 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement
|
|
|
Subject: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 25 Nov 02 - 12:34 PM Sorry music pros I am a folk musican which means I just do it and no one pays me nothing...(generally...) Since napster is departed do you know of any free replacement that actually has music....I found one where the tracks that were free were few.... awaiting the fruits of your creative research.... Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 25 Nov 02 - 12:36 PM Conrad, what do you have now, at least a dozen Mudcat member identitities? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Clinton Hammond Date: 25 Nov 02 - 12:55 PM I use Kazaa Lite myself.. works great... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 25 Nov 02 - 01:32 PM I use WinMX. Tried Morpheus for a while but never could get it to work. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: 53 Date: 25 Nov 02 - 01:46 PM I had Morpheus but my machine won't upgrade Morpheuas. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 25 Nov 02 - 02:12 PM this is the only identity these days sometimes I loose my cookie and am guest for a while till I have the time to reset it....I generally sign my messages... Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST,Richard Bridge Date: 25 Nov 02 - 03:51 PM Those who know better say Kazaa is basicaly a virus. Kazaa Lite of course is not like that. I have heard blubster recommended |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: John MacKenzie Date: 25 Nov 02 - 03:52 PM Kazaa Lite, has fewer pop-ups and less spy ware. Lots of categories, a bit slow at times, but I find it A OK. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Mark Clark Date: 25 Nov 02 - 04:09 PM KaZaA is like a virus. It's spyware. KaZaA Lite is just KaZaA regular (that is to say it's really the same program) except that someone has replaced the DLL file that handles the adds with a null DLL so the application doesn't realize that its primary objective has been defeated. Use and or distribution of KaZaA Lite is a violation of the EULA and therefore a violation of the law in the U.S. Using KaZaA Lite just adds to the number of KaZaA users and encourages development of spyware. Try Gnucleus, another Gnutella client that doesn't compromize you or your computer. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 25 Nov 02 - 06:25 PM I just tried kazaa lite and found it works fine. click here All of these exist in a grey area. I have used gnutella and cant ever get connected. I will look into gnucleus.... It would be helpful to have one or possibly two programs that all mudcatters could be aware of and focus the folk music content in one place. Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Big Mick Date: 25 Nov 02 - 09:32 PM How about you "good" folks quit stealing other folks property and just order from Folk Legacy (Caroline and Sandy Paton) or Camsco (Dick Greenhaus) and support the folks that support folk. I know it is hard to understand, but when you take something that you are supposed to pay for, well, we call that stealing. And the person that does that is called a thief. Several of you are really decent folks. So do the right thing. And never mind all the "I only want one song" or "I will buy it if I like it" stuff, OK? You are getting something for free that you should be paying for. That is theft. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST,Geordie Date: 26 Nov 02 - 09:16 AM I use Bearshare. I find it reasonable good but somewhat limited. As for the accusation of "stealing" other folks property..it rings a bit self righteous. I have had many an artist "steal" my money and deliver an inferior product. Maybe it is just pay back time. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 26 Nov 02 - 09:55 AM So, Big Mick, have you never used the DT? Presumably you always go out and buy a song book if you want some lyrics? Because it's no different... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Bagpuss Date: 26 Nov 02 - 10:08 AM Didn't you all know that home taping killed music years ago.... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 10:25 AM That's right, Bagpuss There was no music left at all after the invention of the domestic tape recorder. There's even less since mp3s and file sharing were invented. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Clinton Hammond Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:00 PM "Use and or distribution of KaZaA Lite is a violation of the EULA and therefore a violation of the law in the U.S" Sounds like a good enough reason to use it right there! And my experiece with Gnutella and it's clones has been that they are crap, plain and simple... Big Mick... Ya don't like it, don't use it... but yer not the boss of me, so don't even try telling me what I can and cannot do! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:04 PM Well said, Clinton |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Big Mick Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:11 PM I am not telling any of you what you can do. I am telling you what you are doing, and what that makes you. Clinton, you have said many times that you don't mind stealing, and I have no illusions that anything I can say would stop you. But I will call this by what it is every time I see it. It is stealing. As to the DT, that is not an apt comparison. Use your head and you will see why. If you require an explanation, I will be happy to provide it for you. As to the assertion that plenty of artists have ripped you off for your admissions fee, so it is justified to steal now.....hmmm......let's see. That would mean that you also think it is OK to steal any product that didn't live up to your expectations? Never mind that if you are stealing it, then you must like it to begin with, which is refutes your contention. I have said this before, I will say it again....and again......and again. I could at least tolerate you folks if you would just admit that your motivation is to get something that you really should be paying for. But you won't admit it, because you know you are wrong for what you are doing. You are stealing. And what about the affect on businesses like Folk Legacy and Camsco? