I boosted a few items when I was a kid, but I didn't turn into a career criminal, and I wouldn't do it again. Just because you do something stupid as a kid doesn't mean you're gonna be stealing cars and such later on. You seem to have the same mentality that leads people to try kids as adults even though the state obviously believes them to be incapable of acting as adults, which is why they don't get all the rights and privileges of adults. The same mentality that gets those stupid "zero tolerance" rules and things like California's "3-strike" rule, instituted. Makes no sense.
Re:Napster vs. The GPL
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
Right. I would completely support copyright in its original form, with a term of 14 years instead of the indefinite period we now have.
Re:The public interest is served.
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
I'm not saying that copyright should be repealed. I'm saying it should be reformed. The term-length should be rolled back to what it originally was, instead of allowing corporations to own information and works forever, which is what is happening right now. Fourteen years is plenty of time to profit from an artistic work. It's plenty of incentive for artists to create new things. There's absolutely no good reason for these works to become the permanent property of some corporation. After the creator of the work has been given a reasonable amount of time to use his exclusive control to make a profit, the work should be added to the public domain.
Re:You've gotta be kidding...
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
I have other options, as does everybody else. We can ignore copyrights until it becomes the norm to ignore them and then have the laws changed so that they are once again fair to both sides. The other option is to get enough prominent people on our side and try to whip up public sentiment against those who have tried to prevent us from seeing any return for our protection of copyrighted materials. There used to be a balance. The creator got to profit exclusively from his work for a fairly short period of time (14 years I believe) and then the work became public domain and the public got something in return for its granting of a limited monopoly to that creator. Since the public no longer gets anything in return for granting that monopoly, it's no wonder they don't want to play by these rules anymore. And why should they?
Re:You've gotta be kidding...
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 3
Copyrights were originally created TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Otherwise, we, the public, would have no interest in enforcing them. What does the public get in return? Nothing anymore.
That copyright no longer serves this interest is largely due to lobbying by corporations who buy up copyrighted works, and heirs of people who created these works. Neither of these groups has actually produced anything of real value to the public, yet they seem to think it is their right to continue to live off of the fruits of someone else's labor for all eternity when even the creator wasn't supposed to have that right. There was a rather short time limit on copyrighted works for a reason. It wasn't meant to give ownership of the work to the person who created it. It was meant to give temporary exclusive control over the work so that the creator could profit from it before it became public domain. That doesn't happen anymore and as far as I'm concerned the public has every right to take what they want now. The corporations have already fleeced us of our rights and are busy working on our money.
There are many ways of stealing from someone. Armed robbery is just one of them, not to mention being one of the more crude ways that is more likely to get you caught. There are much better ways to steal, as the record companies have figured out.
Re:Understanding what Napster is
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
Perhaps it would be rendered unusable, but not before something takes its place.
Apparently the record companies didn't blow too much dough marketing Billy Pilgrim. I've never heard of them. I doubt they lost much more than the cost of producing the master. Which they made back about a million times over with the sales of the latest N'Sync or Britney Spears albums. I'm not sure how many sales the Billy Pilgrim albums have made, but all of the money from those sales went to the record company. None to the artist. Record labels aren't in any danger of losing money. They make enourmous profits. They aren't taking any real risks. They have too much control to actually lose money in the end.
Re:You've gotta be kidding...
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 3
What have you, as a member of the public, ever done to earn the right to freely listen to music someone else wrote?
Good point. Here's another. Why should I, and other members of the public, grant a seemingly unlimited monopoly to those who do write music or other creative works? What are we getting out of it? The right to pay for the same music over and over, forever? No thanks. That's not what copyright was intended to do, and for good reason. The deal has to be fair for both sides. Giving artists a monpoly that lasts longer than any of us will be alive is not in our interests. Why then should we do it?
I'd much rather ditch copyright laws and let them fend for themselves than keep the current system in place. Maybe there wouldn't be as many "artists" out there, but the ones who still create will be creating because they love what they do and want everybody to share in it. Those are the kinds of artists that make things worth looking at, reading, listening to, etc. They did it long before copyright was ever created and they'd do it long after copyright is gone.
