our church still has a good mix of congregational singing and I have been in churches where they put on a performance and it is so loud it hurts my ears. I love to sing but find it difficult to sing to music that loud. also often the performers will apply there own beat and rythem to a song you thought you knew. it is a good thing we have enough churches that do teach gods word that we can choose a church that suits our style of worship.
Open gum gum style mp3 song free 21
8) Worship leaders ad lib too much. The weight on the person on stage as turned the congregation into lazy little robots. You will hear people only from certain church styles say I cant follow the leader some times. I do believe we should be mindful of this! For some churches it does not matter because the room understands their DNA and style. For those who have seen the shift of this there are a few key reasons why. The room does not fill themselves with these songs throughout the week. They complain about following you because they are lost. To me it is the same as not knowing where a book of the bible is and the teaching pastor as you to turn there. IF you are in the word you know where to look if not do you get mad and say hey preacher man you are hard to follow how dare you ask this of me. Those who are in there word find it and can keep up. We along with many other churches post links to our worship set on our site so that people can go and download and learn the songs.
In contrast, persons who obtain MP3 files for free using Napster can retain and play them indefinitely and, even if they download a song to make a purchasing decision, they may decide not to buy the music. While Napster users can burn CDs comprised of unauthorized downloads they obtained to "sample" new songs, sampling on sites affiliated with plaintiffs does not substitute for purchasing the entire disc. See Teece Rep. at 17.
Defendant's economic expert, Dr. Robert E. Hall, opines that plaintiffs' music could still command a high price after a period when the price has been zero due to Napster use; thus, he concludes, plaintiffs will not suffer irreparable harm between now and a trial verdict against defendant. See Lisi Dec. (Hall Rep.) 39, 54. This argument does not square with Hall's assertion that preliminarily enjoining defendant will put it out of business because users will switch to services offered by "kindred spirits." Hall Rep. 15-19, 73; see also Barry Dec. 13. If this is true, consumers will not necessarily resume buying music if Napster is enjoined; rather, they will go to other sites offering free MP3 files.[16] Indeed, as Dr. David J. Teece avers, defendant has contributed to a new attitude that digitally-downloaded songs ought to be free an attitude that creates formidable hurdles for the establishment *911 of a commercial downloading market. See Teece Rep. at 14-18.
11. Defendant asserts several potential fair uses of the Napster service including sampling, space-shifting, and the authorized distribution of new artists' work. Sampling on Napster is not a personal use in the traditional sense that courts have recognized copying which occurs within the household and does not confer any financial benefit on the user. See, e.g., Sony, 464 U.S. at 423, 449-50, 104 S. Ct. 774. Instead, sampling on Napster amounts to obtaining permanent copies of songs that users would otherwise have to purchase; it also carries the potential for viral distribution to millions of people. Defendant ignores critical differences between sampling songs on Napster and VCR usage in Sony. First, while "time-shifting [TV broadcasts] merely enables a viewer to see ... a work which he ha[s] been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge," plaintiffs in this action almost always charge for their music even if it is downloaded song-by-song. Sony, 464 U.S. at 449-50, 104 S. Ct. 774; see e.g., Conroy Dec. 9; Eisenberg Dec. 16. They only make promotional downloads available on a highly restricted basis. See Conroy Dec. 9-17; Cottrell Dec. 15; Eisenberg Dec. 13; Kenswil Dec. 12; Vidich Dec. 7(d), 8. Copyright owners also earn royalties from streamed song samples on retail websites like Amazon.com. See Lambert Reply Dec. 3. Second, the majority of VCR purchasers in Sony did not distribute taped television broadcasts, but merely enjoyed them at home. See id. at 423, 104 S. Ct. 774. In contrast, a Napster user who downloads a copy of a song to her hard drive may make that song available to millions of other individuals, even if she eventually chooses to purchase the CD. Socalled sampling on Napster may quickly facilitate unauthorized distribution at an exponential rate.
Defendant's argument that using Napster to sample music is akin to visiting a free listening station in a record store, or listening to song samples on a retail website, *914 fails to convince the court because Napster users can keep the music they download. Whether or not they decide to buy the CD, they still obtain a permanent copy of the song. In contrast, many retail sites only offer thirty-to-sixty-second samples in streaming audio format, see Lambert Reply Dec. 2, and promotional downloads from the record company plaintiffs are often "timed-out." See Cottrell Dec. 15; Eisenberg Dec. 13; Kenswil Dec. 12; Vidich Dec. 7(d), 8.
The global scale of Napster usage and the fact that users avoid paying for songs that otherwise would not be free militates against a determination that sampling by Napster users constitutes personal or home use in the traditional sense.[18]
12. Even if the type of sampling supposedly done on Napster were a non-commercial use, plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood that it would adversely affect the potential market for their copyrighted works if it became widespread. See Sony, 464 U.S. at 451, 104 S. Ct. 774. Plaintiffs claim three general types of harm: a decrease in retail sales, especially among college students; an obstacle to the record company plaintiffs' future entry into the digital downloading market; and a social devaluing of music stemming from its free distribution. With regard to sampling, twenty-one percent of the Jay survey respondents indicated that Napster helps them decide what music to purchase. See Jay Rep., Tbl. 4. Nevertheless, Jay reached the overarching conclusion that the more songs Napster users download, the more likely they are to reveal that such use reduces their music buying. See id. at 4, 18. Jay's evidence suggests that sampling and building a free music library through unauthorized downloading are not mutually exclusive: it is likely that survey respondents who sample are primarily direct infringers. Napster users not the record companies control the music selection, the amount and the timing of the sampling activity, and they may keep many songs after deciding not to purchase the entire CD.
The MP3.Com opinion is especially instructive. Although MP3.com's activities arguably stimulated CD sales, the plaintiffs "adduced substantial evidence that they ... [had] taken steps to enter [the digital downloading market]." MP3.Com, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 352. The fourth factor thus weighed against a finding of fair use. Plaintiffs in the instant action similarly allege that Napster use impedes their entry into the online market. The record company plaintiffs have already expended considerable funds and effort to commence Internet sales and licensing for digital downloads. See Conroy Dec. 9-18; Cottrell Dec. 6-17; Eisenberg Dec. 9-22; Vidich Dec. 7-10. Plaintiffs' economic expert opined that the availability of free MP3 files will reduce the market for authorized, commercial downloading. See Teece Dec. at 14-18. This point is corroborated by the fact that all forty-nine songs available for purchase on Sony's website can be obtained for free using Napster. See Eisenberg Dec. 16. If consumers choose to buy, rather than burn, entire CDs they are still more likely to obtain permanent copies of songs on Napster than buy them from Sony's site or listen to streamed samples at other online locations. 2ff7e9595c
Comments