CURRENT SECTIONS:

  • Which Prince record have u re-purchased the most times?
  • How should society close Pandora's Box and what role does the government play in this?
  • PRINCE, never 2 go on tour or record another album?
  • What do NPGMC MEMBERS think of WB's so-called "Best of" CD?
  • Feedback on the NPG MUSIC CLUB
  • if NPGMC has a subscription service and Napster houses some of the files, is this copyright infringement or not?
  • Pre-Launch NPG Music Club Feedback
  • Shoutz 4 the New Jointz
  • What is ur vision of NPG online?



    Posts r 100% from r readers. They do not represent the views of this website or the NPG.

    * Please note that we reserve the right 2 edit or rephrase ur report or not 2 include it on the web page. By submitting emale 2 this address, u agree 2 allow us 2 post ur messages. All messages r read even if not shared. We will not post ur emale address or any web addresses in ur message.

    • if NPGMC has a subscription service and Napster houses some of the files, is this copyright infringement or not?

    page 1: (updated 03/02/01)

    You should feature more essays regarding Napster on NPG Online LTD to educate the people who respond to this question before you ask for their ill-informed opinions...
    Internet changes everything. Also the way artists get paid. Artists should get paid being played at radio, doing tours, etc.. A downloadable file in the end can't be stopped, not by ending Napster nor by any other means. So stop worrying about this subject. Instead change the rules. Or better yet: release GOD IS ALIVE!

    101Candles

    What companies like Napster must understand is that the artists must be compensated for their hard work, plain and simple! Now, let's put a twist on this! Let's say Napster works a deal with Prince and pays him to house a few of his new songs, then I wouldn't see a problem. Actually, this method would do both parties some good. For Prince, it would give him more exposure to the younger crowd, since most Napster users fall in the 16-35 age bracket. For Napster, it would help the company look more legitimate as far as the business is concerned.
    Yes, I think it's Your decision where U want Your material 2 b released. If other people take advatage of Your work in other ways than U wanted it 2 - then I guess it is.
    Oli - musician.
    All I ever hear is how artists are being ripped off, it would be nice every now and then for an artist to stick up for the people who pay for the music rather than their own interests The reason sites like napster get off the ground are because of the extortionate prices charged for CD's, the record companies are to blame for the prices, artists get a pittance from the sales of CD's. I think artists work hard and should be paid, but how much? Now that artists have the medium to distrubute their music will they become as greedy as the record companies, I hope not. Greed is nasty.
    Not an easy question.... The facts are that people shares and downloads copirighted material every single day. The answer to ur question is obviously YES, but..... do U think that people who uses Napster cares about it? I don't. It's easy to say "I download the single and then if I like it I'll buy the record" but who really makes that? U just can't say napster is like the radio... if I put a radio song on a cassette there are few but BIG differences: 1. The song is not COMPLETE!!! 2. I can't find ALL THE RECORD on the radio, maybe I can record the singles but with napster we are talking about downloading ALL THE SONGS!!! 3. The quality is not the same. 4. On radio I hear some songs and then if I like them then I HAVE to buy the cd to hear all songs. What if U could only download a part of the songs with napster? Nobody would use it. The truth is that IT WILL HAPPEN! People will download from napster all NPGMC songs...... the only way to stop it is NOT SHARING on Napster NPGMC stuff: if I DO pay for it why should I give the songs to people who DON'T? WE MUST FREE THE MUSIC BUT NOT KILL THE ARTIST
    Andrès
    the attraction of joining the music club is that we can download music direct from prince. if napster get the files then yeah it's copyright infringement if they haven't got permission. if prince wants us to have direct access to his music then napster shouldn't even get a chance to get the music on their site! If they enable people to download npgmusic club files for free and people who accessing files via npgmusic club and have to pay subscription fees, for example, people are not going to be happy about it. it may backlash against you guy's.....which i don't want to see happening because i think that this idea is brilliant! Why should napster be given potential to cause that........?
    First, it's important to point out that Napster doesn't actually house any MP3 files; rather, it houses a *directory* of files available on the computers of Napster users. The actual transfer is made directly between two users. That said, I believe that filesharing (whether it's NPGMC material or not) is copyright infringement unless the owner of that intellectual property gives permission for people to share that music.

    IMHO the real question is whether Napster should be held liable for acts committed by its users. My view is that Napster is simply a tool with both legitimate uses (e.g., sharing music with the permission of the copyright holder) and illegitimate uses. Thus, I disagree with the courts' attempts to shut Napster down.

    If Napster is responsible for the acts of its users, then should the telephone company be liable when someone uses their network to make a bomb threat?

    Regards,

    Matt

    What's necessary is the AUTHORization of the OWNER of the work. The owner has the EXCLUSIVE right to reproduce and distribute his work, ALSO on the internet. Untill now Napster didn't get any permission, so if U would house some of their files U would also take the risk of being charged with digital piracy.
    I would suggest that U only house files with permission of the owner, i.e Prince and the NPG, that wouldn't be a problem would it?
    Cuz U no, when it comes 2 downloading Ur work in2 Ur fams computers U can't have any other contractual obligations.
    Stay free!
    peace,
    Broluc
    Basically you should not have music on your computer that you did not pay for. You also should not distribute music that you do not have the rights to distribute.

    If you get on Napster and you allow the files on your computer to be distributed then you are at fault, not Napster. If you download a file from Napster that you have not purchased then you are at fault, not Napster. Napster only created a tool that allows its users to share files.

    But then again, we probably would not be discussing this if there had not been some law-breaking fool dumping tea in Boston Harbor. Sometimes this kinda of stuff wakes people up, too bad The Industry wasn't smart enough to get on the wagon when it started rollin'.

    If it wasn't for all this, we probably wouldn't have the NPG Music Club.

    Prince is doing the right thing, let's not mess it up.

    The tea is already in the water.

    Seems to me we've been here before...
    Remember "Home taping is killing music"?

    everytime a new medium appears everybody thinks it's going to be the end of the music industry as we know it..... well we're still waiting (forgive the phrase "music industry" but you know what i mean).

    Of course the short answer is YES, it is copyright infringement, but no more so than anyone recording an album to tape, then giving it to a friend.

    And remember this....
    ONLY FAMS WHO HAVE PAID WILL GET THE SONGS,
    SO ONLY A FAM CAN MAKE IT AVAILABLE ON NAPSTER.

    so when some of the songs appear on napster (as at least some of them are bound to) one of 'us' put them there.

    Like the arguments about Bootlegging & Piracy, it's all about The Motive. Piracy is totally wrong - It takes away profit from the artist. Bootlegging is still technically wrong... but - it doesn't take profit from the artist.