Realistically though, I think copyright, as originally created, is a good thing. But it's been twisted into something that no longer serves the public interest. It now serves only corporate interests. Corporations will continue to survive long after we mortals are long dead. They'll continue to profit from their ownership of these works. We'll be in the ground, never having gotten anything in return for our granting of the monopoly that the corporations are enjoying.
Re:Napster vs. The GPL
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
I will not work unless I am free to decide (within reasonable limits) the terms of it's use and distribution.
Here's the real problem. The "reasonable limits" have gone well beyond any sane reasoning. I don't have a problem with copyright as it was originally created. I have a problem with what it has become. Namely a permanent right for corporations to buy up every piece of IP they can get their hands on and control and profit from the works indefinitely. That's a far cry from the original intent of copyright, which was to increase the amount of creative works in the public domain (i.e. free for all to use). Copyright originally lasted for 14 years I believe. Now, works that are created and/or copyrighted in my lifetime will likely not enter the public domain in my lifetime, if ever. IMO, the corporations that have pushed for copyright term extensions are the real thieves.
If they own the copyright and put the songs up for download on Gnutella, wouldn't it be legal to download them? After all, the copyright holder is making them available for free download via Gnutella.
Do you support GNU software being able to choose their own license, or do you support ignoring the GPL as well?
I would support ignoring the GPL if all other copyrights and licenses could be ignored as well.
Re:Price of CD and Gas
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
As for CDs, why is this always brought up to justify copyright infringement via MP3 files?
Probably because when CDs first came out, the record industry claimed that the prices would drop substantially after the format had been widely adopted by consumers. Guess what? Didn't happen. The prices never fell a bit. The record companies have been fixing CD prices and ripping off the public to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. Of course it's ok for them to steal from us, but if we steal from them, then watch out. They'll turn their lawyers loose on us. Hypocrits.
Re:Understanding what Napster is
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 2
What he's saying is that it won't be long before people start renaming their mp3 files to "etallica - Unforgiven" or "3333 - Unforgiven" (where 3333 is a new code for "Metallica" that people have begun using. What does Napster do then? What happens when they change again? And the next time? And the next? For every band?
The way I understand it is that record companies basically serve as a bank where musicians can get a loan to produce and market an album. This basically how Lars Ulrich explained it. Now, when the album goes on sale, all the money made from sales goes to pay the record company first, and the artist doesn't see a penny until the loan is paid back. What I want to know is this: What happens if the album doesn't sell enough to cover the loan? Does the artist still own it? Are they beholden to the record company to produce more albums? What happens?
You've gotta be kidding...
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 4
Napster is not morally wrong. Certainly not in the world that we live in today. What I think IS morally wrong is the fact that these corporations continue to try to expand their control over copyrighted works, and even worse, continue to have the copyright term-length extended. The whole reason we have copyright was not so that huge corporations could buy up everything in sight and own it and profit from it forever. It was to expand the amount of creative works in the public domain that everyone has free access to. The idea was to give artists an incentive to create by allowing them to have exclusive control over their works (to the extent that was allowed by copyright laws) so that they could profit from them for a limited period of time (originally 14 years I believe). Now, works that were created and/or copyrighted in my lifetime will probably not enter the public domain in my lifetime. THAT is morally wrong! So, don't expect me to shed any tears over whatever money/control the record industry thinks they're losing to "pirates." As far as I'm concerned, the record industry and others like them are the true pirates that have stolen more from us than we ever could from them.
Your average executives aren't known for long-term planning. That's not their job. But many of the larger corporations do make long-term plans. These don't usually get in the way of their short-term goals of quarterly profits, so they don't really have to make a trade-off.
So, you won't explain why you don't think that the DoJ prosecution of Microsoft was political in origin?
Mainly because I've explained this so many times before that I got tired of doing it over and over. I need to write an article and put it up on a website so i can just direct everyone to it when I need to explain my views. But, since I must, here goes.
I'm not saying that the DOJ prosecution happened in a political vacuum. Democratic administrations have always been big on enforcing the anti-trust laws. Republican administrations usually don't enforce these laws. The fact is that the court has determined that Microsoft did, in fact, break the law. You're apparently saying that the law shouldn't be enforced because it's being enforced as some sort of political retribution against Microsoft for not participating in the political game enough.
