Due to the effects of Napster ravaging the pocket books of Metallica a local Dallas radio station is holding a pledge drive to re-fill those deep pockets of Lars and company! Here are some testimonials of recent donors to the Metallica fund..."I don't know what I would do if Metallica could not put out another album....can I write a check?"...."Ohmygod! those internet bastards! How could they steal from Metallica like that? Would $100.00 be enough?" If you too would like to stop the bleeding of Metallica tune into 97.1 The Eagle in Dallas to make your pledge today!!
Metallica Needs Help!!
- Thread starter John1965
- Start date
Svedish_Chef
On Walkabout
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2000
- Posts
- 9,937
Tell me you are not serious!
Hey, if you guys are giving out money, I could sure use some to buy a new monitor!! It still works, but the colors are effed up, and I don't know how to fix it.
<hands out stretched> Please, sir, can you spare some change? How about a twenty? Please, sir!
<hands out stretched> Please, sir, can you spare some change? How about a twenty? Please, sir!
CreamyLady
Uncompromising Visionary
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2000
- Posts
- 2,685
Computers? Metallica? My daughter wants to go to law school! Funds urgently needed!!!
Please . . . America needs another lawyer . . .
Please . . . America needs another lawyer . . .
well, as long as everyone else is asking for money...
I need some money to pursue my career in computers. Now, the VB class I want to take is only $1000, but I will need much more extensive courses in order to complete my schooling to my satisfaction.
I will trade favors for money...LOL
SJ
I need some money to pursue my career in computers. Now, the VB class I want to take is only $1000, but I will need much more extensive courses in order to complete my schooling to my satisfaction.
I will trade favors for money...LOL
SJ
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
Sorry, guys, I know the whole Napster thing is a bitch and Metallica is all rich and snotty, but stealing from artists has long been regarded as "okay", and it ain't, which is why we SAG-type people are on strike right now.
If I create something you gotta pay for it, whether it's a pair of shoes, a CD, or my image in a Nike ad. I could go on and on about why stealing one dollar from an artist today ALWAYS means stealing a million dollars from the art world tomorrow, but I won't. Just recognize that the artists who create music, writing, even choreography, have been ripped off by the industries that distribute them since the days when Moses worked the Nile circuit with his stick-into-a-snake act.
Maybe the Metal-heads are going about it wrong, maybe they're punishing the wrong people, I don't know, and frankly I don't want a history lesson on the whole Napster thing. I'm tired of this stupid backlash against artists who have every right in the world to protect their creation. So, if Metallica is fucking up by punishing the innocent Napster users, I'd like to hear another SOLUTION to the problem. What SHOULD Metallica do about artistic theft on the Internet? What should all recording artists do?
Seriously.
If I create something you gotta pay for it, whether it's a pair of shoes, a CD, or my image in a Nike ad. I could go on and on about why stealing one dollar from an artist today ALWAYS means stealing a million dollars from the art world tomorrow, but I won't. Just recognize that the artists who create music, writing, even choreography, have been ripped off by the industries that distribute them since the days when Moses worked the Nile circuit with his stick-into-a-snake act.
Maybe the Metal-heads are going about it wrong, maybe they're punishing the wrong people, I don't know, and frankly I don't want a history lesson on the whole Napster thing. I'm tired of this stupid backlash against artists who have every right in the world to protect their creation. So, if Metallica is fucking up by punishing the innocent Napster users, I'd like to hear another SOLUTION to the problem. What SHOULD Metallica do about artistic theft on the Internet? What should all recording artists do?
Seriously.
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
Okay, I was wrong... I have a few more things to add...
What SHOULD Metallica do about artistic theft on the Internet? What should all recording artists do?
The bigger question is what should artists do about artistic theft from THEIR OWN LABELS. Recently, the RIAA pushed through a bill that makes it so after a certain time period, the rights to songs revert NOT to the original artist (as they always have) but to the recording label. Also, the major record labels just settled a suit brought on them by the government in which they were found to be fixing the prices on CD's. The music industry has been ripping off artists AND consumers for years.
