I can see why the controversy is so strong over how easy it is to copy and distribute music over the net, mostly because it can in a way be regarded as both intellectual and physical property. It's difficult to distinguish between the two because you must buy physical CD's which are more than just ideas and must be manufactured. MP3s on the other hand require no packaging, so all that they contain in essence are ideas, and are thus intellectual property (refer to the link below to learn more about this).
The use of Napster and other MP3 sharing programs is a form of civil disobedience against this intellectual property.
I think that music counts as a collection of ideas because there are many other cultural, educational, and social contributions into a music album from sources outside the artist that they may clearly fail to account for. They may have listened to a previous artist's work and gained valuable knowledge and skill that they could use to enhance their own music. Music has been based upon this very method of collected resources and ideas throughout its history, being expanded upon and improvised throughout the ages. Giving someone an ability to hear a song would merely foster ideas and allow an artist to leave a greater effect on music as a whole.
In the article entitled Against Intellectual Property, there are many similarities that I see between things such as software/MP3 "piracy" and the extremely positive technological/cultural effects if ideas are allowed to be viewed by a greater audience.
There are so many alternatives to Napster, including FTP, useNet, IRC, etc., that it would take an EXTREME amount of effort to stop the transfer of illegal mp3s completely. Even if Microsoft put a filter in the next version Windows or Internet Explorer to block mp3s, others could use the less regulated Linux or UNIX OS's to get around this. It seems that the internet is too client-based to offer a simple solution to a way in which the files being transferred could be regulated. Despite this, the demise of Napster and Napster-like programs would help stop illegal mp3 gathering for those who are less knowledgable of alternative ways to find mp3s.
If you are a serious fan of a band, you would spend as much as you could(within a reasonable amount) to purchase their album even if you could download it in mp3 version. It's just nice to have the actual album cover and lyrics, and to know that in years to come this could be meaningful for a long term fan and can be passed on to others!
Slashdot Mirror
I can see why the controversy is so strong over how easy it is to copy and distribute music over the net, mostly because it can in a way be regarded as both intellectual and physical property. It's difficult to distinguish between the two because you must buy physical CD's which are more than just ideas and must be manufactured. MP3s on the other hand require no packaging, so all that they contain in essence are ideas, and are thus intellectual property (refer to the link below to learn more about this).
The use of Napster and other MP3 sharing programs is a form of civil disobedience against this intellectual property.
I think that music counts as a collection of ideas because there are many other cultural, educational, and social contributions into a music album from sources outside the artist that they may clearly fail to account for. They may have listened to a previous artist's work and gained valuable knowledge and skill that they could use to enhance their own music. Music has been based upon this very method of collected resources and ideas throughout its history, being expanded upon and improvised throughout the ages. Giving someone an ability to hear a song would merely foster ideas and allow an artist to leave a greater effect on music as a whole.
In the article entitled Against Intellectual Property, there are many similarities that I see between things such as software/MP3 "piracy" and the extremely positive technological/cultural effects if ideas are allowed to be viewed by a greater audience.
There are so many alternatives to Napster, including FTP, useNet, IRC, etc., that it would take an EXTREME amount of effort to stop the transfer of illegal mp3s completely. Even if Microsoft put a filter in the next version Windows or Internet Explorer to block mp3s, others could use the less regulated Linux or UNIX OS's to get around this. It seems that the internet is too client-based to offer a simple solution to a way in which the files being transferred could be regulated. Despite this, the demise of Napster and Napster-like programs would help stop illegal mp3 gathering for those who are less knowledgable of alternative ways to find mp3s.
If you are a serious fan of a band, you would spend as much as you could(within a reasonable amount) to purchase their album even if you could download it in mp3 version. It's just nice to have the actual album cover and lyrics, and to know that in years to come this could be meaningful for a long term fan and can be passed on to others!