I happen to believe that anti-trust laws are necessary to the health of the market and that their enforcement is a good thing. If a bunch of politicians have to get their feelings (or wallets) hurt by Microsoft before they actually do something to enforce the law, then that's a bad thing because it means the law isn't being applied across the board, but is being selectively enforced. I think that's wrong and dangerous. But I do not believe that Microsoft should be allowed to continue its violations simply because of a political situation in Washington, or because the Republicans get into the White House. Anti-trust laws should be enforced fairly and equally across all industries. If you think that Microsoft could have avoided this by playing the games in Washington, then you've pointed out the corruption that exists there, which is a problem, of course. That doesn't make Microsoft any less guilty, it just means that they aren't the only guilty party here. I think Microsoft should have taken the hint last time they were prosecuted and cut back on the blatant violations. They seem to be far too arrogant for this, as evidenced by Bill Gates' own comments after the last consent decree was signed. They've done nothing but push the DOJ on this. Finally the DOJ pushed back hard enough to actually affect Microsoft (or so I hope).
The trial showed that the presiding judge was biased against MS from the start
How so? I thought he was extremely patient with the antics of Microsoft's lawyers and witnesses.
, and the proposed and actual "remedies" wouldn't do anything to remove a monopoly if it really existed.
They are isolating that monopoly product from the products that Microsoft was using the monopoly to benefit. Windows alone is not nearly as big a threat to the industry as Microsoft is when they control Windows, as well as products in nearly every other major software market that can benefit from Microsoft's strongarming. This, combined with the behavioral remedies that will be imposed, should be sufficient to keep Microsoft from further abusing its power.
The articles you quote are blatantly against anti-trust in its entirety, as well as bashing Joel Klein for enforcing the laws against companies that appear to be breaking them. Damn, the nerve of that guy, he thinks he should be able to do his job and get away with it. If you believe those articles, then we are not going to be able to resolve this discussion. If you think anti-trust laws are wrong, then we have a fundamental disagreement that isn't likely to be changed.
Being a monopoly wasn't the problem, nor was it illegal. Using (leveraging) that monopoly to benefit its products in other markets is where Microsoft screwed up. So, by forcing it to divest itself of its products in these other markets, it is left with its single product that, alone, doesn't pose nearly as big a threat to competition in existing or future markets. Nor would the new company be able to tie its products to the monopoly product any longer, or use that monopoly product to beat the OEMs into submission. They will certainly continue to support Windows, but they'll have to do so using the same information that everyone else has access to, and receive that information in the same timeframe that everyone else receives it in. They will no longer have the same incentive to support only Windows if they see other markets as being viable as well.
That's one interpretation. The other is that he really believes what he's saying. There's no arguing that many geek-types were abused by their peers growing up. That's a simple fact. I do think that it's a serious stretch to imply that this was somehow due to corporate influence, if that's what he was getting at. However, it is quite believable that corporations will take advantage of the situation if they can find a way to do so. By demonizing geeks and hackers, they can get new control structures put in place to further secure their power. You just need a little public hysteria and some media hype to make it happen. By the time anyone figures out the real story, it's too late.
Besides the fact that I think you're full of crap about the reasons for this case (I'm not even going to go into that again), we have yet to see if there will actually be years of appeals, or if the judge will send it straight to the Supreme Court to get the whole thing over and done with. As for the popularity, usage, and quality issues, they'll likely remain the same for a while, but there will at least be room for something new to appear, whereas that can't happen at this point. Perhaps the Office corp will fix some of the crappy features in their products to make them work more reliably. Perhaps the Windows corp will provide all comers with the information they need to create office suites that can compete with the Office corp. Things will start working more like they're supposed to work rather than stupid things being done in the name of protecting the monopoly.
If I put up a website that attracted thousands of hits per day, I could dictate my terms to advertisers a lot easier than they could influence me. I'd basically tell them they could have a banner on the page, subject to my approval, which would get a certain average number of views per day. Take it or leave it, there are plenty of companies out there that want to advertise.
People have far too little time to be informed on all of the issues they would be asked to vote on. Too many people would vote on issues they know nothing about and we'd end up with a huge mess. Perhaps it would work for certain issues, but for the most part we'd end up with either chaos, or tyranny of the majority on highly politicized moral issues.
so that only leaves one choice - make it licensed Napster materials.
