I find it somewhat ironic that Metallica is greeted with such ferocious animosity by supposed champions of "freedom." The same people who rant, day after day, about the inherent need for choice and self-determination in the technical world seemed to be the same people condemning Lars for wanting to exercise those same rights in the musical realm. If Metallica doesn't want their music to be part of the Napster service, who are we to deny them that decision? Wouldn't you want to maintain those rights over one of *your* creations? In a sense, isn't that a foundation of the GNU movement? A group of people decided that maybe software could be built and nurtured in a better manner. And the reason it works is that everyone plays by the same set of rules. If you wrote a great GNU app, and then I decided that it was my right to distribute it and charge people for its use, somehow I doubt you would be so forgiving. That action would obviously attack the spirit in which your creation was forged. But reverse the situation and suddenly Metallica is evil. They aren't in the business of giving their songs away. Maybe people think they should, but they're not - they're as profit driven as any other capitalistic endeavor. For better or worse, it *is* about the Benjamins. The question for me is when did the online community's desire to have free access to their commodity usurp Metallica's decision to distribute it for profit? I always get the impression that the Napster devout would also argue that they should have unlimited access to perfectly forged twenty dollar bills. Would it be cool? Of course it would. Is it legal? Certainly not. And is it in the spirit of the larger capitalistic system in which the dollars are created? No way.
That seems like a wonderful idea. While you're at, better skip all those "Dune" books and go with the film instead. I mean, really, don't all of those words just end up getting in the way?
Slashdot Mirror
I find it somewhat ironic that Metallica is greeted with such ferocious animosity by supposed champions of "freedom." The same people who rant, day after day, about the inherent need for choice and self-determination in the technical world seemed to be the same people condemning Lars for wanting to exercise those same rights in the musical realm. If Metallica doesn't want their music to be part of the Napster service, who are we to deny them that decision? Wouldn't you want to maintain those rights over one of *your* creations? In a sense, isn't that a foundation of the GNU movement? A group of people decided that maybe software could be built and nurtured in a better manner. And the reason it works is that everyone plays by the same set of rules. If you wrote a great GNU app, and then I decided that it was my right to distribute it and charge people for its use, somehow I doubt you would be so forgiving. That action would obviously attack the spirit in which your creation was forged. But reverse the situation and suddenly Metallica is evil. They aren't in the business of giving their songs away. Maybe people think they should, but they're not - they're as profit driven as any other capitalistic endeavor. For better or worse, it *is* about the Benjamins. The question for me is when did the online community's desire to have free access to their commodity usurp Metallica's decision to distribute it for profit? I always get the impression that the Napster devout would also argue that they should have unlimited access to perfectly forged twenty dollar bills. Would it be cool? Of course it would. Is it legal? Certainly not. And is it in the spirit of the larger capitalistic system in which the dollars are created? No way.
That seems like a wonderful idea. While you're at, better skip all those "Dune" books and go with the film instead. I mean, really, don't all of those words just end up getting in the way?