want from someone else and not pay the $30 (price of an LP
here in oz) - that's how the free market works. But the way the music industry works
is to enact these copyright laws to prevent competition in the industry, thereby
creating an artificial scarceness to drive up prices. In the end, the money is made by
preventing people sharing and listening to the music, and I cannot imagine _any_
artist wants it that way. They accept it because, at the moment, that's the only way
they'll get paid.
We need to kill the copyright system that creates an artificial
scarcity of music - we have more than enough _real_ scarcity in material goods.
However, what we need to do just as much is to create a new system to reward artists.
One in which they are rewarded for giving their work to the masses and letting them
share and use it as they see fit, instead of one where they are rewarded for not
letting the music be heard or shared. Probably the best proposal I've seen is the
Street Performer Protocol.
It has some issues that
need to be ironed out, but on the whole, it's gotta be better than the present system,
and it's also gotta be better than a world where music and other art is only created
by those rich enough to afford the time and money.
What do you all think?
-Greg Mildenhall (gregbast@tartarus.uwa.edu.au)
hi thieves!hello followers of the bung-ho Napster!!
hello cheap bastards who will rip off bands and labels until
there is no more!!
but you get free music....yeah..fuck the bands and labels...rip
em off...Mr.Dan boy says....this pricks day has come...
Ed: I can already tell this is gonna be a fun post.
-------big name commercial artists who are jumping on the trend
to get more noticed,and more media coverage..which in turn will
bring THEM more sales...cause the sheepies in this country will
do anything for their idols..Limp dickshit are the biggest
sellout fucks and lame music this world has possibly seen,.,.
but dude..with all those tattoos...wow@! they are so
cool...hahaha
its so funny how shitty the music most sheep listen to...
-----its a bunch of assholes investing in these thieves cause
they know most of the youth and cheap asses in this world will
go for it..and the sheep such as you follow what they say..
bahhhhh!!
its sad...that you would all fucking fight the artists that have
entertained you for years..cause they deserve to have the rights
to their songs and albums .....and not to be ripped off or
bootlegged or traded amongst the cheap little bitches who can't
even buy a cd of a band they supposedly LIKE cause they can get
it free instead...
Ed: heh, "fight the artists," he apparently missed the
fact that the artists are probably the biggest victims of the record
industry that we're fighting.
Fact is, the recording industry has made a living out of ripping
consumers off. And now that the consumers have a real alternative to
their monopoly, they're getting pissed.
------ripping off the consumers????you all been buying all
your manson and nin and all the alternica shit all along..you
were never mad about it..until these fools came out with their
software to rip these bands and everyone else off...now you see
that you can get everything FREE!! and you think the record
companies who provided all this music forever are ripping you
off???the Record companies and bands CREATED the music scene you
now latch onto...you just think you can fucking cut them out
cause you can get free music...what happens when no more music
comes out cause artists are sikc of being ripped off?? then your
goals will be met eh???
no..you are just cheapies..
damn..you sound like a fucking junior high school bitch crying
at his parents and shit...
wake up asshole..
Ed: i dunno about "you all," but i've been fighting
the high cost of CDs for more than five years now. Since I've discovered
independent/used CD stores, I've never spent more than $10 on a CD. I
have about 500 CDs... average cost to me? $6. We've protested the ridiculous
prices that the commercial outlets have charged for years. Now our protests
are just a bit more mainstream. Why should this guy care? I bet he works for
a record label (the only ones who have something serious to lose from Napster.)
how have they been ripping us
off? I'll explain. Most people know that it costs them less than a
nickel per CD made... yet most record stores sell CDs between $15 and
$20.
------WRONG!!!!!not a nickel per cd!! thats a fucking LIE!!
try .$1.00 for raw cd's...or a little less...RAW..no design no
booklet,no cases,or trayliners..
Ed: I know for a fact that a mass production of CDs (no case,
insert, etc) costs about a nickel each... but i can't find proof. If anyone
can, please e-mail me at editor@bumrock.com. Thanks.
Now there are a lot of other expenses that need to be accounted
for- artist royalties, insert design and various other parts that add
up quick... but if an album sells about 2500 copies (average for a
no-name band), they will still make ok money selling the discs at $5 a
pop.
------dude..do you even know how much money a label must spend
on promo,royalties,overhead..printing promo
flyers,stickers,shirts,etc???NO!....its alot of
money...something i didn't expect the peanut gallery to understand...
but fuckers with no clue like you think you know it all..and act
as if you know what you are talking about..
well sonny boy,you don't...
you are a product of MTV and this trendy lost society,....a
great example of the living deaD.
Ed: I don't know where this guy shops, but the cost of everything he
listed there could be made back with the sale of a few dozen t-shirts at $12 a pop.
Or maybe he just doesn't have a good business sense. He sure doesn't have a solid
grasp of the english language (give him time though... he's working on it) :-).
What about big artists like Eminem who sell more than one million
albums in the first week? Profit could still be made selling those
albums at $1 each...
----- this is bullshit..and you really do not know what you
speak..show some concrete evidence fool..
i can prove otherwise..i do run a label,distro and spend tons of
money each release to get the band out and heard..and people
like you are trying to kill off music and bands with your "ever
so un-enlightened and lying shit essay"
you think not,you say bitch???"know it all" damn..i see this
usually from those who are wannabees and know nothing..
Ed: I knew it! He does work for a record label!