    I myself DO use napster, and I do recognise that it is a grey area (let's be honest, as grey areas go, it's a very dark grey) I use napster to get 'bootleg' material (unreleased songs etc.) and it Definitely don't stop me buying legit wherever possible. There are some people who download stuff with no intention of buying they're music ever, but there are always gonna be a certain amount of Freeloaders.

    Shutting Napster down would be like banning the sale of blank tapes. Some people will always abuse the system, but history has shown they ARE a minority.

    Anyway,
    I, for one have already registered with NPGMusicClub and I can't wait to download some funky jams (new & old). and I won't be 'file sharing' any of it.

    Peace & B Wild.

    Kaylef.

    God grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change,
    Courage to change the things we can,
    and the wisdom to know the difference.

    Of course it is. Like a lot of people on this site, I'm really interested in the NPG Music club and without any doubt, I will subscribe to the service. But how fair would it be if after having paid for exclusive new song, some others can find the same ones for free. I gess it could mean the end of the experience. Nothing less. who's ready to pay for something he could have for free. So I'm against all that. I respect your talent and as long as I will love your work, I wanna pay to own it.
    Chris
    I think it is infringement.....I must admit I have gone on napster looking for files but I find myself just looking for music that I can't buy...usually NPG joints that I have heard in concert or are not on a CD...I mean if the song was published I would go out and buy it but it's hard not to download "mad" or a live version of "facedown" when I can't get it in stores or anywhere else legally... I guess the feeling I have about NPGMC is that the NPG fam who pay will give respect to the man. Like others have said I don't think you can stop it but I do think fools who a truly down with the music will respect the NPG and Prince and not throw it out to the dogs.
    Looking forward to the future
    Chris
    -MPLS
    Answer: No!

    Those who make the unauthorized reproductions....mp3s the Napster users are the ones who are at fault for copyright infringement, but since there are countless Napster users, who is to blame for being the person who made the unauthorized reproduction? No way to tell. Napster is just a means for mp3 trading, Napster itself holds no mp3s at their headquarters, it is the users who are on the server that have the mp3s. Much like the person who makes a tape dub of a CD for a friend, its the user who creates the mp3 from the CD...and whom is to blame for the copyright infrigement. If this is the case then those Napster users should be put on trial then. Since its impossible to determine who is the creator of the mp3, who will be put on trial? Mp3 technology is spreading like wildfire and just like a wildfire, once its spreads its almost irrelevant to try and figure out where it started, its more useful to figure out where it's going and where it will reach next and yes how to end it (if it can be ended).

    Napster is merely an advancement in technology which is everchanging. We all had to adapt our lives when there was running water, in home and other creature comforts...heck even ATMs have changed how we live our lives. Now this is another way we get music and many other files. You can't stop advancements in technology when it comes to the computer, slow it down? Go ahead and try. If Napster is taken down, there are many other programs just like it that will carry the torch. Before there was Napster there were mp3s and after Napster there will be mp3s, therefore what are you really stopping? Mp3 is the problem, not Napster. And since it is a problem with no solution, then it cannot be stopped. It will simply need to be a way of adapting to this new techonolgy, just like running water in the home.

    There is no way of stopping the mp3 revolution, if there is..then focusing on Napster is not the answer. There will always be growing technology and whatever boundaries are put on something like mp3 trading or mp3 making, there will always be a way AROUND or through those boundaries....always!

    Ghost Hacker

    From my understanding, the answer is "yes." Especially now that Napster is forced to charge its users. No permission has been given by the artist to release the work in the public domain. No copyrights have expired. So, when the company uses the artist's work for commercial reasons, they will most definitely be considered an infringer.
    However, even when the service was free and could have offered the "fair use rule" as an argument, only small snippets, not entire or large portions of songs, were to be used to "educate/inform" music seekers of various works/artists. Hence, the court decision to shut them down (in favor of the record companies, unfortunately).
    Yes, I would have loved to have listened to some of those "bootlegs" that may never see the light of day. In my opinion, they only make the music consumer twin of the music lover want to purchase quality releases. But, I also understand the frustrations of the artists who are trying to secure their futures, as well as the futures of their families, in the long-term -- years after the spotlight and applause are merely whispered memories and the IRS has commenced to straight jackin' and demanding checks! Peace y'all.
    Maggie
    Copyright -- in essence means the holder of the copyright has the right to decide who can copy his work. If you are copying it without his permission, you are violating his rights. It all boils down to the permission the copyright holder is granting.
    I also wanted to say how much I liked the comment you posted regarding Napster being exciting. I could not agree more. Napster has caused people (record co's, artists and consumers) to think outside the box... which is exciting. It is acting as a catalyst towards making music more available to more people in more ways. But the way it currently operates is to violate copyright holders rights. Let's all hope that we will continue to move towards a method of delivery of all intellectual property that benefits the creators and consumers alike.
    -Serona
    To be completely honest, I believe this music infrigement has a lot to do with technology and low morality. Technology has made life a bit easier for those of us who can afford to use it, however, at the same time many of these users of technology feel that because they have laid out so much cash for these advantages that they want to find a break or loophole somewhere else. And when napster was created it gave people a fine reason to cheat and cut back on the support that they have been giving to recording artists for many years.

    And also people can be very unrelenting when it comes to recording artists, not understanding the trouble they go through to pursue a dream. We all now know the heartache the record moguls cause of the hardships Prince faced with his company of old, yet people don't respect the fact that it is because of that tribulation that other artists now know the importance of protecting themselves and their work. So when the question of infringement is proposed, your damn right people should have to pay and be glad to support excellent, great, superb artists such as Prince. Down with the nappy headed white boy and all who have supported him and made him rich.

    Yes, it is. It is more than that....to answer this question, is a direct reflection of how you think about other people. Issues of entitlement pop up, here. "Music should be free" should not be confused with how music may make you FEEL. A masterpiece of melody can invoke the human spirit to change direction and carry the message of the artist, through the listener, to other people. Like water, it flows through you, becomes part of you....but you don't own the river, you never will. It is a maleable source of sustenance. How much respect do you have for the source? How much respect do you have for the efforts of the artist? Does this respect or lack of it genuinely reflect what kind of person you are, how you see other people, and how you treat them? Does this represent what you have learned from God, and are you willing to live these lessons. Respect for the source of music involves your expression of enjoyment of what has come your way, and your willingness to support that source for the purpose of continuing that enjoyment. If you like what someone has to say musically, show your appreciation for the artist's work. It's payday! Respect the artist! Not because you are in debt, but because it's the respectful and right thing to do. Period. (You don't know what you got til it's gone - j.m.)

    dal

    I think the main thing as far as Napster goes is getting permission. That's it...if an artist wants people 2 get the work free, then fine , independent decision. There are plenty of artists out there who would never get a chance to b heard without free distribution like Napster.Like anything not yours, ask 4 permission first. Artists who have the clout 2 get distribution and b paid should also have the voice 2 say "no thanks, not with my music" to Napster.
    in Peace,
    KsDa Sky
    In any case the "Napster" phenomenon is copyright infringement from start to finish. I can understand why some would use it though. For instance, I live in Australia where the selection of R&B, Hip hop, Funk and Jazz is extremely hard to get your hands on. I finally bought Q-Tips CD costing me $68 US. Yep! $68 for one CD. Its much easier and cheaper for me to download off napster. In fact, it's just too easy. There should be royalties paid just like on a radio station or anywhere else where your song is used. In the case of the NPG however, this service is already being provided through NPG Music club, so as a friend of what the NPG are about I will take the right option, and hope that others do, but it is easy to understand why others do not.