And apparently that's what they did... since it seems the whole thing is over with now and Offspring is legally allowed to distribute Napster-branded merchandise, with the proceeds to benefit a charity chosen by Shawn Fanning and Dexter Holland.
Slashdot Mirror
I boosted a few items when I was a kid, but I didn't turn into a career criminal, and I wouldn't do it again. Just because you do something stupid as a kid doesn't mean you're gonna be stealing cars and such later on. You seem to have the same mentality that leads people to try kids as adults even though the state obviously believes them to be incapable of acting as adults, which is why they don't get all the rights and privileges of adults. The same mentality that gets those stupid "zero tolerance" rules and things like California's "3-strike" rule, instituted. Makes no sense.
Right. I would completely support copyright in its original form, with a term of 14 years instead of the indefinite period we now have.
I'm not saying that copyright should be repealed. I'm saying it should be reformed. The term-length should be rolled back to what it originally was, instead of allowing corporations to own information and works forever, which is what is happening right now. Fourteen years is plenty of time to profit from an artistic work. It's plenty of incentive for artists to create new things. There's absolutely no good reason for these works to become the permanent property of some corporation. After the creator of the work has been given a reasonable amount of time to use his exclusive control to make a profit, the work should be added to the public domain.
I have other options, as does everybody else. We can ignore copyrights until it becomes the norm to ignore them and then have the laws changed so that they are once again fair to both sides. The other option is to get enough prominent people on our side and try to whip up public sentiment against those who have tried to prevent us from seeing any return for our protection of copyrighted materials. There used to be a balance. The creator got to profit exclusively from his work for a fairly short period of time (14 years I believe) and then the work became public domain and the public got something in return for its granting of a limited monopoly to that creator. Since the public no longer gets anything in return for granting that monopoly, it's no wonder they don't want to play by these rules anymore. And why should they?
Copyrights were originally created TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. Otherwise, we, the public, would have no interest in enforcing them. What does the public get in return? Nothing anymore.
That copyright no longer serves this interest is largely due to lobbying by corporations who buy up copyrighted works, and heirs of people who created these works. Neither of these groups has actually produced anything of real value to the public, yet they seem to think it is their right to continue to live off of the fruits of someone else's labor for all eternity when even the creator wasn't supposed to have that right. There was a rather short time limit on copyrighted works for a reason. It wasn't meant to give ownership of the work to the person who created it. It was meant to give temporary exclusive control over the work so that the creator could profit from it before it became public domain. That doesn't happen anymore and as far as I'm concerned the public has every right to take what they want now. The corporations have already fleeced us of our rights and are busy working on our money.
There are many ways of stealing from someone. Armed robbery is just one of them, not to mention being one of the more crude ways that is more likely to get you caught. There are much better ways to steal, as the record companies have figured out.
Perhaps it would be rendered unusable, but not before something takes its place.
Apparently the record companies didn't blow too much dough marketing Billy Pilgrim. I've never heard of them. I doubt they lost much more than the cost of producing the master. Which they made back about a million times over with the sales of the latest N'Sync or Britney Spears albums. I'm not sure how many sales the Billy Pilgrim albums have made, but all of the money from those sales went to the record company. None to the artist. Record labels aren't in any danger of losing money. They make enourmous profits. They aren't taking any real risks. They have too much control to actually lose money in the end.
What have you, as a member of the public, ever done to earn the right to freely listen to music someone else wrote?
Good point. Here's another. Why should I, and other members of the public, grant a seemingly unlimited monopoly to those who do write music or other creative works? What are we getting out of it? The right to pay for the same music over and over, forever? No thanks. That's not what copyright was intended to do, and for good reason. The deal has to be fair for both sides. Giving artists a monpoly that lasts longer than any of us will be alive is not in our interests. Why then should we do it?
I'd much rather ditch copyright laws and let them fend for themselves than keep the current system in place. Maybe there wouldn't be as many "artists" out there, but the ones who still create will be creating because they love what they do and want everybody to share in it. Those are the kinds of artists that make things worth looking at, reading, listening to, etc. They did it long before copyright was ever created and they'd do it long after copyright is gone.
Realistically though, I think copyright, as originally created, is a good thing. But it's been twisted into something that no longer serves the public interest. It now serves only corporate interests. Corporations will continue to survive long after we mortals are long dead. They'll continue to profit from their ownership of these works. We'll be in the ground, never having gotten anything in return for our granting of the monopoly that the corporations are enjoying.
