Feelings on Napster?

My point in this discussion is to try and point out a "legal" aspect to the Napster discussion. I think "legally" this is theft and it is wrong. My views are not a knock on artists and as Dekay pointed out with his example, artists do tend to CREATE first and think about money later. But at some point artists DO have to think about money or they will no longer be able TO do their art (provided they are not independently wealthy). So, to repeat again, I think Napster engages in an illeagal activity and actually hurts artists no help them.

Treyhoss - I agree that it is an injustice but the courts will have to decide whether it is illegal. I beleive that recording music off the radio for personal use is technically illegal, but really hard to police. I did some investigations for ASCAP when I was younger and almost any use of copyrighted material without permission requires that fees be paid to ASCAP on behalf of the copyright owners. Even if it is ruled that the use of Napster is illegal, how can the abuse be stopped as the software is already in cyberspace? Will they have to create a virus that kills Napster? Or is Napster like the original sin and kind of irreversible?

Music, geopolitics and artistic motivation... what a thread! I don't often post on AG, but I do lurk here and enjoy many of the post(er)s. I think anyone who believes that this is a simple case (on either side of the fence) is surely fooling themselves. Napster has created a product which enables people to break the law (piracy is illegal, that is clear). However, Smith & Wesson have also produced products which enable people to break the law. Just about any product can be used to break the law, so one of the initial questions for the court is whether Napster has fair use outside of its illegal use. Clearly, (to me) the answer is yes. Napster allows for the distribution of music in the public domain, which is legal. Now to what degree must the creator of a product go through to insure that the product be used legally (Is placing a warning, like makers of Nitrous Oxide canisters enough?)? What percentage of a products use must be legal (How many tabacco cigs are rolled with EZ-Wider roll-out paper?)? There are more questions, and I don't really have answers to any of them. It is clear to me that the RIAA had to file suit (if you do not protect your copyright now, under American law you lose some of the right to protect it later). It is also clear that it is a complete waste of time. No matter how you feel about the ethics of Napster, it is an outdated technology (and less than two years old!!!) Gnutella offers the same functionality of Napster (users can exchange songs) without the burden of a central database. So who will the RIAA sue to stop Gnutella? The authors of the original source have stopped working on it and have received absolutely no gains from their work. I doubt the RIAA wants to target individual users of the software (suing your market is not a good way to generate good will in the marketplace). They could go after ISP's for being conduits, but that would set some dangerous precedents against privacy rights. So then what? Electronically pirated music is here to stay, and the RIAA needs to come to terms with that fact as soon as possible so that it can develop a strategy which allows it to maintain its profitability under the constraints of reality. As long as it persues strategies which ignore that fact (like suing individual software developers) it will fail to meet its goals.

There is a disturbingly growing proportion of society willing to openly disregard the boundaries that define what is "yours" and what is "mine". Claims such as "Electronically pirated music is here to stay..." are unfortunately indicative of that attitude. This trend is driving the music industry, and others, to actions that will be inflicted upon us all. Don't be deluded into believing the music industry is making hollow threats. All we've heard so far is the rattling of swords. Wait until they really get moving. They will wield all their considerable clout if that's what it takes to protect their best interests. The suit against Napster is just the first volley; look forward to additional filings regardless of the outcome of this case. Prepare for widespread watermarking and who knows what else because it's only a matter of time. Their lip service aside, the music industry won't care if copy protection is audible on higher-end systems. If watermarking has a negative effect on what they consider to be a small audience, so be it. Better to lose a little than risk it all, right? They're already using their lobbying power to push for statutes that further restrict users' rights while bolstering their own. Care to guess who will ultimately pay for these laws, lawsuits and "advancements" in the end? Kind of ironic, isn't it? Don't despair, though. With any luck someone will introduce a special box to filter the watermark from the sound signal. The appropriate technology will, of course, have to be licensed from the music industry, so it won't come cheap. Just think. With higher resolution systems we will get to pay for it twice. Once with the music and again with the hardware. Oh, joy to us all! But enough ranting for now. Here's a hearty salute to all the innocent little pirates making this wonderful step forward in technology possible. Oh, sorry. Meant to wave with all five fingers, not just the one...

Perhaps I was ambiguous. I do think that piracy is wrong, I just think that it's sometimes tricky to define piracy. Most of that difficulty stems from the fact that 'mine' and 'yours' are not always clearly defined. Possession is a social construct, not an inherent concept, so it is not surprising to see that definitions become muddied every once and a while. The industry will protect its margins, and watermarking (not that I like it) is exactly the kind of strategy that I was reffering to. By the by, piracy is illegal, but so is price fixing. Why is it that after 20 years, we're still all paying for R&D costs to develop the CD format? Why does every single (mainstream) music company charge about the same amount for CD's? And why do CD's cost more than tapes (which are more expensive to make)? Not that any of this justifies stealing. For the record, the only mp3's I've ever downloaded are from live shows which are not available for purchase by a band whose entire back catalog I own. Even with these I feel a slight ethical twinge.