    The words "Love" and "Compassion" are'nt used enough! Say at least one of them today!
    Mama Lisa
    Melbourne, Australia

    I think that listening to music without paying the person who made technically is wrong, but only if the ARTIST minds. If he doesnt then its not. However, the issue with Prince is somewhat different to other artists as he has a large amount of bootlegs that could only be found online. There is no possibility to buy them as they are never "for sale" i.e no opportunity to pay for them. Perhpaps he shoudl release more Crystal Ball's to stem the trade and the high demand for them and get money for it.
    I feel that filesharing is inevitable online. I feel that if Prince wants money for his work, the best way is to release an album on the market (through the conventional way), as fans would buy it for the better sound quality and the cd artwork, even if they could get it online for free. Also, those who cant afford computets can get it.I know i would buy the actual cd.
    FREAKER
    personally, i don't think that this is copyright infringement... as neil young stated in a spin magazine interview, because of the inferior sound quality of mp3s, they should be free... most people who use mp3s as a substitute for the real product that the artist puts out would probably not buy the product anyway... personally, i have been a frequent user of napster, but only to download songs that i would never have paid money for anyway... anymore, artists tend to surround a few good songs with a bunch of filler, and one ends up paying $20 for a cd that is only one-fourth good...
    another plus of the napster program is that it introduces a lot of people to bands that don't get radio or tv exposure... there are tons of wonderful bands out there (steve earle, wilco, son volt, social distortion, ani difranco) that benefit from this- someone may read about the band or stumble upon the mp3, download it and like, and then begin purchasing some of their cds...
    furthermore, i have used napster to convert many people to the NPG... whenever someone tells me that they like a certain artist or type of music that makes me think they might also like prince, i tell them that they should check out certain prince songs... napster makes this easier than lending out my cds... it is also helpful if i'm spreading the gospel through icq, IM, or chat rooms....
    so, i think that napster is a great service...
    PS: besides the previous statement that i would not pay for something with the sound quality of an mp3, i will be something of a hypocrite when i join the npg music club... i can't help myself... if prince puts it out, i've got to have it...

    somewhereUPbeyondthegreatdivide,
    CORBETT...

    well I think it is, since we gotta gotta pay in some other way and if we don`t pay we may exclusively listen to the music. but why the issue? I`m not naive but I think it`s not that damaging at all (napster) I know there is a large number of people who use it, but there are also many more people who just like to buy a cd in the shop. Above all: all the songs are in MP3 format and you have to like that. I don`t like mp3`s at all, not that I don`t have some, but it is compression! So I never listen to those songs. If I wanna listen to some music, I will turn on my cd-player and insert a cd, so I can listen to the beautiful sounds created by all kinds of artists (that`s why I bought my Translator speakers for!!!).

    Example: look at Britney Spears for instance, a girl who`s songs are being downloaded a lot on Napster, but still she`s selling millions and millions of albums. I don`t think that she would have sold any more if Napster didn`t excist (and all the other file sharing progs) We used to trade tapes in the old days for whatever reason we had and nowadays we have mp3`s and copied cd`s. What`s the difference? I look at a girl in the hood. She`s 11 years old, she`s dancing in her bedroom; she listens to a song which is probably a mp3 or a song on tape. She has no money and her parents cannot afford to buy all the music she likes. But she happy when dancing on the song. Ain`t that just beautiful? A friend of mine liked Rave un2 the Joy Fantastic a lot and she asked for a copy. She already has two more Prince albums which she bought years ago... but that`s all. So I gave her one. A few weeks later when I was at her place I saw that she had bought the album. I asked her why she did it and she told me that a nephew of her liked the album so much, so she gave it to him and she liked the album so much that she decided to buy it. So although it wasn`t legal... I still had the feeling that what I did was good. I think that for those who have the money: we all should buy our stuff at the shops. For those who don`t have the money: we should support these people until they have it and then they can buy their own stuff. I hope that the NPG Music Club will offer us the most of our needs. I look forward to it. !!! I expect a lot of it, so don`t let me down:-)

    Hwoarang

    I'm not going to lie, I use napster, I LOVE Napster, and I will be sad to see it go. But Prince, if it is your desire for me NOT to put the files I download from the club onto Napster, then I will not do it, end of story. I don't mind being greedy and selfish with the stuff I get from you, I'll happy to keep it to myself :-).
    Dear people, I hope u will post my answer. it's a long one, but i'm studying the subject in the university and I would really like 2 share my thoughts with u. The (...) part or other parts u can let out if u like. If u post my answer ThankU!!!! If not, still thanks 4 asking,love broluc.

    The answer is Yes. Napster didn't get no permission, but is making money,they are a milliondollarmakingcompany, without paying any money to the rightholders and so they are profiting from work that they did not do. Therefore the judge concludes it is copyright infringement. He can't conclude that it's FAIR use. So if Prince doesn't give permission to exploit (meaning distributing and reproducing while making money of it)the work that he owns on Napster, it is also copyright infringement.

    The thoughts from the legislator behind copyright in the analogue environment are these: 1)the creator should be awarded 4 the work he/she has done.(time, investment etc.) 2)Rewarding also means stimulation 4 artists 2 continue producing new works so that the world of art keeps evolving. Because who would keep on working without getting paid 4 it?(besides from the people who work as a volunteer). Therefore the creator/author has the exclusive right 2 give permission/authorization 2 reproduce and distribute his/her work. He/she can transfer this right with a contract 2 somebody else, in most cases a record company or a publisher.

    (These rights exist on the internet also, following from some WTO treaties rushly made in the last few years, the Digital Milenium Copyright Act in the USA and the last wednesday adapted new European Copyrightdirective. The legislators are listening 2 the multinationals and they want 2 let the old rules count on the internet as much as possible and hopefully make them even stronger. In the future u may have 2 pay every time u want 2 hear a song! They think this can be enforced with legal and technical measures. When u undo the technical protection measures u will also be breakin the law. All because of the fear of the industry who owns most of the copyrights. It's crazy, because once the law has been made, the internet already has been changed and they have 2 come up with something new.)

    Fair use is a very important exception 2 the exclusive right in the analog environment, like: fair private use (without making money of it), use 4 school/education and the use of the library. The owner can not prohibit these ways of using the work and that's a good case.

