to the question of whether they're trying to stop it or get compensation. as far as i know, napster doesn't charge money for their service (i know i didn't pay for it) and if they make any money it's very little. originally, i wondered how much metallica is sueing for, thinking that if it was more than 5 million or so then it was for the money, but now if it's for more than 5 million i think it can't be for the money. why? simple. napster doesn't have very much money and any large suit against them would only be to break the company (which is what the RIAA's suit is trying to do). fred durst as well as chino moreno of limp bizkit and the deftones, respectively, have voiced opinions in favor of mp3s and online trading. i don't think metallica has anything against mp3s. durst says that people can download mp3s using napster as an aid as to whether or not they'll buy the cd (perfect use for mp3s, in my opinion), but can't bands put mp3s on their webpages and do the same thing with no possibility of legal problems? maybe you say that not all bands have large, popular websites. well, of course not. in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands. well if bands put mp3s on webpages, and napster didn't allow mp3 trading, then they'd be doing EXACTLY what their CEO says its for and i can't imagine any band having a problem with that. and i'll be sure and check out the chat tuesday.
i think if you read what most cosmologists say now you can get this answer. it doesn't have to be 26 billion light years away. it looks from the milky way that all other galaxies and matter are expanding away from us, as if we're the center. no one thinks we are, but if you were at that 13 billion light year away quasar it would look like the earth and milky are 13 billion light years away. maybe it makes sense if you think of it as sitting still and casting that light 13 billion years ago. it would just now hit us and our light just now hitting. does that make sense? i hope so. if not please say why. uhhh. think of the earth sitting still and after 13 billion years of travel this thing becomes a quasar and emits its light toward us. maybe you can think of the center of the universe as being everywhere (carl sagan thought this). then imagine both of us (the milky way and the quasar) as sitting still 13 billion light years apart. ok i'm confusing myself, this is tough. if that makes sense, great, if not i need help now too.
Slashdot Mirror
to the question of whether they're trying to stop it or get compensation. as far as i know, napster doesn't charge money for their service (i know i didn't pay for it) and if they make any money it's very little. originally, i wondered how much metallica is sueing for, thinking that if it was more than 5 million or so then it was for the money, but now if it's for more than 5 million i think it can't be for the money. why? simple. napster doesn't have very much money and any large suit against them would only be to break the company (which is what the RIAA's suit is trying to do). fred durst as well as chino moreno of limp bizkit and the deftones, respectively, have voiced opinions in favor of mp3s and online trading. i don't think metallica has anything against mp3s. durst says that people can download mp3s using napster as an aid as to whether or not they'll buy the cd (perfect use for mp3s, in my opinion), but can't bands put mp3s on their webpages and do the same thing with no possibility of legal problems? maybe you say that not all bands have large, popular websites. well, of course not. in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands. well if bands put mp3s on webpages, and napster didn't allow mp3 trading, then they'd be doing EXACTLY what their CEO says its for and i can't imagine any band having a problem with that. and i'll be sure and check out the chat tuesday.
i think if you read what most cosmologists say now you can get this answer. it doesn't have to be 26 billion light years away. it looks from the milky way that all other galaxies and matter are expanding away from us, as if we're the center. no one thinks we are, but if you were at that 13 billion light year away quasar it would look like the earth and milky are 13 billion light years away. maybe it makes sense if you think of it as sitting still and casting that light 13 billion years ago. it would just now hit us and our light just now hitting. does that make sense? i hope so. if not please say why. uhhh. think of the earth sitting still and after 13 billion years of travel this thing becomes a quasar and emits its light toward us. maybe you can think of the center of the universe as being everywhere (carl sagan thought this). then imagine both of us (the milky way and the quasar) as sitting still 13 billion light years apart. ok i'm confusing myself, this is tough. if that makes sense, great, if not i need help now too.