Prosecuting Napster for the piracy that happens on it is a bit like prosecuting the phone company because I decide to make an obscene phone call, or putting the postal service in jail for the Unabomber's actions. Much of what is shared on Napster is bootleg material - material that Metallica themselves have no problem being shared - and promotional music put there by the bands THEMSELVES. Napster has huge potential to help many artists - artists who haven't previously had access to distribution channels, who WANT their music traded. If Metallica is so concerned about the piracy, then they should sue those caught pirating rather than try to shut down a program that has such wonderful potential for so many artists who don't happen to enjoy the major label backing that groups like Metallica enjoy.
Having worked in the music industry, I can tell you that distribution channels are the one power that labels use (and abuse) to control the artist. Napster gives the artist the ability to widely distribute their music, to gain a bigger audience than ever before. While Metallica claim to be pro-artist, the fact is that by attacking Napster they are protecting the interests of corporations. Record labels are middlemen between the consumer and the artist - if the artist can reach the consumer directly, record labels are no longer necessary and they know it. Napster is the best thing to happen to musicians in a long, long time - which is why many other major artists, such as Limp Bizkit (whose singer Fred Durst, is a VP at a major record label, and thus understands the problems within the music industry), Courtney Love, and the Offspring have come out in support of Napster. As the facts are made clear and the propaganda spread by music corporations is dissected, I believe even more artists will come to support this new technology.
The bottom line is this: you don't take down the postal service because of mailbombs. The good that Napster represents far exceeds the bad. When crimes happen, the criminals should be prosecuted - no one else. And in ten years, maybe less, I think we'll chuckle at the thought that any artist could have opposed something like Napster.
[This message has been edited by Laurel (edited 05-25-2000).]
What SHOULD Metallica do about artistic theft on the Internet? What should all recording artists do?
The bigger question is what should artists do about artistic theft from THEIR OWN LABELS. Recently, the RIAA pushed through a bill that makes it so after a certain time period, the rights to songs revert NOT to the original artist (as they always have) but to the recording label. Also, the major record labels just settled a suit brought on them by the government in which they were found to be fixing the prices on CD's. The music industry has been ripping off artists AND consumers for years.
Prosecuting Napster for the piracy that happens on it is a bit like prosecuting the phone company because I decide to make an obscene phone call, or putting the postal service in jail for the Unabomber's actions. Much of what is shared on Napster is bootleg material - material that Metallica themselves have no problem being shared - and promotional music put there by the bands THEMSELVES. Napster has huge potential to help many artists - artists who haven't previously had access to distribution channels, who WANT their music traded. If Metallica is so concerned about the piracy, then they should sue those caught pirating rather than try to shut down a program that has such wonderful potential for so many artists who don't happen to enjoy the major label backing that groups like Metallica enjoy.
Having worked in the music industry, I can tell you that distribution channels are the one power that labels use (and abuse) to control the artist. Napster gives the artist the ability to widely distribute their music, to gain a bigger audience than ever before. While Metallica claim to be pro-artist, the fact is that by attacking Napster they are protecting the interests of corporations. Record labels are middlemen between the consumer and the artist - if the artist can reach the consumer directly, record labels are no longer necessary and they know it. Napster is the best thing to happen to musicians in a long, long time - which is why many other major artists, such as Limp Bizkit (whose singer Fred Durst, is a VP at a major record label, and thus understands the problems within the music industry), Courtney Love, and the Offspring have come out in support of Napster. As the facts are made clear and the propaganda spread by music corporations is dissected, I believe even more artists will come to support this new technology.
The bottom line is this: you don't take down the postal service because of mailbombs. The good that Napster represents far exceeds the bad. When crimes happen, the criminals should be prosecuted - no one else. And in ten years, maybe less, I think we'll chuckle at the thought that any artist could have opposed something like Napster.
[This message has been edited by Laurel (edited 05-25-2000).]
Dixon Carter Lee
Headliner
- Joined
- Nov 22, 1999
- Posts
- 48,682
Hmm. Good post.
I recall once working a nightclub when I looked down and caught some guy writing furiously on a sheet of paper. I asked him, "What are you writing?" He said he wanted to be a comic and needed some jokes and he thought mine were pretty good, so he was copying them. (!)
I went easy on the putz, because he so clearly was not aware of how he was ripping me off. They're just jokes, right? And jokes live in the air and nobody ever actually owns them, right? Right? I explained the facts of life to him, and he quietly put away his pen.