    I think that the real question at hand here is: What's FAIR use on the internet?

    The goal is that these exceptions also exist on the internet and there lies the problem. Fair private use means making copies and using the work without a commercial goal. When u use fair u don't have 2 pay everytime u wanna listen 2 a song in ur own room or make a compilation of beautiful songs 4 somebody's birthday or just because u love 2 spread the music 2 ur friends. So herefore it's not easy 2 conclude that filesharing is unfair, using it commercialy without permission and making money of it is clearly not fair, but downloading a song from a friend is not. And here we lose it.

    Just think: Why copyright? Would u wanna be paid 4 the work u have done? If so, give the creator some. If not, go and get urself a voluntary job now! We all have 2 get back 2 reality and do what's right. Give ur money 2 the one who did the work and don't profit on his reputation/name/fame and make money of it.

    I think Prince is free, smart and wild; he owns the work,no other contractual obligations, he kept his base of fams and will get paid and will get wild with the NPG on the internet.
    Please give him and the other people at NPG records and Paisley Park and all the other artists that u download many songs from a reward 4 the work they have done and use the work FAIR. I think then it will work, because it would be right, right? Peace

    It's an interesting argument.

    I believe the person at fault is the person who is making the files available (the person who posted the files into the Napster program). The person who posted the music files should be held accountable, not Napster or anyone else.

    Like a web browser Napster is a vehicle that helps you get to a place. If a web site had illegal content on it, do you sue Netscape and Microsoft? If someone puts illegal music files on their web site via Netscape web browser do you sue Netscape or the web site operator? We know in the past our country has went after the operator of the web site for such illegal activities.

    Individuals need to be held accountable for their actions, not companies or groups who are trying to innovate. It's like saying I made this road, you drove down it and killed someone, so because I built this road, I am at fault????

    In the past record companies and artists went after bootleggers with their own attorneys. I believe this is no different and should be handled the same way. Artist/Record companies should go after the person who posted the music and seek compensation. Napster should have strict policies to report offenders and they would provide details about the offender and the amount of damage the offender has done. Perhaps they should require people to enter a credit card number and tell all users if they misuse they system they will be reported to the artists as well as authorities.

    People who call Napster a bad guy don't really understand Internet culture. We are carving new ground here. Lets understand what is going on first, before we blame people for doing something wrong.

    Napster is changing the way you and I think. I don't believe their intent is to cheat anyone, I think it's to make music more widely available in an immediate fashion without a middle man. Hmmm, isn't this what Prince always wanted?

    The Napster debate brings up a rather disturbing recent news magazine headline on the subject; "Napster: Who should own the music? The kids or the suits?"-this 2 me encompasses the whole attitude of the industry. That it's such a wild idea that the ARTISTS possibly should own their own music. I believe mp3 files should be available on-line if the creators of the music wish it 2 be. The NPG Music club is a shining example of this. When they are not involved, it becomes an issue of artistic freedom more than copyright 2 me. This scenario should sound familiar 2 NPG fams everywhere. Artists push 4 your rights! Unless U want 2 wait 4 your record company 2 do it 4 U...
    -Anthony
    It's a catch 22! You see, I love music! It's a shame that so much politics goes into this ART! I think that Napster has opened a door for music to be heard more freely! However, I can understand the "Artist's" prospective. The problem is that all of the smoke and insecurities of being paid royalties for "public performances" has really left a sour note in the ears of fans. Music shouldn't always be about money! It's far more a beautiful Art of expression and should be heard! So, how do we resolve this issue? Has anybody ever heard of the song, "Compromise"? Napster is a new technology, just like CD's, tapes, videos and even LP's! There's no reason why artists, especially new kats, can't use this venue to allow their artistry to show! But the question is about copyrights, right? It's such a touchy subject because it's easy to infringe. When I record from CD's and give the songs to my friends, I feel that I may have done something illegal! However, I don't charge a fee for this service! I'm merely spreading the music to some who can not afford to buy the 15.99 (10 songs) CD! Plus the fact that most CD's only have two to 3 top rate songs on it! Now, give me some time and I could gather a few of my bought CD's and make one stone-jumping, funky flavor sampler at no charge. You see how easy it is to infringe on artist's rights! But that's never my intention! I just want to listen to a variety of good music! Hhhmmm! Such confusion! Somehow, we have to use this new technology for good and greed! The saga continues! Peace

    M. Walker

    Napster is dead. Long live the NPG Music Club!
    From one musician to another, Definatley Yes.
    R.B.
    the laws of the universe suggest that to enjoy the pleasure of anyone's work/energy without their consent/instruction or equal form of payment in return has (negative) consequences. sometimes payment can mean money. sometimes it means adoration, sometimes trading... sometimes it just means asking permission or a thank you...

    just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do.

    just because one can download some import cd with little effort and almost no money as opposed to finding the address, getting the money order, sending the money order overseas, waiting six weeks, does not neccessarily mean...

    my will is that the computer has not made it so convenient for us to forget our manners, forget the effective ways to communicate, justify the when's and why's of how appropriate it is to take without giving back...

    someone's response alluded to the fact that cd's are expensive and differentiated between the music one listens to as opposed to the music that one purchases...

    where is it written that you deserve to get more than you can give? and why is it reasonable to take energy from an artist (without consent)that admittedly you cannot return in the agreed upon form?

    I believe that it is copyight infringement. Us, the people who would like to buy music from the npg music club would feel violated because,by buying music and downloading it from the npg music makes "friends"of prince feel like their one ,together,whole.We are people that are truly sincere to NPG,whereas people who really did not care for, or even like prince ,could download music from napster and even sell it! It is as if napster is stealing music from the NPG Music Club!.If the "friends"of prince can buy music and keep it for our own personal use, shouldn't that be applyed to everybody and everything including Napster? Surely the fans will feel cheated and napster will just feel like they gained something by keeping something that does not belong to them, like Warners keeping the Masters.
    The one thing that the soldout Metallica band has managed to do is make people believe Napster is hurting Artists.. please... they get ..what.. .07 cents a record while the record company soaks up the rest... unless you've got the superstar clout.. Metallica has got to still be making more off their concerts than records...

    and they're schmoozin as the 'posterboy" making us believe Napsters hurting Artist royalties.. yea.. maybe if Artists I only invested in gumballs..Napster is hurting record companies not Artists..

    The free downloads spread the artist's music further so new folk would come to the band's showz.The record companies have been the crooks.. taking a page out of the tobacco companies."We're helping you" handbook.

    thxthx

    YES, that is copyright infringement. I would like to know how Napster has been able to continue operation as long as it has stealing artists' music and giving it away. Napster needs to be stopped immediately and shut down permanently (as soon as Napster repays all of the artists all the money they have stolen from them, plus more money for any other problems that the artists feel that Napster has caused in any way ).
    Kinda breezed my way through some of the responses and I found it really interesting to see that most of the the responses were in support of the RIAA. Sure the tag is the Artist and the Argument is worded to make Prince appear to be suffering, which some how i doubt if he has lost any sleep over it.