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:20 PM Mick, Yes, I would like an explanation as to why 'stealing' from writers and compilers of song books is fundamentally different from 'stealing' recordings. You use the DT, but to use your own words, 'You are getting something for free that you should be paying for. That is theft.' I look forward to your reply. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: KingBrilliant Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:32 PM Hmmmmmm - so we shouldn't make photocopies of publications, pictures etc either I suppose. Is it REALLY stealing to make a copy of something, or is it just the removal of a potential sale (which isn't quite the same thing)? I love music, and I can't afford to buy all the stuff I might want to listen to. If it came down to it I probably wouldn't buy it anyway - there's plenty of music in pubs & on the radio. So - I suppose I'll have to admit to being a music-thief. Ah well - I'm certainly not going to stop. Neither am I going to feel particularly guilty. Kris |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 01:36 PM Exactly Kris. Mick seems to have got too high on his horse, and is unable to see the ground anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Clinton Hammond Date: 27 Nov 02 - 02:12 PM I was thinking that maybe where Big Mick's head was, it was too DARK for him to see... but it does still involve a horse, though... Sorry... I'm just having a little fun at your expence BM... Seriously, I don't give a flying rats patoot what -YOU- think I'm doing... And I hope you have better things to do than wring your hands and fret and worry about what -I- might be doing... Live and let live... who's round is it? ,-) |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Spartacus Date: 27 Nov 02 - 02:29 PM Wow... Some harsh words here...mick has a point. No matter what you call it, it is technically stealing. I personally don't have a problem taking a song or two from big business. I've never downloaded an entire album, and recently, I went out and bought Wilco's last record after I heard a couple of tracks I liked on win mx. I play music locally (ann arbor/detroit area) and I always make a point to buy from the local stores and support the local artists. This is way to long a discussion to have here, but I believe these sights serve a purpose as long as they are not abused. -Spartacus |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Spartacus Date: 27 Nov 02 - 02:32 PM Gosh, I almost forgot: The written music thing is stealing too, technically. But no matter how big I got, I would always be happy to have anything I penned or composed be "stolen" and covered, mangled, re-written - whatever, by another kindred spirit with an instrument. A freind of mine has in his liner notes on his cd: "unauthorized duplication is a violation of my wallet" -Spartacus |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GutBucketeer Date: 27 Nov 02 - 05:58 PM First, I know of no good replacement to Napster for sharing rare, out-of-print, sound files that has not been shut down by "Big Music". Audio Galaxy worked for a while but they shut them down too. I collect a lot of MP3s, and most of them are from 78s and shellac recordings from 1910s through the 1930s. Nearly all of them are out-of-copy right and/or out-of-print. Since the shut down of Audio Galaxy I depend almost exclusively on the 78rpm Newsgroup and various sites that post old recordings that THEY THEMSELVES HAVE TRANSFERRED FROM VINYL TO MP3. Kazaa, and the Gnutella network clones are great for finding the top 10 hits, and I agree with Mick that for current music by current artists it probably is stealing. However, I believe that there is a huge area open for debate concerning recordings that are no longer in copyright, are out-of-print, or where the artists and publishers have long since vanished. What the Big Music companies, ASCAP, and others are trying to do is paint everything with one big brush and shut down all debate. Unfortuneately, Mick's knee jerk reaction also falls in this camp. What we are seeing is a controversy concerning ownership rights and what is or is not considered private property brought on by advances in technology. What should the length of copyright protection be, and what should it cover? The recent copyright extension act had in my mind no justification and was slipped in purely to fatten the coffers of music publishers and big business. Happy Birthday is still under copyright for ch---t sake! It caused songs in the public domain to suddenly fall under copyright all the the way back to 1923. Is it wrong to take a record that I have and transfer it to a CD so I can listen to it using modern technology? Is it wrong to take a tape that doesn't exist as a CD version and transfer it? If I take a song off of Honking Duck and then save it and make a CD of it to listen to in my car am I stealing from anybody? The song is out of copyright and wasn't transferred from a current in print media. IF the rights are still "owned" by the publisher and the publisher decides to keep the song or recording out of print there is no way to "pay" for the use of the song. Is it then wrong to make a copy of it for personal use? I personally believe it is not wrong morally and should't be "wrong" legally. What I am trying to say basically, is some interests are trying to make us believe that these things are all decided, and because they have snuck things into law we have to agree to them morally, and abide by them legally. When special interests get laws changed to move things in the public domain into the private domain and force ownership on us then in many ways it should be considered stealing: from us. THESE ISSUES ARE NOT RESOLVED AND SHOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE! When Harry Fox was attacking Mudcat we were all outraged. Let's atleast recognize the similarities, and try to apply some rational criteria to what should and should not be considered as Mick puts it "Stealing". JAB |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 06:06 PM Still waiting for that explanation of the difference of "stealing" MP3s and "stealing" copyright protected lyrics from DT (or the forum for that matter). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: Sandy McLean Date: 27 Nov 02 - 08:02 PM Woody used to encourage people to copy his material on his radio shows. " This song is under copyright. Anyone caught copying, singing , or using this will make me durn proud. " Woody of course never got rich, but the music was always the important thing. I don't think Napster or any of it's clones would have bothered him very much. Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: michaelr Date: 27 Nov 02 - 08:11 PM I'm intrigued by the reference to "Harry Fox attacking Mudcat". What happened? Can someone steer me toward relevant threads? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: BEST FREE NAPSTER CLONE /REPLACEMENT From: GUEST Date: 27 Nov 02 - 08:56 PM Mudcat wasn't attacked, but the Digital Tradition was forced to shut down because of copyright violations. On the Bluegrass-L listserv, Dick Greenhaus wrote the following in July 1996: "A music publisher complained that the Digital Tradition was using some of its copyrighted songs without permission. Xerox, who supported the DT website, immediately shut it down." It was up and running again within a couple of months, at this site (or was it www.deltablues back then?). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,Cookieless Anahootz Date: 27 Nov 02 - 10:34 PM /RANT ON All Y'all that equate downloading with stealing need to get in touch with reality. The only entity that could possibly be considered "defrauded" in this case is a corporate entity, the record company that produces the product, since they collect 83-92% of wholesale gross per unit. If the record is self-released, well, good on you for having an mp3...and happy days living out of your car. I know how much money it costs in advertising and promotion to release a record with any reasonable sales expectancy. I was in the record business for 5 years(3 of those were "hobby interest" according to my accountant). The label that I helped found put out more than 30 different products by 15 bands, some of which we sold to larger interests (Lava/Atlantic, Reprise, Restless, to name a few). One of the things that I ranted on about then (as now) is IF YOU ARE NOT A HOUSEHOLD NAME, YOU DO ANYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO GET PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO YOUR WORK. This includes free distribution of select materials, often by giving away units to people who will play them for public consumption. Since most PD's are pompous assholes, the next best step is to get on a PtP share service and give the public a few tunes. Don't call it stealing. Most of the mp3's that are collected by the "folk and acoustic" crowd are from artists that don't even own their rights anymore. Back-catalog acquisition of foundering folk labels has been a specialty of a certain large East-coast label for years now...whose mouth are you stealing the food from when you download a back-catalog selection? You might think you are, but the initial catalog outlay has probably long ago been amortized, and someone is getting rich from other peoples' musical contributions. No? Just think about Michael Jackson, who owns the Beatles' Masters rights. Hmmm...Sold to make a car commercial? And Sir Paul and company didn't see a dime, and never will? It is not stealing. It is use. I don't burn cd's from my vast mp3 collection, they are merely 0's and 1's on my harddrive...floating out occasionally when I listen to them. /RANT OFF |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GutBucketeer Date: 27 Nov 02 - 11:24 PM To 8:56 PM Guest I wish you'd get your facts straight before replying. Mudcat was attacked, and threatened with legal action. Checkout the following threads. No Joke, Mudcat Under Attack Serious BS: HFA/NMPA Round 2 NMPA/HFA Round 3 - 'The Banned Songs' Which are only the tip of the iceberg. It was very tense during those times. JAB P.S. Why use "GUEST", since it is obvious that you've been around Mudcat for along time. PM me if you care to reply, don't clutter up the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 01 Dec 02 - 03:50 PM Just returned from Thanksgiving holidays yesterday and am getting caught up. Hence my delay in responding. Let me begin first with my friend Jim, otherwise known as Gutbucketeer. You know me, at least a bit. My reaction is not knee jerk, it has been consistent and is well thought out. To the unnamed GUEST. There is a fundamental difference between taking a lyric off a site such as the Digitrad. It is not the singing or reprinting of lyrics that is theft. Those are put out there by artists for people to learn and sing. I know of no artist who objects to another singing there song, nor is there legal precedent to prohibit that. The sharing of lyrics, in most cases, is legal. And in those cases where it is not, Digitrad has removed the lyrics, as have others. And even in those cases where they have, I can usually go to the website and get the lyrics and these are posted by the authors/copyright holders. Where the line would be crossed is if I did something that was done for the sole purpose of beating the artist out of legally and morally owed compensation. On my own CD there are many songs by others. In each case we compensated by getting a license; or by direct payment; or in the case of not being able to find the person, we put the money in an interest bearing account as escrow until we find the appropriate person. That is the honorable thing to do. I know that that term bothers some folks but I don't care. Merely taking the lyrics to sing is not considered theft. It is the act of taking something that rightfully should be paid for, and using a system to get around that. Now, as to the assertion that it is alright to take a song or two from big business. I have two problems with that. The first is that it could be used in almost any situation to justify theft. What you are saying is that stealing has to do with scale. So, in your opinion, stealing a Ford is OK? Theft is theft. If you are doing it to make a statement, fine. Just be prepared for the consequences. I have done this. In my life I have made the decision to break laws in pursuit of a point that I was making as an activist in a number of different causes. But I never alibi'ed that. I called it for what it was. And I paid the price later. The second problem I have with this attitude that it is OK to steal from business because they rip us off, is that it lumps all business into the same boat. Camsco, Folk Legacy, and most labels that record the music we love, are not ripping us off. They usually can barely make enough to stay in business. Independent artists, like myself, will invest $4,500 to $10,000 US to produce