Feelings on Napster?

Let's just be honest with ourselves here. That's all I'm saying against the whiners (not necessarily anyone here; there are several idiots at work who Don't Get It) who insist they're "sticking it to the Man."

Fine. Steal all you want. Let's just not use metaphors like "redistributing wealth" (or property, or intellectual property, et al.) when we're talking about stealing.

Even if it's from people you really don't like.

Issabre: I don't see the point you're trying to make. Everyone protects their own self-interests. That's the way we are. Artists, musicians, what-have-you need to make a living and none of them want to (or should) give away their work.

I don't see how obeying the Social Contract is to the detriment of our society. If you take someone's product they should be remunerated for it. It's called exchange: something for something.

People sitting at home and scarfing free MP3s are not exchanging anything for it. It's a one-way deal. How is that help society?

It's only helping people to lazy to go out and pay for the music they want. That's called greed.

And to those who use MP3s to audition new music and then buy said music are A) not violating copyright, B) operating within the spirit of the Fair Use clause and C) are the only ones actually helping the artists.

How is it that you can have so much space between your paragraphs, and we can't?

I only have one thing to say to Mr_Gridlock: Well stated. You can ghost write for me anytime. To everyone else: Yeah, what he said!

I have gotten the impression Napster's long term goal was to become a major force in commericial (for a profit) music distribution. Some small artist will be hurt, but the company seems to be hinding behind them. If the goals stated above are correct, then they are facilitating the giving away of something they do not own. Think if people could download (share) Harry Potter without paying for it? Think if people could share Microsoft Office and downloading it for free? How about everyone share the same AOL login name and password. AOL's entire revenue for the year would be $22.95 What if you could legally post other persons credit card number? It's just sharing right?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is this: with Napster we are at a sort of crossroads. A)We protect the rights of the artists (but are we really doing this or are we really protecting the rights of huge corporations masquerading as artists?) or B) We protect the sanctity of a free internet. We simply can't have it both ways. So which "right" takes precedent? With this ruling, there is a precedent being set that will assist other companies in their efforts to stake their claims to the internet in the future. Our entire system of law in America operates precedent. And America right rules the net. This will become even more complex as other countries join in. I know we call people who talk this way dark prophets, but look at the evidence. What's next...western pharmaceutical companies claiming that makers of traditional medicines in India have no right to sell on the internet because they're infringing on their patents? Nope, that was last year.