    Now let me point this out.
    how many of y'all made a comp tape?
    How many of you have burned cd's?  How Many of you copped a lick from another musician?
    News Flash information is free

    The record industry has been ripping musicians off since its dawn an its been slowly eroding the public sense of taste for the past 40 years easy. It has bought every radio station in the country and has almost elementated the regional flavor of music by producing the formula pop crap that is aimed at a market segment with an cash allowance and little taste. Most record companies have staff writers who crank this sh*t out a salary.

    OK so let's say Napster crushes the music industry because no one buys cd's any more. (ha ha right) Considering the economy this would be detrimental music is big business and a lot of people are are employed directly or indirectly because of it. Considering music, might be the best thing for it. Why? so music can get back to the real. cause it ain't on the radio stations in my neck of the woods (Doo Dah Kansas) if I want to get good tunes i have to sample off napster.

    Is it going to make a dent in prince's wallet?
    Will He starve?
    He plays music for a living p-l-a-y-s
    they call it that for a reason
    it is work but it is fun and his enjoyment of it shows.
    He is also a very shrewd businessperson I certainly would not worry about his survival.

    Now let look at some thing else. let look at the one ingeneous MF that created an irc channel wrote a front end for it made so all the windoze users could navigate and get tunes. THAT is talent. That's is the coder version of Little Red Corvette and he deserves props and not law suits, and people dissing his art all because some one who is already wealthy beyond dreams (Hi Lars) got even more greedy.

    If wealthy musicians are so worried about their intellectual properties then perhaps they should look into some form of encryption or perhaps they could license it to the public like a cd would be good for so many plays then it would encrypt itself as be unplayable until the person renewed their license. Which is what microsoft is proposing to do with future versions of its os's.

    Perhaps someone could attempt to buy the 3rd position G chord or... well screw it how about the whole twelve tone system? then one could license the whole of western music from Abba to Zappa --

    " If a samurai's head were to be suddenly cut off, he should be able to perform one more act with certainty. If one becomes as a revengeful ghost and shows great determination, though his head is cut off he should not die."
    Yamamoto Tsunetomo

