It seems that this whole issue is revolving around a number of different points, and people keep arguing different ones.
First, those people who are arguing that Napster is a good thing, and that they have some moral right to download music from Napster need a serious reality check. You have no rights to this music. You have no rights to music that you are copying from friends. Period. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. At the end of the day, Napster exists to make money. They are doing this by providing a service allowing users to easily copy copyrighted material back and forth. They are making money by assisting others in illegal activities. This is a Bad Thing(tm).
The second point is that the music industry had best wake up to this, and adapt or die. The prevalence of this is not going to go away, and it will not be stopped. Anybody in the computer game industry can tell you this, as they have been fighting this for the past twenty years, and have never come up with a way to prevent the transfer of copyrighted software. NEVER. And I'm willing to wager that the computer game industry knows a hell of a lot more about computers than the music industry.
There are probably a lot of ways to do this, with the idea of value-added sales being the best (IMHO). How about a simple utility to let people that have legally bought CDs the ability to download them at will, so we never have to worry about losing them? Anyway, this is not the place for that discussion at all.
The third thing, and possibly the biggest topic of discussion, is the mistakes that Metallica has made in this whole issue. They found something out, charged into an area where they knew next-to-nothing, and got smacked down hard. Don't get me wrong. I support Metallica in the idea that others should not be profiting off of their copyrighted music. However, they played directly into Napster's hand. Napster's method of policing (give us a list of accounts and we'll ban them) has the wonderful side effect of pitting performer against fanbase. As soon as Napster made that challenge to Metallica, they won. If Metallica backed down and did not do this, did not follow through on the posted methods for dealing with copyright infringement, they knew that any lawsuit that they might make would get thrown out of court. On the other hand, if they complied (which they did), it would be incredibly simple for Napster to spin-doctor the issue into 'Metallica vs. the fans' (which they did.) That's why the Napster guys were chuckling when they said 'bring us a list'. They knew Metallica could, and they knew that either way they wouldn't lose.
Now that is a sleazy tactic worthy of Microsoft itself.
Slashdot Mirror
First, those people who are arguing that Napster is a good thing, and that they have some moral right to download music from Napster need a serious reality check. You have no rights to this music. You have no rights to music that you are copying from friends. Period. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. At the end of the day, Napster exists to make money. They are doing this by providing a service allowing users to easily copy copyrighted material back and forth. They are making money by assisting others in illegal activities. This is a Bad Thing(tm).
The second point is that the music industry had best wake up to this, and adapt or die. The prevalence of this is not going to go away, and it will not be stopped. Anybody in the computer game industry can tell you this, as they have been fighting this for the past twenty years, and have never come up with a way to prevent the transfer of copyrighted software. NEVER. And I'm willing to wager that the computer game industry knows a hell of a lot more about computers than the music industry.
There are probably a lot of ways to do this, with the idea of value-added sales being the best (IMHO). How about a simple utility to let people that have legally bought CDs the ability to download them at will, so we never have to worry about losing them? Anyway, this is not the place for that discussion at all.
The third thing, and possibly the biggest topic of discussion, is the mistakes that Metallica has made in this whole issue. They found something out, charged into an area where they knew next-to-nothing, and got smacked down hard. Don't get me wrong. I support Metallica in the idea that others should not be profiting off of their copyrighted music. However, they played directly into Napster's hand. Napster's method of policing (give us a list of accounts and we'll ban them) has the wonderful side effect of pitting performer against fanbase. As soon as Napster made that challenge to Metallica, they won. If Metallica backed down and did not do this, did not follow through on the posted methods for dealing with copyright infringement, they knew that any lawsuit that they might make would get thrown out of court. On the other hand, if they complied (which they did), it would be incredibly simple for Napster to spin-doctor the issue into 'Metallica vs. the fans' (which they did.) That's why the Napster guys were chuckling when they said 'bring us a list'. They knew Metallica could, and they knew that either way they wouldn't lose.
Now that is a sleazy tactic worthy of Microsoft itself.
Kyo