Just another example of how sometimes the public devalues creation, and views artistic material as theirs to do with what they please. That's what gets my goat, the evil perception that art, writing, choreogrpahy, music, is somehow "fair game" because either the artist is rich so what's the big deal, or the art wasn't that hard to create so what's the big deal? And that's what I thought Metallica was championing. If not, then are they just incredibly clueless about the industry they're in? I mean, if not clearly trying to help artists, what else is their motivation here? Are they, excuse the expression, THAT dumb? You know, as dumb as the public can sometimes be about art, artists are oftentimes even dumber. Warren Beatty still thinks "Ishtar" was a good movie.
I had a friend once, an actor for many, many years, who did an impression of a SNL cast member character (I won't say which one, but it's like a friend of yours doing an impression of Dana Carvey doing George Bush). He actually put out a record of him doing the impression, and caught hell from the SNL comic, and couldn't understand the problem. This same friend heard a recording on Howard Stern of a comic I knew doing a funny poem, and he re-recorded it himself, as a gift he gave to producers and friends. When I pointed out that nowhere on his recording did he credit the original comic, he seemed to not understand, for a moment, that the poem was actually WRITTEN by someone who claimed the material as his property, and used it in his act. He just thought, "Well, it's on TV, that means it's 'in the air' and I can do whatever I want with it, right?" And this from a very smart, vrey experienced actor.
I think the Internet does that with music. It puts an artist's creation out there "in the air", disembodied, like no one's actually taken the time and expense and talent to create it, so it's okay to copy it. Oh, I know a lot of bands do that on purpose, to get exposure (and so do Internet writers), but many don't.
So, it's a tricky question. You can't blame the post office for a mailed bomb -- but you don't expect the post office to help the bombs go off. I don't neccessarily see Napster like that, but there must be an answer to how easy it's becoming to rip off artists (AND the record companies. As evil as they are, they have rights, too.)
I recall once working a nightclub when I looked down and caught some guy writing furiously on a sheet of paper. I asked him, "What are you writing?" He said he wanted to be a comic and needed some jokes and he thought mine were pretty good, so he was copying them. (!)
I went easy on the putz, because he so clearly was not aware of how he was ripping me off. They're just jokes, right? And jokes live in the air and nobody ever actually owns them, right? Right? I explained the facts of life to him, and he quietly put away his pen.
Just another example of how sometimes the public devalues creation, and views artistic material as theirs to do with what they please. That's what gets my goat, the evil perception that art, writing, choreogrpahy, music, is somehow "fair game" because either the artist is rich so what's the big deal, or the art wasn't that hard to create so what's the big deal? And that's what I thought Metallica was championing. If not, then are they just incredibly clueless about the industry they're in? I mean, if not clearly trying to help artists, what else is their motivation here? Are they, excuse the expression, THAT dumb? You know, as dumb as the public can sometimes be about art, artists are oftentimes even dumber. Warren Beatty still thinks "Ishtar" was a good movie.
I had a friend once, an actor for many, many years, who did an impression of a SNL cast member character (I won't say which one, but it's like a friend of yours doing an impression of Dana Carvey doing George Bush). He actually put out a record of him doing the impression, and caught hell from the SNL comic, and couldn't understand the problem. This same friend heard a recording on Howard Stern of a comic I knew doing a funny poem, and he re-recorded it himself, as a gift he gave to producers and friends. When I pointed out that nowhere on his recording did he credit the original comic, he seemed to not understand, for a moment, that the poem was actually WRITTEN by someone who claimed the material as his property, and used it in his act. He just thought, "Well, it's on TV, that means it's 'in the air' and I can do whatever I want with it, right?" And this from a very smart, vrey experienced actor.
I think the Internet does that with music. It puts an artist's creation out there "in the air", disembodied, like no one's actually taken the time and expense and talent to create it, so it's okay to copy it. Oh, I know a lot of bands do that on purpose, to get exposure (and so do Internet writers), but many don't.
So, it's a tricky question. You can't blame the post office for a mailed bomb -- but you don't expect the post office to help the bombs go off. I don't neccessarily see Napster like that, but there must be an answer to how easy it's becoming to rip off artists (AND the record companies. As evil as they are, they have rights, too.)
Great post, DCL.
I've seen the same types of issues with people wanting to get listed on my website. I'm very lax when it comes to my submission requirements, basically because people who submit crappy sites for listing give me my best material.