    I think that in the most basic and literal meaning of copyright infringement yes it is. However, I must agree with the brother to my left who said most people only download files that they would never buy. To expand on that thought, some artists that I've downloaded, after I've dowloaded them and listened to the song, I went out and bought their album!! There are many who do the same no doubt. Then peep this; Prince signed a con-tract giving WB's the rights to his music, speaking literally he should have no right to ask for them back-speaking literally. So just because it's against man's law is it wrong to download files? Is it right that record companies own publishing rights to music they had no part in creating?? Check the law of your spirit. It's not right but it's OK!!
    Napster is copyright infringement, period. there is no debate about it. So is my buying a cd at the recca stow, and going home, taping it, and giving copies to my friends. Its unauthorized duplication. no debate about it.
    If the NPG Music Club has a subscription service and Napster houses some of the files, is this copyright infringement or not?
    That's like asking... If you owned a private golf course and people jumped the fence to play for free, would you call that trespassing?
    But if you look at this question literally, the only real answer would be to ask: What does the creator of the music want? The use of music, or any intellectual property should be dictated by the CREATOR. Anything else is straight piracy.
    All Knapster users get the black eye patch...
    I downloading alot of files from Napster and I'm only downloading music I like BUT WOULD NEVER BUY!!! this sounds strange but it is true, I'm going to pay for the NPGMUSICCLUB because that music I would LIKE TO BUY!!! people now are saying that every song that people download from the net, is one song they will never will sell again to that person, THAT IS WRONG, because U CANNOT buy all the music because of the money - cd's are here $20,- so it's to expensive, so if Napster will ask a few bucks a month that is reseanable BUT who need Napster if U can have the NPGMUSICCLUB!!!
    please make this place a place like heaven, ...
    peace and B wild,
    JP,
    There are many abuses in music industry. Napster is against it. But it becomes copyright infringement when the process of shipping music is honest (like U're doing with NPGMC). Naptser has more and more power. Even if it's threatened, it threatens a lot of Artists, so music lovers, then NPG fams
    i surpose that if you down load them from napster and not the music club then yes. however if the owner has given the user permision then no. I see what the problem is how can you tell? thats big corporate companies for you!
    of course it would be, but it is difficult to see how it can be policed - it is just the up-to-date version of home taping.
    people who really want and care about the record/artist will buy the real thing
    respect
    matto PS - You got it wrong about Napoleon - although obviously alot of people died in those wars - he also gave Europe the Napoloenic Code - whihc hgave many people their 1st bill of rights
    it's the same as cds ! if U don't put a code or an technical impossibility to copy the songs ....with your NPGplayer .... they can't ? don't U think ?
    if not ... I think music must be free for all ... only in the fact if the ARTIST decide to give us freely, himself !
    we pay for internet connections ... that's a payement ..
    so ask gouvernement to taxes the telecom ..and give U money in back ! ...utopia ?
    peace
    what rules do u have? r u interested in being heard by the many? do u care ? music is power ! power is love !spread love with your music and all will listen ! u dont care about the record industry , u have maid that very clear ! open your mind ! share your music ! sell your music ! du whatever it takes . BE TRUTHFUL, REMEMBER U SAID TRYING TO STOP FILE SHAREING IS LIKE TRYING TO STOP THE RAIN..............U CANT STOP THE RAIN CAN U ?
    I don't record, but I write. If my words can change the life of someone in need, I don't care how they read them.
    marcus
    Very Simple ?:
    YES!!!!!
    How The NPG distributes his Funk doen'st matter. The Internet is just the substitute, or mayb a alternative for Record Companies. It's a lot cleaner, The Fee (that's isn't high according 2 my standards 4 quality music) doesn't stick 2 the wrong hands, it comes right where it should come, the creator. When files r copied trough a service like Napster, the creator will not get his fee, 4 creating a song. An Artist also needs 2 get paid. So when files turn up @ the Napster service eye Xpect that that the REAL musiclover will diss them, eye no eye will.
    Regards,
    Sebastian Nierop
    It depends on Prince's opinion since he is the author and owner of the masters. But in the long run, it's pretty much as he said. It would be a good thing for bringing new music lovers into the NPG family. The music consumers might see it as copyright infringement, but this would not be their decision to make.
    hi folxs
    no, no copyright infringement .... it's rather free the music... shure we have 2 pay our creators 4 the work they 've done... so there must b a system 2 handle this.. 2day im wondering if the muzac club is some kinf of this - purple greetings from switzerland
    fabhouse
    aka fab
    As much as I would like to grab these files off Napster, I'm afraid that it is copyright infringement. One guy pays the subscription and the rest just jump on the bandwagon for a free ride. As a tv actor/writer/theatre practitioner this would equate to one patyron paying for a ticket and then letting all of his friends in for free. Uh-uh. Not right.
    Greg Viljoen
    JHB
    South Africa
    Sadly, I think the rule is CLEARLY expressed on albums: "any unauthorized reproduction of this recording is prohibited by law and is subject to prosecution." For "Napster" to work, "barters" must somehow "reproduce" the music from the source (to make the music available to others). I don't see the complexity -- the "barters" are somehow breaking this copyright "rule" by "reproducing" the music (i.e., copying the music into the computer and leaving it there). I'm being objective about this whole "conundrum." Just look at it this way: the problem started way back when -- when the first dual cassette radio/recorder was invented (1980's?).
    If Napster has some music files, does this mean no music club? Legal language can be so misleading. I'm sure the club could start with no music downloads. But only lawyers can really interpret the law to determine what is allowed and what is not. Please do not jeopardize your work. We can wait for all legal matters to be met. Proceed with caution. The world is watching.
    Waiting
    It is only if the files R exclusively NPG product..4 example...The files that R currently running on NAPSTER of the NPG wasn't uploaded directly through the NPG..NPGers put them on NAPSTER. If NPGMC ask individuals that download directly from NPGMC 2 keep the tracks exclusive and not add 2 NAPSTER ..then it would be cool.
    As long as those that add 2 Napster rn't being paid 4 NPGMC files...it should be cool.
    N.P.G.N.C
    If The NPG Music Club has a subscription service and Napster houses some of the files, then it is copyright infringement.
    Prince fans will take the NPG files and somehow convert them to mp3s and then post them somehow on Napster.
    Unless Napster charges for each song download and then gives the proceeds back to NPG, it is wrong for them to house the files.
    Yes it is ..they should not have them!
    No matter how I turn this Isue, and no matter how much I love the freedom on Internet.I still have to agree its copyright infringement .
    Daniel
    NO!!! Once paid 4 it, one should b free 2 share music (or any other intellectual property that is) with who he or she wants 2. Artists who protest against this r limited in vision and don't embrace a future in which record companies have less 2 say and the only person who has 2 b rewarded 4 his efforts is the artist. In this future profit margins 4 artists will b higher, the price of music will b lower and the acceptance by the general public will no longer depend on the good-will of the record company. However, promotion and distribution in one way or another will still be necessary. And how can promotion b more fair than by making file-sharing a possibility, and let the music speak 4 itself? It should b clear free file-sharing is a true blessing 4 the innovative and independant artist. Peace, and B Free.
    "Decision is a risk rooted in the courage of being free."
    Hell yeah!
    The songs will be illegally distributed with or without the use of Napster - it's inevitable. The bootleggers will get hold of the songs and release a CD, fans will trade amongst themselves. I don't think there's any way to stop this happening.
    I'm sure in some way it is infringement but the thing that makes me totally crazed about this whole issue is the fact that the record companies are portraying themselves as the victims. They pretend to be championing the musicians rights when in fact it's all about the money that the greedy mo-fos are sucking out of our pockets for their own gain, NOT THE MUSICIANS!!! $18.99 for a new CD is ridiculous.
    I wish that the judge would demand, as part of the verdict in favor of the majors, that the artists MUST stand to gain the money they work so hard for. It really sickens me that we will continue to get ripped off while the big wigs somewhere in an office peddle the same old crap to the masses and make fat paychecks off it.
    I pray that the NPGMusicClub is well worth it.
    Big loves
    Organgrinder The Magnificent
