Slashdot Mirror
Napster Back in Court
Wakko Warner writes "According to this article, Napster lawyers (and RIAA lawyers) were grilled today by appellate judges. What's more interesting, though, is that, to appease the RIAA, Napster may institute a subscription-based service.
Would you pay $4.95 a month to use Napster?
"
I derive at least that much benefit from it, so sure, why not.
In fact, if you can't afford to pay $4.95 a month, you should probably sell your computer, since you obviously need the money.
If you refuse to pay such a small amount, just know that you're in the same category as those cheap bastards who ask for 50 ketchup packets at McDonald's and steal flatware at Ponderosa.
"It's awfully difficult to spend 40 minutes in the court listening to (Napster attorney) Boies arguing why they don't have to pay," said RIAA chief executive Hilary Rosen.
Hillary is wise beyond her years. Which is impressive, since she's so goddamn old. Hillary is right - if you incorporate, if you distribute music, you're gonna have to pay. The RIAA basically has NO assets. They produce nothing. They exist only to suck money out of both sides of the artist-fan conduit, and to shape that conduit. That's a really good gig folks. Entertainment is the number one industry in the united states, and it has the highest profit margin.
And when you've got a good gig, and someone tries to take it from you...
someone is going to pay.
File sharing corporations have no future.
File sharing applications are the future.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Perhaps that would be better, but I think we all know the RIAA would never accept it. That are not after a piece of the "online distribution" game, they are after the WHOLE game. The own distribution in every other media, and they will not rest until they completly control online distribution as well. If they can't they will buy enough laws to make online distribution illegal.
That said, I would STILL rather a system be devised to pay the artists directly.
Finkployd