However, one thing I won't do is list sites that claim that the images on their site are from the "public domain", i.e., that they are pictures that they've lifted from other websites thinking that because a picture has been published on the internet, that it's fair game for anyone to use. Which is just absolutely ridiculous. It never ceases to amaze me just how little the public understands copyright law.
I've had this on-going email exchange with this jack ass who submitted that type of site to me. I calmly explained to him that I was unable to list his site. I also explained to him the fallacy of his idea of public domain - that just because he was stealing images from a site that had stolen the images from another site that had stolen the images...that does not make them public domain. It does make them all guilty of copyright infringement. I also was kind enough to explain to him that his little disclaimer (All Images Courtesy of the World Wide Web and are Public Domain), did not protect him from the legal ramifications of what he had done - ignorance of the law is not a defense for wrongdoing. And I was also thoughtful enough to explain that Playboy was notorious for the sending of threatening letters to would-be adult webmasters (some of the images he was using had been scanned from "Playboy"), and that regardless of what else he did, he should at least remove the Playboy images.
His response was, "Thanks for your opinion"!!!
Now, here's the confusing part. I would have listed this guys site if he had not listed that disclaimer. I'm not sure if many of you understand the nature of adult websites - but most of the pictures you see are free content provided by paysites for promotion of those sites. And in most cases the sites providing that content do not ask for any kind of outright credit. The business if far too subtle for that. Uncredited content is the norm, and even though the Playboy content is pretty much a dead give away that someone is stealing images, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Eventually "Playboy" would get around to shutting him down and his site would show up as a dead link and be deleted.
So, you are right, DCL, there are a lot of tricky issues when it comes to creativity and the internet. With freedom comes responsibility, and if those of us who enjoy the free exchange of ideas on the internet today aren't careful, we're going to have Uncle Sam's idea of responsibility forced upon us. I've already seen people advocating government regulation of ISPs...licensing internet access in the same way that the FCC licenses the airwaves. What worries me is what happens when someone with some money (also known as "government influence") decides they've been wronged enough to ask their friends in government to take action. We may all think that the members of Metallica are stupid...but I guarantee you that the people standing behind them aren't.
[This message has been edited by Lasher99 (edited 05-26-2000).]
I've seen the same types of issues with people wanting to get listed on my website. I'm very lax when it comes to my submission requirements, basically because people who submit crappy sites for listing give me my best material.
However, one thing I won't do is list sites that claim that the images on their site are from the "public domain", i.e., that they are pictures that they've lifted from other websites thinking that because a picture has been published on the internet, that it's fair game for anyone to use. Which is just absolutely ridiculous. It never ceases to amaze me just how little the public understands copyright law.
I've had this on-going email exchange with this jack ass who submitted that type of site to me. I calmly explained to him that I was unable to list his site. I also explained to him the fallacy of his idea of public domain - that just because he was stealing images from a site that had stolen the images from another site that had stolen the images...that does not make them public domain. It does make them all guilty of copyright infringement. I also was kind enough to explain to him that his little disclaimer (All Images Courtesy of the World Wide Web and are Public Domain), did not protect him from the legal ramifications of what he had done - ignorance of the law is not a defense for wrongdoing. And I was also thoughtful enough to explain that Playboy was notorious for the sending of threatening letters to would-be adult webmasters (some of the images he was using had been scanned from "Playboy"), and that regardless of what else he did, he should at least remove the Playboy images.
His response was, "Thanks for your opinion"!!!
Now, here's the confusing part. I would have listed this guys site if he had not listed that disclaimer. I'm not sure if many of you understand the nature of adult websites - but most of the pictures you see are free content provided by paysites for promotion of those sites. And in most cases the sites providing that content do not ask for any kind of outright credit. The business if far too subtle for that. Uncredited content is the norm, and even though the Playboy content is pretty much a dead give away that someone is stealing images, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt. Eventually "Playboy" would get around to shutting him down and his site would show up as a dead link and be deleted.