    Sounds like it to me. When you chose to be the "Artist", you did not choose to have someone take away your right to sell your work. When you make music-you make people happy-I believe it is very personal to write a song, expose yourself as a person and an artist, and allow others to embark upon this spiritual journey with you as you evolve into the world's perfect entertainer. For that people are grateful to share it with you. People all over the world pay to just be in the same building with you and hear your voice. Why does someone on the Internet believe they have the right to take your rights away-this career is the path you have chosen-just like all other careers, you have a right to make money from it, and control all aspects of it. Rumor at the "Hit & Run Concert" in St. Louis, which I was fortunate enough to attend, was that people were willing to pay $300.00 dollars or more just to sit on the floor in a front row seat. Guess what, I was one of those people. It did not happen that way because we were too late, we sat way up on the side and I was taken back to my childhood when I developed my first crush on Prince, but if given the opportunity I would pay whatever they ask. This is the price I am willing to pay to hear you, not a Napster rip-off. I know your fans all over the world are going to find a way to listen to your music, those who cannot afford to support you monetarily, appreciate any glimpse they can get from Napster, but would be willing to support you independently if it were feasible. I respect you for taking control and demand that anyone attempting to infringe upon your rights is guilty of suppressing all that you have to offer, as a person, husband, father, artist, human being, business man, talent scout, and even a benevolent spiritual leader. My name is Nicky(It really is), and I have been a FAM since as far back as I can remember-and I am now 28. When you sing Nikki, I always feel like you are singing to me, when I saw you doing Nikki in concert, I thought of how sad it would be if someone on the Internet made your desire to continue your work diminish. Mainly because you touch people with your music and the artists you bring into the business seem to have the same ability. Please don't stop doing what you do. Your FAMS will always support you!!!!
    I believe it is. Using someones property without authorization is definitly infringement.
    I think that NPGMC should have sole ability to sell their own music. I personally never used napster because I though it was jipping the artist. I feel that people should pay for what they want- if someone cares enough to put their heart and soul into a piece of music they should feel the rewards. An artist makes prints of his paintings but surely charges for each one- that's how people put food on their table. Love and peace- yeah NPG! Lisa
    I say -probably - but once it leaves the "Park" how can it be adequetly monitored??
    What's the difference if Napster or any other individual spreads it around?? Be it on CDR or files etc.
    What if files are accessed by only a handfull who in turn generate yet "another" access to others?? This is WORSE than infringement....
    There should be a choice as to how each individual desires to access the music (computer or CD). This will eliminate unscrupulous avenues.
    Sal Inzauto
    I find it interesting that Napster gets all of the attention when it comes to sharing MP3's. But that's a completely different topic, so we'll leave it alone for now.
    My initial answer to this question was "Yes, of course" but after thinking about it, the lines begin to blur.
    First off, the club is offering a product for purchase to the public. Many public libraries have music collections. What if your local library subscribes to the music club? Would it be copyright infringement to access these files in this way? No, it would not. I have always felt that anything that can be accessed in your local library should have the same FREEdoms to be accessed online.
    Does Napster collect a fee for a transfer of a file? Not at this time Does Napster claim that the content of these files are theirs? No
    I don't agree that art is for the elite (those who can pay). But on the same hand, I feel it is the moral and social responsibility for those who can support it financially to do so if they wish to see it continue to be offered.
    As always, I wish the NPG the best in all endeavors and thank you for sharing them with me.
    Welll.... The individuals sharing the files are more guilty than Napster. If Napster users didn't have the files available (peer-to-peer) there would be no infringement on Napster's part. Napster would have no 'inventory' to 'share' - right?
    Napster is like saying "The gun is mine, I pointed it, but I didn't shoot it..."
    JR
    Plain and simple...
    YES!!!
    Rac Lv
    Imagine if music had never been discovered and we did not know what it was.
    Along comes someone and creates a song that humans love and we call it music.
    What incentive or motivation would the creator of the music have in creating more songs if that song will be shared amongst the world for free. I ask, how many people currently work for free?
    It's not that Napster is breaching copyright, Its just that we as humans can't resist the notion of getting something for nothing.
    Electronic manufacturers, for example, are not breaching copyright by producing cassette players that record, which allows someone to copy a record/cd/cassette onto cassette.
    Humans know they are depriving the creator of his dues but they choose to ignore it. It's upto legislators to create laws that protect the creator and encourage what they are creating. Its just that they don't know how.
    Unltimately, technology is at a stage where the world needs to re-assess their interpretation of legislation, of what is right and what is wrong. The laws of yesterday cannot be applied to today.
    George K Brisbane, Australia
    If UR music is 2 b paid 4, U should get paid 4 it.
    McCoy :DETROIT
    No.
    yes it is, if it is being permitted without your permission. Note this thought comes in consideration of Napster becoming a subscription based service also this summer and not being completely 'shut down'. Now filesharing between individuals themselves...that's a whole 'nother story.
    Of course not! Whether I pay for the monthly or yearly subscription, the bottom line is that Prince, the artist, is getting his just due earnings. It's just that simple!
    if it is the case that Napster houses some of the files from the NPG Music Club Subscription Service, then yes i believe that its copyright infringement, but only if the music is available by the subscription service alone....because if it is available in other ways, isn't it just like recording a cd and giving 2 a friend? Help me understand...
    If Napster houses it....possible copyright infringement...I think technology has bitten copyright laws in the butt. Once someone has bought the song once then I think they own it and can share it with whoever they wish. If there is no central server such as Napster, then I think I certainly have the right to share or give a copy away that I paid for. Face it, the genie is out of the bottle. Besides, a subsciption service offers no hard copy and graphic artwork. . If I love an artist enough I want the whole package and will certainly pay for it.
    Peace and My 2 cents,
    Seven Eb
    Here is a thought...what if everyone's favorite artist stopped recording to protest the food being taken out of their mouths. Will "fans" then get the point of how wrong it is when there is no more music. What would we do without the music?!!
    I understand the issues some artists have with Napster... but if they (Napster) did what was rumored, I think that would solve most of the problems. I heard they would charge a fee (monthly or otherwise) for a "membership", and those moneys would go to owners of the songs copyrights. But than that is a whole separate issue. I mean the moneys should go to the creator of the music in the first place, and that is not always the copyright owner unfortunately. I think Prince is going to once again be a trend setter with his latest endeavor... NPG Music Club. Prince gets the payment for his work, not a label, or a distributor, pretty much just Prince (and other related contributing artists). If that music is shared by members with non-members, and some financial consideration is made to The NPG Music Club, Paisley Park, Love 4 1 Another, Prince, etc. by those non-members, I think all parties would be quite satisfied. So let's get satisfied! Two days till the Dawn... can't wait!
    j.alan
    Funkyapolis, MN
    smart mony say's if napster created something and u distributed it out freely, they would be upset?!
    I say YES. First off, I look at the new club as a privilege. The whole point in the subscription is to get these "special" files. If you can get them off Napster then we can all bump the NPG Music Club and just get the files for free. And its just the fact that it is "speical" files. Obviously if NPG wanted to make these files free they would just be like evreyother mp3 you get off Napster, it would just defeat the whole point.
    Honey, St. Louis MO
    If it is or isn't is the question and only the creator of said material can answer can give us an answer.
    If u read the laws I guess it is, but at the end if the day I personally think it´s up 2 the artist (I guess there won´t b just music written by Prince). Napster is just another channel like cassette tapes b4, and if that helps the files (music) 2 spread even more, it could generate new members of the subscription service. Witch can´t b bad, or can it??
    /gemeni
    Hmm, very good question. Let me start with a little analogy.
    Napster dilema: People defend Napster saying that it is used to "sample" music in order to decide if they want to buy a particular piece of music. They compare this to radio. Defending it further by saying that songs they tape off of the radio are used to sample music also. Here is the difference.
    Fact: Most people will go out and buy songs that they like after they hear them on the radio. After all, that is what radio is designed to do.
    Fact: Most people never buy anything they get off of Napster yet it blasts from a CD-R from their cars on a hot summer night.
    But it gets better. These same people will try to defend themselves and say that this does not matter since they would have never even bought the album in the first place. Sometimes that is true, but mostly it is bullsh*t. Those same people are just taking advantage of the convience to download music when they want it and quickly make a CD for themselves. They never pay for a real copy because they do not have to. It is just too easy.
