Feelings on Napster?

I never kissed the dude, just realized I could kill more birds with kindness, than with stones. Ok, I didn't really realize that, I'm just a nice guy, as long as nobody attacks me. And if they do, Tom and the AG staff desperately want to see me lay down and take it (actually, they desperately want me off this planet...or at least out of their forum). Tom said if somebody verbally accausted him in person, he would "just walk away". He says a lot of things...I don't pretend to be a fully mature individual, and I am a "hothead", I admit that. But, the concept of "first blood" is not lost on me. You play idiot with dogging my "serious" posts for over a month, you get "got"...that's the way I play (and I'm not talking about Issabre). Anyway, I can't believe they let me back on this place, must have been another hacker, heh heh...............AND MY FEELINGS ON NAPSTER ARE THAT IT'S A PAIN, if you only have a 56k modem, and that most of what's on there has been read at 12X speed, and there's no way of knowing this until you dowload it for an hour (assuming there's no "transfer error"). A few files have been quite nice, from CD-R's on my CD50. Some don't even translate to CD, they either say they're 4 seconds long, or else they really screw you, and just burn silence on the CD-R, instead of a song. FREE MUSIC IS A PAIN....and that's why I like it! Sort of...

The following is the quote that started this thread. "My opinion is that Napster is really opening up accessibility to music for alot of people, allowing them to try new things that before they wouldn't have access to or simply wouldn't be prepared to invest in." The LA riots in it's own way also opened up accessibility for a lot of people, allowing them to "steal" new things that before they wouldn't have had access to or simply wouldn't be prepared to invest in. I feel that the majority of the people that are using Napster use it's downloads as an end product, and do not "purchase" the licensed and copyrighted material. This could be the start of the end of music (writers, composers and performers)as we know it. Sure Elmo Witherspoon Jr. may still be performing on a corner somewhere but in general, no gain, no music.

If the money is THE ONLY, motivating factor, than i don't want that music!! Musician, writer...or any other REAL artist will make music, write...CREATE, regardless of their reward! They are creating, not to make You feel good! But for themselves! This atitude, as "Dekay" said, is felt in the current (sorry) state of literature, music, and if you will cinematography (movies) and much less in visual art (thank god). I just wanted to say that the true artist will create...because he HAS to!

Eldragon, Sure the arts are important. But without the patronage of someone (kings, nobles, modern consumers), artists would never be able to afford the supplies they need to create their art.

Wow! A lot of responses to read! Although I didn't read them all, there seem to be two basic positions: 1. Napster is good because it disseminates music and, despite the fact that artists and distributors are not paid, this stimulates interest in the music and probably leads to greater sales than if Napster did not exist. Therefore artists and distributors should embrace Napster. 2. Napster creates an environment where consumers don't pay artists and distributors for the music. Therefore, this may or may not lead to reduction or elimination of the artists desire to create. It may lead to this reduction since the artist is not being remunerated and, since this is capitalism, that is what we are all working for. Or it may not lead to this reduction because artists, as different from the rest of us, are compelled by their very nature to create whether they are remunerated or not. All of these arguments miss the point, in my opinion. Whether the nature of artists is or is not to create, as the author or performer of a song, book, play, computer program etc, you have certain rights of ownership as a result of your authorship. These include the right to sell some of those rights, to retain the rights, to share the work or to not share it. You are not under any obligation (moral or otherwise) to share it. There is no issue of the greater societal good here which says you must even share it, far less get paid for sharing it. This is the bottom line. As a computer software developer, I resent the idea that anyone could feel that they have the right to my work without first obtaining my permission. This resentment is apart from any money lost as a result. And any party who hides behind some argument that rather than stealing the property, he is just providing the vehicle for stealing the property, just would add the feeling that his arguments were ludicrous to that resentment.