So, you are right, DCL, there are a lot of tricky issues when it comes to creativity and the internet. With freedom comes responsibility, and if those of us who enjoy the free exchange of ideas on the internet today aren't careful, we're going to have Uncle Sam's idea of responsibility forced upon us. I've already seen people advocating government regulation of ISPs...licensing internet access in the same way that the FCC licenses the airwaves. What worries me is what happens when someone with some money (also known as "government influence") decides they've been wronged enough to ask their friends in government to take action. We may all think that the members of Metallica are stupid...but I guarantee you that the people standing behind them aren't.
[This message has been edited by Lasher99 (edited 05-26-2000).]
Laurel
Kitty Mama
- Joined
- Aug 27, 1999
- Posts
- 20,692
LOL! I understand your point about how the general population views created works. Many people think consider every image and article on the web to be "public domain". However, music is given away "free" all the time - on the radio. Artists don't complain about the fact that I can hear their song for free all day long on 91X. In fact, they try very hard to get radio play because they realize that exposure to a large audience is going to increase their fan base. The more fans, the more records they will sell. Also, I can copy down a joke or a poem or a play and claim it is mine (though I never, ever would). However, if I have a mp3 of (shudder) Britney Spears on my hard drive and allow others to copy it, I'm only increasing HER fame. I'm not trying to pawn off her fine talents (ahem) as mine.
And for the argument that no one will buy what they can get for free: Thus far, Napster hasn't affected CD sales at all. In fact, N'Sync's record was being traded on Napster for a month before its release, and it still broke every sales record in history. Ditto Britney's new disc, which sold over a million copies in its first week. The recording industry recently claimed that sales in record stores around colleges have dropped and tried to say it was Napster's fault, totally ignoring the fact that college students are statistically more likely to purchase music from online record stores. They're grasping at straws, trying to find some way to demonize Napster, but nothing they've said stands up to logic.
The Onion (www.theonion.com) wrote a brilliantly funny parody on artists dying of starvation due to Napster, part of which went something like "why would anyone pay $10 for a CD when they could spend 6 hours downloading it, another 2 hours uncompressing the mp3's, and another hour burning it to CD?" There's a lot of truth to that. The main reason most people download from Napster isn't because it's free but because it's more convenient than driving down to the Best Buy or whatever & buying the CD. You can grab songs that you haven't heard in a while, or check out bands you've heard ABOUT but have never actually listened to before. The company who will make the REAL money will be the one that puts up a service providing streaming audio of various genres (like Spinner - www.spinner.com) but also offers a wide variety of songs to download (like Emusic) for a nominal fee - a fee of which the artist gets a cut - from an easily searchable database. From frozen dinners to fast food to oil changes, it's proven the consumers will pay for convenience. Rather than fight this futile Napster battle (and it IS futile. Even if they do shut down Napster, there's still Gnutella, and after Gnutella there will be another piece of software to take its place - Pandora's box is open, kids), labels would be better off trying to get a piece of the pie.
Here's a question for you to ponder... If you knew for a fact that 90% of VHS tapes were used for illegal purposes - to make copies of copyrighted movies - should owning a VHS tape be illegal despite the fact that 10% are used legitimately?
The music industry is going to change. The old revenue models in which bands are paid mainly by records sold will not exist in ten, maybe twenty years. The old relationships between recording labels and artists will not be the same. If artists have more options, then the label will have to start treating them with more respect than they do currently. However, in the words of Chuck D., "The day of the one–dimensional naïve artist is over…" Artists will have to take a greater interest in their business affairs, will have to start making decisions rather than allowing their label/manager/other middleman to take charge of their careers. The Internet potentially empowers the artist, but with power comes responsibility. In the long run, after all the confusion is over and the dust settles, musicians are going to be in a better place than they are now, thanks to the Internet and technologies like Napster.
As far as Metallica goes, I don't think the RIAA could've picked a worse puppet. They're a band whose always credited illegal bootlegs with their rise in popularity. There are interviews (which are now being quoted everywhere) from years ago in which James Hetfield talks about going over to Lars' house and "copying his tapes". Apparently, piracy is only piracy if it's your own music. And to top it all off, Lars readily admits that he's never been on the Internet. And he sounds like a total blithering idiot when he discusses the issue. The "chat with the fans" was a PR disaster.
And I still insist - if he's so damn concerned about the piracy, investigate and sue the users who are pirating. Period, end of story. Napster is not going into people's hard drives, making copies of the music, and distributing it. PEOPLE are doing this. Of course, this won't happen - not because Metallica or Dr. Dre "care about their fans", but because of the logistics of investigating 500,000 users, not to mention figuring out the real names and addresses to which to send the warrants. So they'll continue to go after Napster, and they may bring Napster down (though I doubt it). But they can't stop progress.
