Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ausdauer who wrote (13440)	7/30/2000 11:08:25 PM
From: Rocky Reid	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

Napster-related I weigh in completely on the side of Record Companies and Artists. By far, most Major Label Recording artists support the position on the RIAA. There are exceptions, of course. For instance, Limp Bizket is a popular group that is being paid by Napster to support their tour. Limp Bizket is willing to sell out their friends and other artists so they can get paid by Napster. But Napster cannot afford to pay all other musicians they are ripping off. The idea that Napster is a feel-good I share You share freedom-fest is lauighable when it is really a large corporate scam backed by big corporate bucks and high priced corporate lawyers (Microsoft lawyers at that). There is a Pro-Napster argument these days hat touring is now supposed to be an artist's only income. Hey, great. They tour already. People already complain that ticket prices are too high. Are they now supposed to raise ticket prices more to try and compensate for lost CD sales due to Napster? Touring is not where music groups make a lot of money. Touring rarely more than breaks even and is done to promote CD sales. And most bands are not rich. Most major label bands (most of which you have never heard of) sacrifice other careers and family life to try and make it in the music business. They should not be stolen from. But Napster hurts them much more than it does the Backstreet Boys. There are exceptions to touring, The Grateful Dead being the best example. They never sold a great deal of albums. But they toured constantly and had fans that travelled with them. Theirs was a light, trippy, groove oriented theme music suitable to use a lot of recreational drugs to. Their concerts were festivals where a whole bunch of people who wanted to use recreational drugs could do so with lots of other people who wanted to use lots of recreational drugs. However, this concert scene cannot be repeated with more than a few bands . Different types of music do not lend themselves to recreational drugs that attract a faithful fan following that travels around with you. Country, Death Metal, Classical, and Teen Pop are just a few of the different types of music not suitable for hippy trips. This whole Napster episode is really a defense of Copyright Law in general. It doesn't matter as much if the RIAA can stop the thousand-head hydra of Napster wanna-bees. Only Napster itself must be brought to its knees by precedent. If a precedent is set that it is OK to "Napster" Copyright material around, this opens up a can of worms that could send the Creative Arts and asociated businesses (recording studios, music equipment makers and dealers, etc) into a tailspin.. RIght now, it is Music Copyright on the defense. Movies, books, and other creative arts depend on this ruling and its implications for Copyright Law.