Know what? I'm not even going to try to defend the actions of the majority of Napster users, because regardless of my feelings on downloading free music or my distain for the RIAA, jayhawk88 (who I evidently go to school with) is absolutely right in his analogy. However, I have a few thoughts on the issue myself.
1) More is at stake than the assumed right to download free music with impunity. Not only is there the explicit intention of the RIAA to bleed mp3.com and Napster dry with civil suits, there is the implicit intention by groups such as the PPI to ban the peer-to-peer file transferring technology that makes Napster work (just an example). They claim that this is to prevent any other pirates from picking up where Napster left off. In my opinion, this goes way beyond the scope of the cases and infringes upon our right to innovate (or does Microsoft own those rights exclusively?).
2) Both sides seriously fucked up in their bullheadedness and botched an awesome opportunity for cooperation and transition to digital music on the internet, being potentially profitable for the suppliers of mp3s and the artists/recording studios. This was shortsighted and greedy by both groups. If I were a record executive right now, I would be negotiating with mp3.com and Napster, not suing them. It's a vast and largely untapped market out there, and if record studios are willing to take a little smaller profit margin, they can lead the jump from physical to virtual media.
Slashdot Mirror
Know what? I'm not even going to try to defend the actions of the majority of Napster users, because regardless of my feelings on downloading free music or my distain for the RIAA, jayhawk88 (who I evidently go to school with) is absolutely right in his analogy. However, I have a few thoughts on the issue myself.
1) More is at stake than the assumed right to download free music with impunity. Not only is there the explicit intention of the RIAA to bleed mp3.com and Napster dry with civil suits, there is the implicit intention by groups such as the PPI to ban the peer-to-peer file transferring technology that makes Napster work (just an example). They claim that this is to prevent any other pirates from picking up where Napster left off. In my opinion, this goes way beyond the scope of the cases and infringes upon our right to innovate (or does Microsoft own those rights exclusively?).
2) Both sides seriously fucked up in their bullheadedness and botched an awesome opportunity for cooperation and transition to digital music on the internet, being potentially profitable for the suppliers of mp3s and the artists/recording studios. This was shortsighted and greedy by both groups. If I were a record executive right now, I would be negotiating with mp3.com and Napster, not suing them. It's a vast and largely untapped market out there, and if record studios are willing to take a little smaller profit margin, they can lead the jump from physical to virtual media.