Subj : Should EMulation.... To : Amcleod From : D.Jaye Date : Mon Jan 01 2001 07:03 am RE: Should EMulation.... BY: Amcleod to Tinman on Thu Jun 08 2000 08:06 pm OTE: DCTEdit v0.04 [18] > 1338 copies. That was then. Now, the copies are digitally How True a statement. Back in the 80's I couldn't get my bands demo on a radio or even in a local store. You had to bust your ass just to receive _any_ recognition. > business too. I don't think I'd be too pleased to discover > that millions copies were being given away with the > thinly-veiled connivance of the Napste people! Previously, A lot of these artists.. Metallica in particular have gone on a napster hunt. I believe the Problem with them is they have had the same level of talent over the years, but no medium to exploit it on. If there was a napster device invented in the 80's, how many other big-haired bands would still be alive and kicking today? When bands like Metallica, started out, NOBODY wanted to play metal music... if your station did, every church in the city publically chastized your station.. parents wouldn;t allow certian records in _their_ houses... I remember a lot of people pissin and moaning about Tipper Gores PMRC and it being sso "Unconstitutional" and it "Censored" musicians Illegally... and in a few case rulings ( in florida ) a few "Gangsta rappers" won valid injunctions against the PMRC. But now that these bands sold their souls and comercialised for their own survival, for the media and airwaves to make them 'acceptable', they are bent. Sure, the music has changed due to the times and the revolutions of the populaces attitudes, ut if Napster was arround in .. say.. 1984 when metallica released "master of puppets" dont even deny that they wouldn't have had TWICE the success as they have had today. Heres a principle fact: Musicians dont make much of anything off record sales... their producers do. Their 'label' does. sure.. they make a few bucks.. their _real_ gain in capitol occures when they tour to promote their records and their endorsements.. the clinics they do for the products they endorse.. RIIA, who brought the case against napster.. They get rich off robbing artists. You pop a buck in the juke-box at the local bar to play a few tunes.. half of 1 penny doesnt even make it back to the artists. Musicians create inspiring ( to some and dreadful to others ) and creative musical scores.... so sony and jet can send it to press and make millions... while the artists have to cart their bottom ends all over the world to make ends meet. Everyone hears "Recording Artists" in that accronymn and think its the musicians.. but its not. Most bands openly support napster. If The recording industry wasnt so damn money hungry, they would have artists going after one another for playing each other tunes.. think of all the money Jimmy page would be making from Van Halens playing "Rock-n-Roll" on their one tour... Or whenever a 'cover' band played a local bar. When napster gets closed down, where will artists gain any recognition? Through media promotions.. paid for by their labels and paid back to the labels with the profits a musician _might have_ made. The ploy against napster is corporate america cutting its own circulation off and I hope their happy with it. If they _really_ wanted to hammer down illegal copy oinfringement, they should start a new law in congress. Currently, if _my_ band wanted to record (copy) another bands material, we need contractual permission from the original artist... make it so for the consumer, that would solve the whole napster syndrome in one shot.. instead, the labels would rather litigate to get some cash out of it instead of spending the time promoting those that feed their pockets.. the musicians. D.Jaye-Guitarist for Prometheus of Buffalo .... "Bea O'Problem? C'mon guys, do I have a Bea O'Problem here?" -- Moe .