---well...with your "philosophy" all bands will be ripped off of
their royalties have no label to push or promote their music,and
all will have to get new jobs to survive..you don't have any
idea how much work a label does for the bands..why do you think
you see them on MTV and all the ad's for these bands...
there goes the music you aLL like and idolize....
---you want to cheat artists and labels of the little profits
they get...cool...no more music eventually except the heartless
wank churned out by users with a cakewalk program and no talent
or knowledge of music...more cheesy shit then ever..
good call fool!!
Ed: So many bands are making it on their own these
days without the need of a corporate record label. How do you think
Ani DiFranco became a millionaire... it wasn't by selling her albums
through a Time Warner company.
Back to Napster- created by college student Shawn Fanning after he
decided MP3s were just too hard to find on the internet.
----he was too cheap to buy the albums...so him and his wanker
friend spent all their time after they quit school....trying to
figure out how to create the software,and they did..now them and
all the other cheapfucking losers can steal all they want and
fuck up the bands they once liked...very sad...as are you for
promoting this shame on you...ripoff bitch!
Ed: Well, he gets real boring and repetitive here, so I
don't need to say any more... but if you'd like to see what he says...
---stealing more then songs..full albums are what is see
mainly,....thatsd fucked up.,admit it....admit you are a
cheating fucking pirate..who would fuck his best friends girl if
he went out of town and lie about it..those are the kind of
peopel you are...liars and cheats...
millions of you..deserve to be shut down...
------yeah..so many of you pirating fucking assholes doing all
you can to ruin the music industry..and its artists with
talent..
---but we will be reporting all ISP's and getting you all thrown
off for stealing,copyright infringement and pirating and making
money off music that is not yours to steal..
the plot will thicken and the thieves will be highlighted..
you fucking think you can just rip bands off blatantly..
fuck no...your gonna get meat grinded..
the war is on..its not just METALLICA anymore...
--we know we can't stop you all..but we can label you all as
"ripoffs,thives and pirates" and spread the word to all we
can...thats "fighting fire with fire"...as Metallica would say..
--cause cheap asses like you will do all they can for free music
and to rip the artists and labels who WORK hard off...
what do you do for the music scene BTW????RIP off bands and brag
like you are some hero for mankind...
you are not,you are another loser who followed the cheap ass
trendies too long..another piece of shit that will be flushed.
---- yeah..no more promo...no more radio getting cd's...no more
posters,shirts..all that..you think bands print oup all that on
thier own????nope...not in most cases...and all the music and
its memorabilia will die out cause you and your little bitch
clan will be snaking everything for free..
right cheapie????yeah..talk all the shit you want..i am totally
right and always will be while you talk out of your ass and
follow the other 19 year old Napster creators "prophetic
visions"
weak following weak..
--- you just proved what a wanker and lost little sheep btich
you are.."lets steal guys"....you fucking thief!!
---don't worry..you and all your kind will be severed by the
powers
that be..and you deserve to be shut down..anyone who steals and
robs from others deserves to be locked up..we can't wait to see
all you little bitches locked up in the cells and wondering
"man...i should have gotten a job and done somethignwith my life
instead of ripping off others from their art and lives"
people like you and your kind need to be exterminated,...
you will be in given time...
your show is total shit by the way....nice try fucker....
Ed: So he's not too bright. What show? Any way...
his e-mail is provided here until he gets sick of people telling him
how wrong he is.
Tommy (tommyt@dsbp.cx)
Dear editor
i am saddend, as a 15 yearold, who hopes to become part of the music
industry, either as an artist or a audio engener to hear what you have
said. you imply that "artists" like Emenem make TOO much money, but most
of the "artists" on the top 10 in my country and countryies like mine,
are not artists at all, they are mearly a pretty face with some crap
funk shit music, targeted at the vunrable pockets of 12yearold girls and
their parents.
Ed: At least this New Zealand-native kid tries to be nice.
He's wrong as his spelling, but nice. Yes, the millionaire Eminem
makes too much money. And he's made many millions for his corporate label,
too. He is talented, yes. But there are thousands of artists better than
him just trying to afford next month's rent. Is that fair? No. Why don't
you hear these better artists? Because record labels don't want you to.
They control it. And with Napster... they lose that control. No entertainer
should be making six-digit incomes. What kind of a world is it that
we're fighting for entertainers to become millionaires when our teachers make
maybe an average of $40,000/year. What should be more important here?
A money makeing machine.
true artists diserve to have their artwork protected.
Limb Bizkit is a sellout.
Offspring is a sellout. it is obvious, as they spend excessively on
addvertinsing. not on the musical quality of their music. Spicegirl
style pop groups make allot of their money off selling murchandice, so
having their music free, will effectively only advertise their products
for free.
First off, Limp Bizkit and Offspring spend no more on
advertising/promotion than Eminem. As far as musical quality... what
instrument does Eminem play again? Oh yeah- he doesn't. Limp Bizkit
and Offspring are just saying that it's possible for a well-known band
to take advantage of this new technology and accept that it's the way
the industry is headed.
As long as this westurn world is right wing capatalizim run, profit
comes before anyting else, then the music industry will remain profit
driven. Mp3s on the net will destroy the real "Art" in music, or at
least the possibilty of making a living from it
What MP3s do, is make music free and available. Meaning-
take money out of the picture, and people get to choose for themselves
what they want to listen to.
yours sincerly
Oli (oli@inspire.net.nz)