I will not work unless I am free to decide (within reasonable limits) the terms of it's use and distribution.
Here's the real problem. The "reasonable limits" have gone well beyond any sane reasoning. I don't have a problem with copyright as it was originally created. I have a problem with what it has become. Namely a permanent right for corporations to buy up every piece of IP they can get their hands on and control and profit from the works indefinitely. That's a far cry from the original intent of copyright, which was to increase the amount of creative works in the public domain (i.e. free for all to use). Copyright originally lasted for 14 years I believe. Now, works that are created and/or copyrighted in my lifetime will likely not enter the public domain in my lifetime, if ever. IMO, the corporations that have pushed for copyright term extensions are the real thieves.
If they own the copyright and put the songs up for download on Gnutella, wouldn't it be legal to download them? After all, the copyright holder is making them available for free download via Gnutella.
Do you support GNU software being able to choose their own license, or do you support ignoring the GPL as well?
I would support ignoring the GPL if all other copyrights and licenses could be ignored as well.
As for CDs, why is this always brought up to justify copyright infringement via MP3 files?
Probably because when CDs first came out, the record industry claimed that the prices would drop substantially after the format had been widely adopted by consumers. Guess what? Didn't happen. The prices never fell a bit. The record companies have been fixing CD prices and ripping off the public to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. Of course it's ok for them to steal from us, but if we steal from them, then watch out. They'll turn their lawyers loose on us. Hypocrits.
What he's saying is that it won't be long before people start renaming their mp3 files to "etallica - Unforgiven" or "3333 - Unforgiven" (where 3333 is a new code for "Metallica" that people have begun using. What does Napster do then? What happens when they change again? And the next time? And the next? For every band?
Does the artist still own it?
Should be:
Does the artist still owe it?
The way I understand it is that record companies basically serve as a bank where musicians can get a loan to produce and market an album. This basically how Lars Ulrich explained it. Now, when the album goes on sale, all the money made from sales goes to pay the record company first, and the artist doesn't see a penny until the loan is paid back. What I want to know is this: What happens if the album doesn't sell enough to cover the loan? Does the artist still own it? Are they beholden to the record company to produce more albums? What happens?
Napster is not morally wrong. Certainly not in the world that we live in today. What I think IS morally wrong is the fact that these corporations continue to try to expand their control over copyrighted works, and even worse, continue to have the copyright term-length extended. The whole reason we have copyright was not so that huge corporations could buy up everything in sight and own it and profit from it forever. It was to expand the amount of creative works in the public domain that everyone has free access to. The idea was to give artists an incentive to create by allowing them to have exclusive control over their works (to the extent that was allowed by copyright laws) so that they could profit from them for a limited period of time (originally 14 years I believe). Now, works that were created and/or copyrighted in my lifetime will probably not enter the public domain in my lifetime. THAT is morally wrong! So, don't expect me to shed any tears over whatever money/control the record industry thinks they're losing to "pirates." As far as I'm concerned, the record industry and others like them are the true pirates that have stolen more from us than we ever could from them.
Your average executives aren't known for long-term planning. That's not their job. But many of the larger corporations do make long-term plans. These don't usually get in the way of their short-term goals of quarterly profits, so they don't really have to make a trade-off.
So, you won't explain why you don't think that the DoJ prosecution of Microsoft was political in origin?
Mainly because I've explained this so many times before that I got tired of doing it over and over. I need to write an article and put it up on a website so i can just direct everyone to it when I need to explain my views. But, since I must, here goes.
I'm not saying that the DOJ prosecution happened in a political vacuum. Democratic administrations have always been big on enforcing the anti-trust laws. Republican administrations usually don't enforce these laws. The fact is that the court has determined that Microsoft did, in fact, break the law. You're apparently saying that the law shouldn't be enforced because it's being enforced as some sort of political retribution against Microsoft for not participating in the political game enough.