    Computer Software Dilema: Same problem. People use the same above reasons when they "pirate"/bootleg software. They claim that they really would have never bought any of it so, again, there is no profit lost. How many people actually purchased the OS and all of the software on their computers at home?
    Bootleg Dilema: Most fans have been bitching forever for a club like this. Because it did not exist, fans turned to boots to help fill the craving for new funk. They all promised that bootlegs were only used as a necessity and that if the content was ever made available to the public, that they would buy it and support Prince because that was only right. I wonder if they will keep their word...
    This will be a test to see how true people can be to their word. A test of integrity. While I will admit that I have some non-Prince MP3's that I play that I do not own. Most of it is old comedy and I would buy immediately if available. Yes, I have had software loaded on my machine at home and did not own it. I do have bootleg material. One thing is for certain. I will support Prince and buy membership. I will buy songs/albums that I already have on bootleg. Even if it is material that I have in mint condition or stuff that I do not care for as much. Why you ask? Because in a sense, I already am obligated to pay for it. I have been listening to it for years. It is now time to pay. Please people, do not try to justify not paying for material that you already have by saying that you already bought the bootleg so why sould you have to pay again. Or any other lame excuses like that. Don't get bitter and buy membership and spread it as fast as you can on Napster to people who did not pay. It is just wrong and will destroy a good idea before it even starts. Don't make Prince have to use a special player that encrypts the content so that only a valid purchaser can play it and cannot make a copy if it. Do not do it.
    I learned a while back the hard way. I used to steal this little shareware program that I used everyday. As a matter of fact, I think just about everyone stole it. One day, I needed to re-install it on my drive. I found out that the guy had given up. It was not worth his time anymore. I never really found a replacement for it. I bet he does not even program anymore...
    Do not kill off Prince in this fashion. That may sound extreme, but that is how things like that start. Don't con yourself into believing that it does not hurt him because he has money falling out of his ass. He is not a mega star anymore. We are his fans. His customers. His income. He has to make money and has the right to do so. If you or someone else thinks the price is too high and gives it out for free, you are hurting yourself and all of us. The fans. The fact is that while Prince may like giving us little gifts for free, he cannot give away everything for free. Freeing the music does not mean making it available for free. If he cannot make enough money to make it worth the effort or if we make him feel that all we are is little theives, he will quit doing it. If you really want to hear your favorite songs in top quality, believe me, there are a lot of nice jems just waiting for release...
    So I say, try the music club. Give Prince a chance. Forget any CB mishaps or any NPG magazines you didn't get or whatever. That is the past and in all honesty, is meaningless in your life. I bet each and every one of you has wasted more money on something stupid or bought something that did not do what it said it would or whatever. Yet I bet that you do not bitch about that every day. If the club is not worth it to you, do not renew. But please, do not destroy it. We all know that we the fans do have the power to kill off Prince. We are his bread and butter. The question is why would anyone want to do it? I hope that I have opened a few people's mind to this.
    Long live Prince!
    Michael...
    In my opinion, Yes. Unless and only if an artist shares their work. So often in the Napster debates, people made references to the medium, the radio. But what most people are unaware of is that the radio has organizations like BMI and ASCAP listening to make sure the artist gets paid. No one is checking NAPSTER. I love music, I play music and as much as I try to separate money and art, I don't think it should be given away for free unless it is the intention of the artist to do that. I don't ask my uncle who's a dentist to look at my teeth for free. I don't ask my father who's a chemist to tell me what's in my water for free.
    Peace and Chicken Grease,
    Thomas Krenzel Doggett
    You create the music. It's YOUR music. Why should someone take your copyrighted material and use it to promote their OWN company. It's YOUR decision. If you are trying to build YOUR OWN company by charging people for YOUR music, what stops THEM from paying YOUR fee and distributing it to the rest of the world for FREE. YOU lose YOUR music to a web of pirates. All of s sudden, FREE doesn't mean FREEDOM anymore.
    Hell ya, this is copy right infringement. I do not mind supporting the NPG and paying for a subscription, but it is not fair for Napster to then reproduce those files . rock on NPG i can not wait, til the music club gets started.For the Fams not for Napster
    YES!!
    yes
    Hello, I remember not to long ago somebody saying (Free the Music! If I could give the music away I would!)So why are we asking if Napster is ok?I have been a FAM for 20 years I've seen you ride high .I've seen you ride low.Whats important is the music and what your saying.So if I get the music from you or Napster dose not matter(free the music!) What about bootlegs? It may hurt your pockets,but helps your fan base.Make your money on the tour.I think it's going to end up that way anyway.Like it or not.Napster is only the start my friend.So make what you say on Napster or NPG music club count.Free the music was a good plan.Did you mean it?
    if the NPG Music Club has a subscription service and Napster houses some of the files, is this copyright infringement or not?
    Absolutely - Without question. Actually, with all the jelly of yours they got up there now, Londell should already be asking somebody, "When will we B paid?"
    CT
    of cos it is!!!!
    Talmadge
    Of course your music should not be distributed without your permission.
    Prince / NPG Online Ltd.
    If Napster houses files that are protected under copyright without the consent of the artist, then there is a definite legal issue. If, however, the artist gives permission for their files to be on Napster, in conjunction with his/her publishing company/record label, then there is no issue as long as there is no transfer of money relating to the files.
    The real problem with Napster is that people tend to look to it as a good place to steal artist's work without paying for it. What people fail to understand is that the artists cannot afford to give their music away. If they could afford to give their music away, I am sure that they would.
    I have argued with my friends on many occasions about the problems with Napster's service and the harm that it does to artist's royalties, but they never really understand. I have been signed to major labels in the past and I fully understand the word "RECOUP" and all that it implies.
    Thanks,
    HappyOtter
    Hi there:
    In my opinion copyright infringement occurs when there is a sale involved. Like you said when you released U Make My Sun Shine/ When Will We B Paid? single, if anybody receives money for distribution efforts a portion of the sale should be sent to the copyright owner. Napster users were swapping files, there was no sale involved, therefore in my opinion there was no copyright infringement. Thanks for your interest in our opinions.
    Respectfully
    Abner Concepcion
    is it really so different than when u were young & u caught your favorite song on the radio & recorded it on2 a cassette? the whole napster ?uestion is a very gray area 2 me. i could see how it might pose a threat on some level, but personally i use it 2 get things that r unavailable without having 2 pay a bootlegger & i also use it 2 check out songs by artists i've read about but never heard. if i like whatever song i hear by them i usually purchase the cd... as 4 the npg music club, i don't think napster as it xists presently will b around long enough 2 pose any sort of threat...being that they have been bought out by a corporate sponsor & last i heard the court ruling was NOT going in their favor... i believe the true prince-heads will show their support by buying a membership, & i 4 1 will make sure NOT 2 allow any of the NPGMC files 2 b available when/if i'm using napster..
    peace, rio
    it SHO IS copyright infringment! If I see any NPG filez on that thing, I'm gonna go up there and unplug their servers myself! I wanna get my groovez direct from the artist who created them, and PAY them for The Work they've done! Napster was just a stepping stone to services like the NPGMC - the final step - where we cut out the middlemen, and they can have cotton parachutes just like the rest of us! GO PRINCE, GET ROWDY! 'secondly, you have to get smart.'
    Of course it is!
    This question brings us back to the music lover vs. music consumer saga. I believe most fams of the N.P.G are music lovers and do not look at napster as free music, but as a way to build collections of outtakes, live versions, and other non-commercial releases. True fams only put these bootlegs online to share with one another, and to prevent bootleggers from cashing in. We music lovers will subscribe to npgmc and will not put these files on Napster In the first place. Now all we need are official versions of moonbeam levels, lisa, and extraluvable. Now bring on the funk!
    Peace
    K.J.W
    Back N the day I have memories of my father and uncles passing around an 8 track tape of "REDD FOXX LIVE" N "CHEECH N CHONG's WEDDING ALBUM". I 1der if they would/could B arrested R fined 4 "copyright infringement". R "sharing copyrighted files". Music is given freely and freely music should B given. But I guess this CONtract stuff all started back in the GARDEN.
    JAMIESTARR
    los angeles the original GARDEN of contracts
    Yes, of course it's copyright infringement. Without your permission no one has the right to copy, profit from or distribute copyrighted products. GrL