I think the biggest point of this conversation was that the world will always have to live with a reasonable amount of people that are going to steal music no matter what, but the idea is to maintain it at a manageable level. Napster in my eyes is not only a big reason why music artists don't get paid as much as they'd like, but also decently rightful in doing so. However one attempts to listen to music, another will usually overpay for the same thing. Musicians and artists get scrutinized for getting paid too much, yet people steal from them all the time. Is it righteous? Who is to say? Copywriters ask too much because they obviously want to get more money. No matter what happens though, people are going to have to continue dealing with people who don't pay for music, since 1999.

what happens to music software getting shut down people are always going to find a way around the system to be able to download music for free.

This news report is titled Facing the Free Music and it was aired March 12, 2012. This report is about how Napster was shut down because of the use of sharing music one their website. Since people weren't paying to share their music, it made it illegal.
In the report they discuss how if Napster was a licensed software such as, iTunes, then maybe it would've been still running online. They also talk about how Tim Quirk, the VP of music programming for Rhapsody, has been trying to create a legal online music service. Still 10 years later music labels are scared.
In other countries, they have found other ways to try to prevent downloading music online by having internet radio stations. Users will call in and request songs they want to hear. They still believe 10 years from now people will still take advantage of music.
Personally, I feel like music program like iTunes, Rhapsody, Amazon, etc. charge way too much for music. Two dollars for one song is pretty ridiculous. Regardless of

nothing in life is free

the report was kinda long

i didn't know rapsody let you download music for free

this was informative

Facing the (free) music reported on march 12, 2010. This article basically described how screwed up the internet can be. In the beginning music was easily obtainable by anyone for free and big record companies were blind to this fact until someone showed them. Now the internet has changed and so has online music sharing but the record companies are still afraid of being taken advantage of.
I think its most likely all a scam so the record companies have a right to afraid especially when they have been tricked once already.
I agree with both sides because even though they have been tricked before they still are getting these checks which show them there making profit.
I think this was a very informative report. It let people know about some of the cruelties of technology and how some of these websites are deeper than just creating a user name and a password. you might just be the next accomplice to a music theft lawsuit.

This article was very redundant in my opinion. I feel like everyone knows that downloading free music is illegal, but people still do it anyway. If the entire point of this interview was to persuade musical audiences to stop illegal downloading, then it was not very successful. Every time mu sic industry decides to "get rid of" an illegal downloading site, there is always going to be another one out there.

inice pase

i wasnt to interested

really long

This report explains how Napster, illegal downloading and the internet affected the music industry. The overall meaning explains how pirating music is bringing down the music industry's profits. Overall, the meaning of this post was to inform readers of the impact illegal downloading has on the music industry and the record label's reactions to it.
Napster was created 10 years ago. It was the first person-to-person digital file sharing software on the market. Napster started the craze of Limewire, Frostwire and all other illegal downloading software. The reporter made a lot of valid points concerning the negative effects pirating has on the music industry.
Napster should not be shut down, it could have been used to an advantage to record labels if it was promoted correctly. Napster, YouTube, iTunes and Amazon could have been the most popular websites/programs where people could buy music from.

Every forum of media can be copied and shared. It is a lost opportunity to shut down napster. Taking advantage of that company 10 years ago could have changed the way we receive and share music now. Company's like YouTube and itunes easily replaced Napster and are the biggest online company's that exist.

Prince Royce's "Corazon Sin Cara" is a great example of a popular song that most of my friends know but have never bought because of YouTube. By the way he is performing tomorrow night here in Raleigh, NC. The tickets are $65.00 which is not worth the four or five songs he will probably perform.

This discussion was interesting to me, mostly because i do not buy music from iTunes. As a working student, i don't have enough money to download unlimited music, paying for each song at $1.29. It was interesting the recap this article did, of the beginning of illegal music downloading that began with Napster in 1999. I remember the first types of free music downloading i used to use, along with my brother. This article successfully explained the reality of the music downloading world today: until they figure out a better and more efficient way to provide llegal music, users will continue to download music the way they have since 1999: illegally, and free.

i think a key point made in this story is that what happens in music later happens to movies and other media. also another thing tho add to robbiee's comment is that if there is advertisements on these free music websites couldn't the record companies get there pay through these ads. if the music companies got pay from the ads and the people who wanted it got it for free from the adds then everybody would win

I personally have Limewire and I feel as though it is just another source of advertisement, similar to Facebook or Google. When I download music, it gives me the optiona to determine whether I like the music or not; if i do i am likely to but tickets for a concert or go and purchase the FULL CD

I just realized how old this article is, nevertheless I noticed that there are several things missing. Spotify is mentioned as a revolutionary service, yet there are comparable businesses within the states. Pandora, (the late) Lala, and most promisingly Grooveshark all offer streaming music, playlist building/saving and sharing, radio, etc.

I think that the cloud is the future, that is, music streamed from internet stations and on-demand services. As for locally owned (or licensed) and stored music, the industry should pursue lossless formats like flac, alac, shn, tta, wv, and MPEG-4 ALS. The space and bandwidth issues of the past are largely gone. Lossless can also be streamed and serious music lovers will want it. Bringing the bitrate of formats like mp3 up to nearly comparable quality of lossless formats results in files of comparable size, so there's no reason to be ditching the data.

I believe in file sharing. I have been borrowing albums from my friends and taping them since 1980. Bow Wow Wow sang about it way back when (C30, C60, C90, Go). Now I just have more friends. The music industry needs to tell the buyers of CD and MP3's that we do not own the music, we only have a license. If I own the music I can share it as much as I want. If I just have a license, then I can't share it.

Dear On The Media, your "Contact Us" web form is broken.

There's a great article on the specifics of Napster's dance with the labels by Don Dodge (now with Google), Napster's VP of Product Development at the time:

http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2005/10/napster_the_ins.html

His list of lessons at the bottom should be required reading for any entrepreneur looking to get into the music business.

This is the wave of the future. "Contro" is the key. Before the Creative Class hit the scene (Web 2.0) all the hapless artisians out there who were perpetually starving because they had no way to get their stuff out there, now have a worldwide media outlet, the internet. The Control Freaks are no longer needed. The middlemen has been eliminated. These people are mad and angry because now they have no control over the music, the poetry, the journalism the list goes on and on. No Control over the artists means the artists themselves are their handlers, their own managers their own everything. No Control aka Free does not mean Kaos will ensue. It only means the power struggle to get heard, or read is changing.

May I suggest interviewing Jill Sobule. As an artist who is the new role model for the creative class, Jill had her last album produced by her fans. Everybody chipped in for the 70 grand needed and Jill wrote a song and thanked them, by name, and sung it on the album. Ingeniousness is the mother of invention.
Starving artists need to feel the love the appreciation, and reward for a job well done. Sadly artists are not appreciated, nor are they taken seriously. Where the rubber meets the road of the meritocracy everybody wants to feel the love. Even if the artists themselves adore what they are doing so passionately, they'd do it for free, the fact remains being a starving artist sucks and is like being in a concentration camp for talented artistic wannabes.

Good Luck with that idea.