a CD. Marketing them at $15.00 a copy barely allows us to recoup our cost, when you factor in our time spent in production, studio artists, etc. As to downloading obscure stuff that Jim says isn't available, fair enough. IF what you say is true, then you aren't ripping anybody off, because no one has a financial stake. But that is a big IF. I would bet that at least some of what you say is not otherwise available, is available somewhere. As to Sandy Maclean's contention about Woody, I would say this. Yes, it is true Woody said this. Fair enough, as that was his right. That is the point. The artist has the right to control his/her own work. And I would bet you money that Woody's attitude wouldn't be the same today as it was then. He didn't live in the age when it was so easy. The GUEST intimated that it is the same as when the cassette was supposed to destroy the industry. True enough, but there is a fundamental difference. One person might make 10 copies. They couldn't put it on a server and have the whole world copy it. This is a much different threat. And the old way was just as wrong. One person said that they didn't feel they were stealing by making a copy for the car. They are right. It isn't about copying. I copy my CD's so I am not taking the original. The fundamental wrong occurs when you do that to avoid paying. Like copying for a friend. I am entitled to copy my CD's for my use. I am not entitled to copy it and give it to someone. I can give them my original, that is OK. It is just a gift. But to make a copy to avoid paying is theft. Annahootz, it is stealing unless the performer agrees to the posting. I am not begrudging that. You are holding the artist to your standard for the dissemination of his/her work. I understand your point, but it isn't yours to make. You don't have the right to say what is good for me. Nor do you have the right to copy someone elses property without their permission. Is that so hard to understand? Two final points. The first is directed at Clinton. He is the only person that has ever admitted that he does it to get something for nothing. That has been my standard challenge in this debate. All of your attempts to justify the theft of this music is obfuscation. You just don't want to admit that you are taking something that you should be paying for. You come up with all these justifications for your illicit and illegal actions. I would have much more respect, as I do for Clinton, if you would just own up to why you do it instead of all these grand attempts at making it right. It isn't. By the way, Clinton (you asshole.........inside joke there, folks, between Clinton and I), it is my turn to buy. Finally, those that think I am on a high horse, I would suggest to you that you simply can't take plain talk, and a sense of ethics. I can't help what you think of me, but you may trust that I will call it as I see it. If you knew me, you would know that I attempt to live to a code. I am not always successful, but I will still continue to try. If you cannot deal with that, I would suggest that that is yours to deal with. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Cluin Date: 01 Dec 02 - 04:46 PM Well, I agree with both Big Mick and Clinton. But then again, I'm Canadian (my crotch is getting pretty sore up on that fence). When I download an .mp3, it's to learn the tune. Or because I can't get it any other place (out of print, very rare, etc.). Or until I do buy the whole recording (evaluation purposes, IOW). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Dec 02 - 04:51 PM Tully and a pint of Guin. then Mick... "For the whole world to copy" Well, that's part of the debate eh... one side says thast since Peer-To-Peer filesharing became 'easy' (Anybody who's even vaguely computer litterate KNOWS that we've been pirating ALL KINDS of software for eyar and years and years... Napster wasn't new) that record sales are down (Big surprise, this comes from teh record compaines) and the other side says record sales are up (The Pro-Napster people) Who's right? Who can say... All I can say is, there are artists, CD and the like that I NEVER would have even been exposed to if someone hadn'ta had an illegal sample and intro'd me that way... And I know I've done the same thing... Don Ross (Canadian Guitar God) is vocally ANTI-sharing... And given the narrow scope of his appeal I guess I can sorta see why... (Solo accoustic Guitar has NEVER been a big seller) BUT... Off the top of my head, I can think of at least 15 people I've given sample MP3s to, or included a song or 2 of his on a mixed Mini-disk, who ahve on their own then, gone out and purchased his CDs... people who, until I intro'd them to him, had not a frigg'n clue what a Don Ross even was... Does that justify it? I donno... ask Don I guess... If he said "NO" would it stop me? No... not even for a second... It's damn good music, and if I can do even a little to spread it around, I'm gonna... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harvey andrews Date: 01 Dec 02 - 07:51 PM Big Mick, you get my vote. You are morally right. But the new morality is "if you cannot protect it I will take it". But many will never admit it. Thank you for fighting the corner of those of us who manage to survive on intellectual copyright in a field as small and unnoticed as the folk world. Somehow because we make our own cds they confuse us with big business which they consider it's allright to cheat. Be fun if we could steal the fruits of their labour as easily eh? Reckon they'd soon join us on the picket line. Solidarity Brother! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Clinton Hammond Date: 01 Dec 02 - 08:18 PM "those of us who manage to survive on intellectual copyright in a field as small and unnoticed as the folk world" See, I think those of us in the folk world are LUCKY of someone wants to steal from us... It's kinda one of those "Any attention is good attention" things... Heh |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harvey andrews Date: 01 Dec 02 - 08:25 PM Each to his own Clinton. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GutBucketeer Date: 01 Dec 02 - 09:35 PM Mick: I was too hasty with "knee jerk reaction" and I do apologize. You make many good points in justifying your perspective. The morality of copy, or downloading, at either end of the spectrum is fairly clear. It is wrong to copy something that you will use regularly from an original, or from the web, in order to avoid paying for it. It is ok to make a duplicate for protection and backup, or to transfer to a new technology, for personal use. What is being faught over is the grey area in the middle. The Music industry wants to set up standards and force technological solutions (at our expense) that limit ALL copying. They want a blanket share, or "royalties" to be paid to them, whether: an item is copywrited and the owners are known and royalties can be distributed; it is copywrited and the owners cannot be traced (in this case they keep the royalties; it is copywrighted and permission has been given to download or copy (i.e. free sample mp3s), or it is not copywrited. Their perspective is since there is no way to sift through border cases with any certainty let's just restrict everything. My whole point before is that debate needs to occur and ALL interested parties should have a say in what is legal or illegal: moral or immoral. I believe the borderlines are still being worked out, and in the grey areas it is not yet clear what is moral or immoral. In this respect I disagree with Mick. Some specifics: When I was researching a paper in grad school, I would go to the library and copy articles, or pages of articles, for my research. I still do this in my professional life. It is legal and has been judged "moral". What is the equivalent in the music industry? If I download 10 different versions of a folk song in order to compare renditions, copy lyrics, or discern chords, am I stealing? Some would say yes, others no. When performances that are in the public domain are collected from old 78rpm records, gramophone disks, cylinders, etc., assembled and released on CD, who "owns" them? Clearly, the CD compilation is copywrighted, and I presume the particular audio footprints/versions of each song on the CD are also protected, especially if substantial work has been undertaken to clean up and remaster the recordings. However, no permission was obtained from the original owners, since the originals were already in the public domain. How much remastering must take place in order to assert ownership over the re-released material? What if no editing and remastering has taken place? Does the ownership encompass duplicates obtained from other originals? Probably not. Simply because someone asserts ownership does it mean that ownership exists? When the Music and Publishing industries work to change the copywight laws and extend them to cover material that is already in the public domain copying may become illegal, but it doesn't mean I have to agree that it is immoral. I try not to download material from current artists, or material that is readily available from other sources, especially if I'm going to listen to it alot. However, even by my own standards, I must admit that I probably have "stolen" some material. My only defense is that it falls into the area of petty larceny, and not grand theft. I do try to find available material that I can buy. I do download if it is not available or difficult to obtain. And yes I am a collector by nature and love getting something for free, even if I never have listened to some of the recordings (That's 2 Mick). JAB P.S. I do believe that we should support Camsco, Folk Legacy, and other labels that release the material we love including CDBABY. I have bought and will continue to buy CDs from them. I just believe we should support them based upon different premises. They strive to collect difficult to find material, they preserve what would otherwise be lost, and they provide the life blood and distribution system to artists that carry on the traditions of the past. They provide a much needed public service to our community and should be compensated and even rewarded for their efforts. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 01 Dec 02 - 09:51 PM I believe that there are distinctions, Jim. But you and I both know that those distinctions cover a very small part of the spectrum. Most proponents, and most presented here, seek to justify there actions on an entirely different angle. They feel it is their right to give away an artist's work, or a company's product with out regard to intellectual property rights. The other side, which you state so well, is a by product of the argument. And I agree that it is one which must be fought out to some sort of solution. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Sandy McLean Date: 01 Dec 02 - 10:09 PM Sometimes songs that have known authors (Example: When You and I Were Young Maggie) are marked as traditional because they are in public domain due to the passage of time. Sometimes artists then have the gall to attach their own copyright for things like arrangement without any acknowledgement of the true writer of the work. Sometimes true traditional material also shows a copyright mark. My memory is a bit foggy but there was a high profile folk group doing this years ago and another high profile folk singer really took them to task for doing this. I do not wish to mention names but I'm sure that some of you remember this. I guess my ethical Question is: If the performer stole the material in the first place, is it permissable to in turn steal the material from them? Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 01 Dec 02 - 10:13 PM Sandy, that is an entirely different topic from the downloading of music from a CD. Much of the music you describe was copyrighted to protect it, as in the case of Alan Lomax. For what it is worth, in my opinion if someone legally owns the copyright, they are owed for its use. If I have a problem with the way it was obtained, I simply won't record it. But that isn't the topic here. We are talking on this thread about the filesharing of someones intellectual property. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GutBucketeer Date: 01 Dec 02 - 10:34 PM It is never anyone's right to give away what does not belong to them, or someone else's product. I agree with you there. Eventually, the specifics of what constitutes intellectual property rights will be resolved and become part of the generally accepted moral view of society. I also agree with you that most people use situational ethics to justify anything they want to do. I hate situational ethics! JAB P.S. I love to debate, however, and work out the logic of the the fine points (My college roomate thought I just like to argue but I swear it's not that). |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Sandy McLean Date: 01 Dec 02 - 10:42 PM Mick, my question was not intended as a red herring. I do not perform or record music as a profession. When I perform others material (non-profit)I always try to acknowledge the author as I would hope that others do with material of mine. I relate to the songwriter and not the publishing and recording companies. Often it is the songwriter that is being ripped off. Many high profile performers have demanded co-writer status before they will record a song even though they had no input in it beyond picking the key to sing it in. This was done , and probably still is with full industry support because it is dollar driven. Now if I were to download such a song who would be the greater thief ? Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 02 Dec 02 - 07:25 AM Yes, Sandy, I understand your point completely. In fact, I am in complete sympathy with the scenario you describe. There is not question in my mind that publishing and record companies have ripped off writers for years. And would still like to do so. You ready for this? I believe that file sharing specifically, and the internet in general, finally gives the artists, authors, and independents a chance to control their own destinies. One can get out there and present their own works to a broad audience. But there are several issues to be resolved. The first is the one we are discussing. How does one allow a preview without giving away the baby. In this regard, the large companies are doing us a favor by going after the free filesharing services. This is something the independent artists would not be able to do because of a lack of a central structure. I believe that we need software to allow the preview of, but not the download of, the music we create. Then a system to allow a download by and pay for, by track. I realize that we have services that are similar to this, but it seems to me that one should be able to have this on their own website. The next piece is up to the individual, and that is to learn how to market over the Internet. File sharing is an interesting concept that can be very good, or very bad. If we don't get control of it, we will simply swap one set of bandits for another. Instead of the large corporations ripping us off, it will be Joe Average. I don't like getting ripped of by either side. By the way, Jim, I recognized the debater in you. It never felt like an argument, just a good discussion on a tough issue. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Sandy McLean Date: 02 Dec 02 - 01:06 PM I understand Mick! Woody was referring to banks when he wrote "Some will rob you with a six gun; some with a fountain pen." (Pretty Boy Floyd) but he felt the same way about most established industries , music included. Slainte, Sandy |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Stilly River Sage Date: 02 Dec 02 - 02:10 PM So where do each of you stand as far as something as simple as recording off of the radio? It's out there for us to listen to, fees are paid by the station to play the piece. I've been known to pop a cassette in the recorder to get a couple of sides of a local station to then listen to on road trips when there is no reception at all. It means I didn't bother to edit out commercials so I'm actually hearing again what the advertisers paid for me to hear. On the other hand, I've also recorded uninterrupted classical pieces off of the radio, and programs from places like NPR (especially the folks programs of 20-25 years ago) where there was no option that I was aware of to buy a copy. Those are priceless now. Personal use is an important concept in the discussion and has been brought up numerous times. It applies equally to many documents and resources. I work in a large university research library where we visit this issue continually this: see The University of Texas System Intellectual Property page for copyright information, including about music. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GutBucketeer Date: 02 Dec 02 - 06:05 PM Wow, Thanks Silly River Sage! Here is another reference that might be usefull from SRS's site: MLA Copyright for Music Librarians |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST Date: 02 Dec 02 - 11:44 PM FOLKS...I am the number one "rip off artist" of this forum.
|
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: *#1 PEASANT* Date: 03 Dec 02 - 01:43 PM If more folkies would use KaZaA Lite of course then the quality of the music available would improve. Actually its not bad and I have been able to find some more obscure pieces. So go for KaZaA Lite which I find works well and make your collections available. No different than exchanging records with friends. I have no money to buy music anyway and if I had the money I would probalby buy beer.... Conrad |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harvey andrews Date: 03 Dec 02 - 02:26 PM and if you had no money you'd steal the beer eh Conrad? |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 03 Dec 02 - 09:02 PM It is entirely different from exchanging records with your friends, Conrad. When you exchange records, you give your copy away. No one is beat out of anything. And as far as improving availability, only in the short run. Well said, Harvey. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,Anahootz Date: 03 Dec 02 - 09:13 PM I dunno, I'm still not taken by the "steal a song, steal a car" corollary... One is tangible, with a market value determined by real buyers, with actual monies in posession... The other, in .mp3 form, is a series of 0's and 1's, with a value determined only by the owner...hmmm All in all, just another point of discussion |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 03 Dec 02 - 10:30 PM Anahootz..............go look up intellectual property. And besides, you are pulling the obfuscation tactic again. It is simple. Before Napster et al, could you have gotten this music for nothing? Or more importantly, why wouldn't you just pay for it? Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harpgirl Date: 03 Dec 02 - 10:47 PM ..."let he who has not sinned caste the first stone" |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 03 Dec 02 - 10:55 PM IF you are seeking the BEST FREE "Napster" clone...I encourage you to learn the "tricks of the trade."