I happen to believe that anti-trust laws are necessary to the health of the market and that their enforcement is a good thing. If a bunch of politicians have to get their feelings (or wallets) hurt by Microsoft before they actually do something to enforce the law, then that's a bad thing because it means the law isn't being applied across the board, but is being selectively enforced. I think that's wrong and dangerous. But I do not believe that Microsoft should be allowed to continue its violations simply because of a political situation in Washington, or because the Republicans get into the White House. Anti-trust laws should be enforced fairly and equally across all industries. If you think that Microsoft could have avoided this by playing the games in Washington, then you've pointed out the corruption that exists there, which is a problem, of course. That doesn't make Microsoft any less guilty, it just means that they aren't the only guilty party here. I think Microsoft should have taken the hint last time they were prosecuted and cut back on the blatant violations. They seem to be far too arrogant for this, as evidenced by Bill Gates' own comments after the last consent decree was signed. They've done nothing but push the DOJ on this. Finally the DOJ pushed back hard enough to actually affect Microsoft (or so I hope).
The trial showed that the presiding judge was biased against MS from the start
How so? I thought he was extremely patient with the antics of Microsoft's lawyers and witnesses.
, and the proposed and actual "remedies" wouldn't do anything to remove a monopoly if it really existed.
They are isolating that monopoly product from the products that Microsoft was using the monopoly to benefit. Windows alone is not nearly as big a threat to the industry as Microsoft is when they control Windows, as well as products in nearly every other major software market that can benefit from Microsoft's strongarming. This, combined with the behavioral remedies that will be imposed, should be sufficient to keep Microsoft from further abusing its power.
The articles you quote are blatantly against anti-trust in its entirety, as well as bashing Joel Klein for enforcing the laws against companies that appear to be breaking them. Damn, the nerve of that guy, he thinks he should be able to do his job and get away with it. If you believe those articles, then we are not going to be able to resolve this discussion. If you think anti-trust laws are wrong, then we have a fundamental disagreement that isn't likely to be changed.
Being a monopoly wasn't the problem, nor was it illegal. Using (leveraging) that monopoly to benefit its products in other markets is where Microsoft screwed up. So, by forcing it to divest itself of its products in these other markets, it is left with its single product that, alone, doesn't pose nearly as big a threat to competition in existing or future markets. Nor would the new company be able to tie its products to the monopoly product any longer, or use that monopoly product to beat the OEMs into submission. They will certainly continue to support Windows, but they'll have to do so using the same information that everyone else has access to, and receive that information in the same timeframe that everyone else receives it in. They will no longer have the same incentive to support only Windows if they see other markets as being viable as well.
That's one interpretation. The other is that he really believes what he's saying. There's no arguing that many geek-types were abused by their peers growing up. That's a simple fact. I do think that it's a serious stretch to imply that this was somehow due to corporate influence, if that's what he was getting at. However, it is quite believable that corporations will take advantage of the situation if they can find a way to do so. By demonizing geeks and hackers, they can get new control structures put in place to further secure their power. You just need a little public hysteria and some media hype to make it happen. By the time anyone figures out the real story, it's too late.
Besides the fact that I think you're full of crap about the reasons for this case (I'm not even going to go into that again), we have yet to see if there will actually be years of appeals, or if the judge will send it straight to the Supreme Court to get the whole thing over and done with. As for the popularity, usage, and quality issues, they'll likely remain the same for a while, but there will at least be room for something new to appear, whereas that can't happen at this point. Perhaps the Office corp will fix some of the crappy features in their products to make them work more reliably. Perhaps the Windows corp will provide all comers with the information they need to create office suites that can compete with the Office corp. Things will start working more like they're supposed to work rather than stupid things being done in the name of protecting the monopoly.
If I put up a website that attracted thousands of hits per day, I could dictate my terms to advertisers a lot easier than they could influence me. I'd basically tell them they could have a banner on the page, subject to my approval, which would get a certain average number of views per day. Take it or leave it, there are plenty of companies out there that want to advertise.
People have far too little time to be informed on all of the issues they would be asked to vote on. Too many people would vote on issues they know nothing about and we'd end up with a huge mess. Perhaps it would work for certain issues, but for the most part we'd end up with either chaos, or tyranny of the majority on highly politicized moral issues.
so that only leaves one choice - make it licensed Napster materials.
And apparently that's what they did... since it seems the whole thing is over with now and Offspring is legally allowed to distribute Napster-branded merchandise, with the proceeds to benefit a charity chosen by Shawn Fanning and Dexter Holland.