[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You're assuming that just because someone downloads an .mp3 of a song that
> he or she intends on "stealing" the song. That's crap.
Indeed. Just FYI, I'm assuming nothing. I'm certainly not here to
accuse anyone of anything or launch anyone on a guilt trip. Your
ethics are your own.
My goal is to discuss possible design features of any REBOL file
sharing system. I'm intrigued by your idea, and why not make it
better than Napster?
In that context, it's worth thinking about how we as a society
should treat and value artists. If a file sharing system or some
other system can be set up using REBOL that allows fans to pay a
small, reasonable amount to download a song (for example, a dime),
with most of that money going directly to the artist, then I think
many people would be satisfied with that.
Artists would be happy to be paid based on the popularity of their
work and without being penalized the way they are by the record
company system. Fans would be happy to support the artists they love
without getting ripped off in the process.
> I have bought more
> music since I began using Napster than before.
That's true for many people. But it's also true that some people
reduce or quit buying music when it's available for free.
Not everyone is as supportive as you are by seeking out and
purchasing CDs, so why not make it easy for them to be supportive in
the way they prefer to get their music?
> Using Napster helps you to
> decide exactly what you want to have. We all know audio CDs sound better
> than .mp3s.
At the moment. But it's easy to see that as bandwidth becomes more
and more available and compression technology gets better and better
the difference becomes less and less important.
MP3 is already good enough for a some people (heck, vinyl LPs on
crappy turntables were good enough for quite a while). I suspect the
market for CDs will most likely diminish and more people will turn
to the net for music in the future.
> Listening to .mp3s is like listening to the radio, except you
> have more control over what you hear.
It has some parallels, but since you can keep what you hear and
listen again as often as you want it's essentially different than
traditional radio.
> There will ALWAYS be people who copy
> songs with illicit intentions, no matter what format they are in. But when
> it all shakes out, Napster is a boon to the music industry.
That's a point that will continue to be argued. Meanwhile, if we
have an opportunity to set up something that's clearly better, why
not consider it?
Such a system could allow for those artists who want to give away
music for free to do so, while making it easy and inexpensive to
download music from artists who want to charge for their work.
I would love a system where I could download free music from artists
who choose to make it available, and easily pay a nominal fee with
no hassle for music from artists I feel honored supporting -
especially if the money goes primarily to the artist and is paying
for the songs I really like.
Thoughts?
Best Regards,
-Jamie
> Jamie
> <Meta@Dimensi To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> onal.com> cc:
> Sent by: Subject: [REBOL] Re: REBster
> rebol-bounce@
> rebol.com
>
>
> 05/10/2001
> 11:07 AM
> Please
> respond to
> rebol-list
>
>
>
> Sure storage as ones and zeros make it easy to steal someone else's
> work. But just because we can do something doesn't mean we should.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best Regards,
> -Jamie Krutz
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