Before, there was Napster....Before, the was MudCat....there was and still is the wonderful net-realm of FTP.
The Guttenberg's of the web-universe.... Gnutella, and Mudcat, and Napster, and Kazaa, have made the "intricacies" of the "NET" easily available to the lazy, plebian masses, and hordes of ignorance....once, and the eternal (to date) foundation of the web is FTP and its par-mutations.
I would guess, that perhaps, 10% of the "good" stuff passes through the clones...learn the language...if you wish to reap the fruits.
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 03 Dec 02 - 10:58 PM Using the Napster "clones" is like trying to use the MudCat Translator...hoping for it to give an acuarate depiction of a thread...yeah...its "good" if you are ignorant!
Sincerely, |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,Anahootz Date: 04 Dec 02 - 01:04 AM Well, there you go, Mick...you got me... I know the definition of intellectual property. And as it pertains to entertainment law, I am also aware of the fact that royalties are not always owed. So, once again, enlighten me as to the comparison of the "theft" of6.667 cents to oh...a fucking cadillac. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Clinton Hammond Date: 04 Dec 02 - 01:13 AM "could you have gotten this music for nothing" Yes... Could do... Can do... and will continue to do... :-) As garg and I said... |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,Van Date: 04 Dec 02 - 05:46 AM Big Mick - if we could not learn and play other people's music folk music would cease to exist. In what way did Alan Lomax "protect" music by copywriting songs sung by people he recorded. He could copywrite music and songs he wrote but who gave him the right to put a copywrite on - for example - Hebridean waulking songs. They have existed for longer than him and were not his to claim. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harvey andrews Date: 04 Dec 02 - 06:06 AM A song is not a product. A cd is. It requires investment, time and needs to be sold to get its investment back. A song can be learnt and sung by anyone. Our songs are free to anyone who wishes to sing them. Let me put it this way. Shakespeare or Wordsworth can be learnt and recited, but going into a bookshop and stealing the book the poems are printed in is theft. The book is a product, the poem isn't. it only becomes a product when money is invested in it and it is put on sale. The free MP3 download is a copy of a product not a copy of a song. I hope that explains my point! Why do the thieves not refuse to buy the Mudcat cds, just get one copy of each and put all the tracks up for downloading? I'm sure Amos would be thrilled. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 04 Dec 02 - 07:33 AM Take a pill, Anahootz, go lie down. You will be fine. Harvey has just posted what I came to post. Even used the same analogy. You are attempting to mitigate your actions. You are taking something that you should be paying for. Are you a musician? Do you make recordings? I just read an interesting article in The Musician, which is the monthly newspaper of the American Federation of Musicians. It indicated that online music sales are down 25% due to the rise of new filesharing sites. What do you do for a living? What would you do if I found a way to access your income and took 25% of it? Van, If you had been following this discussion in this and other threads you would know that I am not referring to passing on music. Of course I want you should learn it, sing it, pass it on. But do so at your expense, not mine. Please..........go to Folk Legacy's site and purchase loads of that wonderful music, learn it and sing it for others. Just do it in a way that allows the Paton's to have enough money in their pockets to justify continuing on, and still be able to eat, buy their prescriptions, and so on. That is what this is about. Of all these arguments you folks keep throwing out, there are very few that have any real merit. Admit it. You want something for nothing. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: GUEST,petr Date: 04 Dec 02 - 03:43 PM my thoughts - i have, in the past, downloaded mp3s. Mainly i was looking for fiddle tunes, old jazz etc. THhey are all sitting on the harddrive of my old computer. THere are a few that I liked and bought the cd, or just looked up the music and learned the fiddle tunes. Even though I have a burner I couldnt be bothered to burn the mp3s to cd as it took too much time. recently in an article on cd piracy - one scientist said that an easy way to reduce the problem without implementing copy protection would be to make the cd's cheaper say 5$ a piece. Then people wouldnt bother. (lets not forget that the music industry reaped a windfall in the 80s and 90s when people replaced lp recordings they already had with cds) as far as burning copies of cds, I dont have a problem with artists who are dead, since theyre not getting the money. On the other hand Im in the printing business and consequently use a lot cds to backup large graphic files, and pay something like 20Cents of the cost or each cd as surcharge to counter music piracy - and the money goes to Ascap or Socan or whatever, even though Im not using it to copy music (so I feel like Im being ripped off too) the problem with the digital millennium copyright act, is the hypocrisy of corporations like Disney wanting to extend the copyright on mickey mouse - when ironically they made fortunes using public domain works - such as Snowhite and the Seven Dwards and Treasure Island (which is fine) but Had The Brothers Grim and Robert Louis Stevenson extended the copyright - we wouldnt have those movies. so the average Joe sees the copyright act as just a grab for more power and money by the rich and powerful, and consequently feels no guilt committing piracy. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: M.Ted Date: 04 Dec 02 - 03:50 PM Whatever the morality issues may seem to be, the fact is that many artists have found that their record sales jump when their MP3 are available freely on the web--It may even be that the recent decline in CD sales may be connected to the closing of the main P2P exchanges(the reas that this thread)-- In the end, it may be that the only thing worse than having MP3 files of your music traded on P2P networks is not having MP3 files of your music traded on P2P networks- |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Cluin Date: 04 Dec 02 - 04:03 PM I'll posit another "grey area": Suppose I have an old LP, say by Badfinger? I paid for it years ago and it's worn. Or my turntable's buggered or for whatever reason, I just want oner track off this album on CD. If I just want "Come and Get It" on CD, I'm certainly not going out to buy a whole CD at the ridiculously inflated price they want. Now I could set up the computer to record it from my old LP, then spend time with CoolEdit and fix up the track as best I can. Or I could just fire up WinMX and download a good quality .MP3 from someone who wants to share. Guess which one I'll do first? Am I hurting Badfinger? Not likely since I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway for just one song. Besides, those guys never made anything from their recordings. Two of them committed suicide and the other two aren't on speaking terms anymore, due largely to their being legendarily screwed over by the record companies that would be the only ones to profit from the money exchange. But the point I'm making is: I get something for nothing (except my time and the cost of my internet connection/computer/time/CD-R), and the musician (if the music company is honourable) misses out on a cent or two that they wouldn't have gotten anyway because I wouldn't have made the purchase. But I did pay for the LP way back when, and only wanted the one song off it. Is it stealing? Technically, I guess. But it ain't gonna keep me up nights. Those who don't like it can take some comfort in the fact that they are now saying our precious CD-Rs will only last about 5 years anyway. ;) Oh well. |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Big Mick Date: 04 Dec 02 - 04:13 PM Cluin, you need to read the thread before you post. I made clear much earlier that the circumstance you describe is completely legitimate. You bought the LP originally, it is yours to do with as you will, as long as it is for you and your household. Where you would be wrong (IMO) is if you burned that for all your friends and posted it to a site. Petr, you seem to make a distinction base on who owns the rights when you say that it makes a difference if the artist is dead. Woody Gutherie is a good example of why your reasoning is flawed. His family protects those rights, as they are supporting the family with the proceeds of this, among other things. It is their right to do so, and conversely, you have no right to appropriate what rightfully belongs to them. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: harvey andrews Date: 04 Dec 02 - 05:39 PM Sometimes I think we musicians are talking to a brick wall. Make cds $5 a piece indeed!! Then how do you get back the $15,000 dollars you've invested out of your own pocket in producing it in the first place? Studio time, engineer, other musicians, mixing time,design, production, advertising,website, media free copies, postage, etc etc all have to be paid for. Doesn't anybody out there understand economics? This is my last word...I'm exhausted! |
|
Subject: RE: Tech: Best Free Napster Clone/Replacement From: Cluin Date: 05 Dec 02 - 12:44 PM Mick, you need to read my message again. I didn't say I was doing anything with the LP. I said I was downloading an MP3 that somebody had made and was sharing through Napster-like software. And Harvey, There's a big difference from those smaller folkies putting out their indie CDs or with a small label and the bigger artists with big record deals who don't have to pay out-of-pocket for production costs. I don't mind paying 15 to 20 bucks for a CD at a concert of some artist of that ilk. I play it enough and definitely get my money's worth, as well as supporting the artists directly. My band charges $15 (Can) for its indie CD and we made our money back after about 200 sales in a couple months. Of course it was a small local run and the next 200 will take a lot longer (if ever). But there is no reason for large CD prices for million-selling CDs (which I'm not usually interested in anyway). We all know a cassette costs more to make than a CD (reproduction-wise, both in time and material cost). Then why are CDs another third again more expensive? It's all market driven; they charge what people will pay. And if the market changes to provide Internet file-sharing of a comparable sound quality MP3 out there for the taking... sure, people are going to want something for nothing. Take comfort in the fact that the vast bulk of MP3s being passed around are pop culture trash like "Shania Didn't-I-hear-this-one-before" and "Miss Nice-Ass-but-can't sing". I don't think it's made much of a dent in the loyal folk market. |
| Share Thread: |