Napster gets their money from VC investors like every other dot com out there that has failed. I wish people would give me millions and millions of dollars to help pirate other people's work. Even if Napster didn't get shut down by the government, they'd end up folding anyway because they still have yet to come up with a business model. And the second they put a banner ad or any kind of advertising for that matter in it would become a much, much bigger issue.

well if you attack napster are you going after gnutella??? or how about all the other programs that share files (not just mp3s but programs and pictures as well)... also there are whole IRC chatroom set up to the distribution of mp3s (they were out well before napster) so let's attack them too... regardless of who is attacked the music will still be pirated and if a band is large enough for it to "hurt" their earnings then they are large enough to live off of what they are making... they are being paid to live a dream and need to remember that, so an occasional pay cut won't hurt mr greg graffin i'm sure the rich bastard will make do!!!

Report  
Shindo (adam) (March 12, 2001)

Like it was previously stated, Graffin did not attack Gnutella or MP3 trading. He attacked Napster as a company because it is more interested in profits then free music.

Report  
Someone (March 12, 2001)

"they are being paid to live a dream and need to remember that, so an occasional pay cut won't hurt mr greg graffin i'm sure the rich bastard will make do!!!" That's the biggest load of horseshit I've ever heard. They're not being paid to live a dream, they're being paid because they're good at what they do and people enjoy it. To say that any band deserves a pay cut because they're living out some dream is absolutely absurd. And remember, the problem isn't really that people are getting the music for free, it's that Napster is actually being paid money for it. Whether its from advertising or investors is not the point -- someone is still putting cash in Napster's pockets every month and, well, I think that's pretty fucked.

Report  
Someone (March 12, 2001)

So what if Napster gets paid money? Who cares if they make a profit from us. I get to enjoy great music for free and napster makes money. Oh my god Napster is making money, they are so corporate and are "sell-outs! There is nothing wrong with making a lot of money. Money isn't everything, but it is a lot of things in Capitalism. I don't think our way of living will change anytime soon so just fucking deal with it.

Report  
Someone (March 13, 2001)

But there IS something wrong when your making money for work done by someone else. That's like saying it'd be OK for me to go make copies of movies and have people pay me to come over and watch them. It's one thing to just invite friends over to watch your tape, but it's another thing to pull in a profit from them.

Report  
Someone (March 13, 2001)

...everyones bitching about napster...im hoping we all use it for the same reason here...to get some good ole fuckin punk rock...and for the most part i dont think any punk bands give a shit if people are gettin their music off napster...only band i could ever imagine crying about it is blink 182...i still think napster is the shit...i feel no remorse for gettin some fuckin tunes...we get free music...we beat the system good for us...

Report  
Someone (March 13, 2001)
Believe it or not, there are a ton of punk rock bands that are anti-Napster. The thing is, the whole Napster issue is really a catch 22. If they come out and say they're against it, then all the stupid kids automatically cry "Sellout!" and the band looks bad. On the other hand, it's killing a lot of these bands to see big corporate Napster (and yes, they are very corporate) making money off THEIR music. It's not so much that fans are getting music for free -- that's not the big issue here. The problem is that someone's lining the pockets of the all the bigwigs over at Napster every month and really, why should those fuckers make a single cent from some talented musician's work? I think many people are missing the whole picture here. Many musicians are actually quite thankful for Lars stepping up to the plate for them. His approach might have been bad, but

show rest of commentBelieve it or not, there are a ton of punk rock bands that are anti-Napster. The thing is, the whole Napster issue is really a catch 22. If they come out and say they're against it, then all the stupid kids automatically cry "Sellout!" and the band looks bad. On the other hand, it's killing a lot of these bands to see big corporate Napster (and yes, they are very corporate) making money off THEIR music. It's not so much that fans are getting music for free -- that's not the big issue here. The problem is that someone's lining the pockets of the all the bigwigs over at Napster every month and really, why should those fuckers make a single cent from some talented musician's work? I think many people are missing the whole picture here. Many musicians are actually quite thankful for Lars stepping up to the plate for them. His approach might have been bad, but his intentions were good. But I admit he fucked up big time when he went after the fans. They're not to blame here.
Report  
Someone (March 14, 2001)
Well I'm a musician and I have my band's stuff on Napster too. Personally I love it, and think it's a great way for people to check out music. I still buy lots of CDs in the stores and off the net because all of the sudden I can try out different bands I wouldn't otherwise hear, because either it doesn't come out where I live or I don't know what they're like and I'm not going to drop $25 on a CD that may or may not be shit. The bands also know that they make a bunch more money off of a kid coming to a show and buying a shirt than they do off a CD sale. The fact Napster makes a little cash off of this doesn't concern me all that much. It's not like I haven't been lining the pockets of major labels for years while they pay the bands peanuts for their work. The fact of the matter is if you like something you've downloaded then go out and buy the album

show rest of commentWell I'm a musician and I have my band's stuff on Napster too. Personally I love it, and think it's a great way for people to check out music. I still buy lots of CDs in the stores and off the net because all of the sudden I can try out different bands I wouldn't otherwise hear, because either it doesn't come out where I live or I don't know what they're like and I'm not going to drop $25 on a CD that may or may not be shit. The bands also know that they make a bunch more money off of a kid coming to a show and buying a shirt than they do off a CD sale. The fact Napster makes a little cash off of this doesn't concern me all that much. It's not like I haven't been lining the pockets of major labels for years while they pay the bands peanuts for their work. The fact of the matter is if you like something you've downloaded then go out and buy the album. The only bands Napster hurts the most is the ones who put out records with only one good song.
Report  
Someone (March 21, 2001)
i don't want to upset mr graffin, cuz i'm a big fan, but napster was one of the main reasons i got into bad religion. i was able to download songs i would've never heard otherwise. i've bought several cds after hearing songs from napster. i like actually owning a cd. i like having the liner notes and art and whatnot. also, burnt cds don't last as long as cds you buy, and they often times don't sound as good, so napster in my case hasn't hurt bad religion. but like others have stated, it is ridiculous that napster is making money from our downloads. sure, we're not having to pay for them, but they're getting money unjustly that they do not deserve. another thing, the person who said musicians are making peanuts is insane. they're so incredibly rich. i don't think it would be that big of a deal if both record labels and artists get a huge pay cut. they've got a job l

show rest of commenti don't want to upset mr graffin, cuz i'm a big fan, but napster was one of the main reasons i got into bad religion. i was able to download songs i would've never heard otherwise. i've bought several cds after hearing songs from napster. i like actually owning a cd. i like having the liner notes and art and whatnot. also, burnt cds don't last as long as cds you buy, and they often times don't sound as good, so napster in my case hasn't hurt bad religion. but like others have stated, it is ridiculous that napster is making money from our downloads. sure, we're not having to pay for them, but they're getting money unjustly that they do not deserve. another thing, the person who said musicians are making peanuts is insane. they're so incredibly rich. i don't think it would be that big of a deal if both record labels and artists get a huge pay cut. they've got a job like everybody else and they shouldn't be regarded differently. i saw some thing on mtv about the lifestyle of "rock" stars. there was blink 182 sitting in their huge hotel rooms, with all their expensive gadgets and shit. blink 182 is not getting hurt by napster and they deserve a huge pay cut. i can understand it from graffin's perspective, but he's not mad at the fans, he's mad at napster. napster could've been setup a lot better.