i like the napster and nintendo adds, but they, unlike nissan, have a cool product.

This is true. No amount of marketing can make the Altima a "hip" car. Can the same be said for Napster, which started out hip and now has to fight the stigma of having sold out?

I think the new Maxima is pretty hip, and the Z makes me poop my pants.

Maxima > Altima. My friend disco has the Z and pays out the ass for it. Has already totalled it once. That's what will make you shit your pants.

Yeah, I wanted to get one until I saw what the payments looked like on a $30,000 car.

Buying music and supporting artists > Napster

Napster didn't have to sell out to suck. It sucked from the get-go. Not all artists are like Metallica. Some actually do rely on copyright (to various degrees) to preseve their livelihood. While it is true that large music labels systematically screw over artists and crank out unoriginal "hits," stealing from them will not improve the situation. It almost certainly worsens the situation. So thank you everyone for illegally downloading other people's music. Now there is even less motivation to put out decent, original, well-thought out albums.

ouch anti-pirate. Music was developed for thousands of years without copyright. It was played again and again without royalties paid to the artist. The art was produced for the joy of the art. Do you really think every painter is reimbursed for their work? hell no. True art comes from inside, if money is involved it gets all flubbed up. I would say that 'illegally' downloaded music is something of a renaissance. What it does, ultimately, is kill commercially produced music. But is that such a bad thing? Most of what we consider 'classic' was produced in garages, parties, and the quietness of one's own home, with no consideration of monetary gain. Those who lose their 'jobs' in music will not be shit out of luck, they'll find other work. And we will be better off without them. All hail the trubadour!

Anti-pirate, I'm not sure if you really believe the things you said or if you're just trolling.

Not all artists are like Metallica. Some actually do rely on copyright (to various degrees) to preseve their livelihood.

Can you present the evidence of this? I'm sure if all that exist are individual artists' anecdotes that contrary examples can be found in just as many numbers. Even if such an example could be found, is it in any number close to the number of artists who are able to survive now *because of* file-sharing services.

While it is true that large music labels systematically screw over artists and crank out unoriginal "hits," stealing from them will not improve the situation. It almost certainly worsens the situation.

I'm not sure that anybody downloads mp3s in an effort to get major labels to screw artists less or to change the kind of hits that are cranked out. I know that's not why I download music. So I don't follow your argument that doing so does the opposite. Are you suggesting that buying more CDs will cause a change in the policies of major music labels towards their artists as well as improve the originality of hits?

So thank you everyone for illegally downloading other people's music. Now there is even less motivation to put out decent, original, well-thought out albums.

Same FUD. There are no artists who have stopped practicing their trade because they believed that people downloading music has made the business less lucrative because they know it's still as lucrative as always. Are you suggesting that the rate at which commercial pop music is being produced has decreased in proportion to the number of files being shared?

The whole problem with the main argument of the anti-sharing lobby is that, while there ought to be plenty of evidence showing that indeed sharing has hit the Industry's bottom line, that evidence simply doesn't exist. The Industry bosses know this (having funded the studies that found it to be the case) yet they continue to vilify this phantom scourge. Any commercial worker who lost a job due to a company not making enough money can only blame bad business since there's nothing to show that profits were lost due to sharing. I think sharing is just an easy scapegoat (drugs! terror!) for declining sales. It's also a new technology that is out of the Industry's control.