It's going to be a painful time all around. A lot of horse & buggy operators went out of business when the automobile became the standard mode of transportation. I'm not advocating piracy in any way, and I'm not convinced that Napster is either. It's the new world. You either embrace change, or you get left behind.
[This message has been edited by Laurel (edited 05-26-2000).]
And for the argument that no one will buy what they can get for free: Thus far, Napster hasn't affected CD sales at all. In fact, N'Sync's record was being traded on Napster for a month before its release, and it still broke every sales record in history. Ditto Britney's new disc, which sold over a million copies in its first week. The recording industry recently claimed that sales in record stores around colleges have dropped and tried to say it was Napster's fault, totally ignoring the fact that college students are statistically more likely to purchase music from online record stores. They're grasping at straws, trying to find some way to demonize Napster, but nothing they've said stands up to logic.
The Onion (www.theonion.com) wrote a brilliantly funny parody on artists dying of starvation due to Napster, part of which went something like "why would anyone pay $10 for a CD when they could spend 6 hours downloading it, another 2 hours uncompressing the mp3's, and another hour burning it to CD?" There's a lot of truth to that. The main reason most people download from Napster isn't because it's free but because it's more convenient than driving down to the Best Buy or whatever & buying the CD. You can grab songs that you haven't heard in a while, or check out bands you've heard ABOUT but have never actually listened to before. The company who will make the REAL money will be the one that puts up a service providing streaming audio of various genres (like Spinner - www.spinner.com) but also offers a wide variety of songs to download (like Emusic) for a nominal fee - a fee of which the artist gets a cut - from an easily searchable database. From frozen dinners to fast food to oil changes, it's proven the consumers will pay for convenience. Rather than fight this futile Napster battle (and it IS futile. Even if they do shut down Napster, there's still Gnutella, and after Gnutella there will be another piece of software to take its place - Pandora's box is open, kids), labels would be better off trying to get a piece of the pie.
Here's a question for you to ponder... If you knew for a fact that 90% of VHS tapes were used for illegal purposes - to make copies of copyrighted movies - should owning a VHS tape be illegal despite the fact that 10% are used legitimately?
The music industry is going to change. The old revenue models in which bands are paid mainly by records sold will not exist in ten, maybe twenty years. The old relationships between recording labels and artists will not be the same. If artists have more options, then the label will have to start treating them with more respect than they do currently. However, in the words of Chuck D., "The day of the one–dimensional naïve artist is over…" Artists will have to take a greater interest in their business affairs, will have to start making decisions rather than allowing their label/manager/other middleman to take charge of their careers. The Internet potentially empowers the artist, but with power comes responsibility. In the long run, after all the confusion is over and the dust settles, musicians are going to be in a better place than they are now, thanks to the Internet and technologies like Napster.
As far as Metallica goes, I don't think the RIAA could've picked a worse puppet. They're a band whose always credited illegal bootlegs with their rise in popularity. There are interviews (which are now being quoted everywhere) from years ago in which James Hetfield talks about going over to Lars' house and "copying his tapes". Apparently, piracy is only piracy if it's your own music. And to top it all off, Lars readily admits that he's never been on the Internet. And he sounds like a total blithering idiot when he discusses the issue. The "chat with the fans" was a PR disaster.
And I still insist - if he's so damn concerned about the piracy, investigate and sue the users who are pirating. Period, end of story. Napster is not going into people's hard drives, making copies of the music, and distributing it. PEOPLE are doing this. Of course, this won't happen - not because Metallica or Dr. Dre "care about their fans", but because of the logistics of investigating 500,000 users, not to mention figuring out the real names and addresses to which to send the warrants. So they'll continue to go after Napster, and they may bring Napster down (though I doubt it). But they can't stop progress.
It's going to be a painful time all around. A lot of horse & buggy operators went out of business when the automobile became the standard mode of transportation. I'm not advocating piracy in any way, and I'm not convinced that Napster is either. It's the new world. You either embrace change, or you get left behind.
[This message has been edited by Laurel (edited 05-26-2000).]
Similar threads
