First of all, if you havn't read jms' post do it now. It's the best analysis of the case I've read thus far. However, there are some possible "issues" presented here. IMHO, I'm far too young to ruin my give-em-the-finger-and-go-have-fun-years diving into any legal speghetti bowl, but here goes:
As far as the RIAA's use of the AHRA statute, they're going in the wrong direction. Don't know what butt crack they looked in for the idea of trying to exempt a computer and its digital contents from the devices under the shield of AHRA. They should instead notice WHO the AHRA is protecting. 1008 allows the CONSUMER to basically do whatever they want with the media FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES after they have GAINED these rights (i.e. bought the CD, whatever). What is taking place on Napster is different. The actual consumer is not copying a recording for their own purposes. The person on the other side of the country who reqeusts that particular song is making a copy. This person is not at all under 1008 because they are not the consumer of the media, and the file is not being copied for the consumer's own purposes.
My attention span sucks and I doesn't want to hear the rest of the points I had to offer on the legal thing, so I guess I'll throw in a moral $0.02 for shits and giggles.
I'm very ambivalent towards this whole huge Napster-RIAA terd. Flush the damn thing and stop gawking at how big or discolored it is. (Yeah- you know you've done it before). I don't know everything about the RIAA, but I know enough to dislike their motives. But when it comes to what's going on in Napster I have some grudges. Basically people are getting things for free and they know it and don't want it to stop. EVERYTHING has a price these days and that's how it should be and that's what gives more to those who put more in and that's what makes the world work (MODS: -1, OFFTOPIC). People sit there saying "Joe-Flow is SOOO dope! I just got his new song off napster." But it doesn't hit home that Joe-Flow might not be able to make anymore dope songs if he or his studio don't get paid (Although I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of fake-ass silly wappers go flat broke). I know we're a long way from that point, but it's an inevitable end to the hill we're on. Yeah, the people who truly love music enough to do it for less money will, but those are few and far between. This kind of free-trade system is it's own downfall. Napster thrives on what artists create, but exploits them. Doesn't even take a rock scientist to put two and two together. Music should not be free! Napster may find a way to make it legal for now, but is it right, or even smart? If a way can be found to make music free while its makers are still rewarded for changing and inspiring the way people live, then let it be done! And there are people trying to do that now, but it will be hard to find a happy medium. The speedy exchange of digital info is invariably the future of basically everything, but I don't think Napster is doing justice for music in THE arena. Before your panties get all knotted about Napster getting shut down or the RIAA being a bunch of pigs, think about it. Don't fight for Napster. Don't fight against the RIAA. Fight for the people who make the music you listen to and enjoy... oh shit... that is what this is all about... right?
Like the Pope said when he saw the greedy Napster people and the greedy RIAA people fighting each other: "Jesus Christ!"
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, if you havn't read jms' post do it now. It's the best analysis of the case I've read thus far. However, there are some possible "issues" presented here. IMHO, I'm far too young to ruin my give-em-the-finger-and-go-have-fun-years diving into any legal speghetti bowl, but here goes:
As far as the RIAA's use of the AHRA statute, they're going in the wrong direction. Don't know what butt crack they looked in for the idea of trying to exempt a computer and its digital contents from the devices under the shield of AHRA. They should instead notice WHO the AHRA is protecting. 1008 allows the CONSUMER to basically do whatever they want with the media FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES after they have GAINED these rights (i.e. bought the CD, whatever). What is taking place on Napster is different. The actual consumer is not copying a recording for their own purposes. The person on the other side of the country who reqeusts that particular song is making a copy. This person is not at all under 1008 because they are not the consumer of the media, and the file is not being copied for the consumer's own purposes.
My attention span sucks and I doesn't want to hear the rest of the points I had to offer on the legal thing, so I guess I'll throw in a moral $0.02 for shits and giggles.
I'm very ambivalent towards this whole huge Napster-RIAA terd. Flush the damn thing and stop gawking at how big or discolored it is. (Yeah- you know you've done it before). I don't know everything about the RIAA, but I know enough to dislike their motives. But when it comes to what's going on in Napster I have some grudges. Basically people are getting things for free and they know it and don't want it to stop. EVERYTHING has a price these days and that's how it should be and that's what gives more to those who put more in and that's what makes the world work (MODS: -1, OFFTOPIC). People sit there saying "Joe-Flow is SOOO dope! I just got his new song off napster." But it doesn't hit home that Joe-Flow might not be able to make anymore dope songs if he or his studio don't get paid (Although I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of fake-ass silly wappers go flat broke). I know we're a long way from that point, but it's an inevitable end to the hill we're on. Yeah, the people who truly love music enough to do it for less money will, but those are few and far between. This kind of free-trade system is it's own downfall. Napster thrives on what artists create, but exploits them. Doesn't even take a rock scientist to put two and two together. Music should not be free! Napster may find a way to make it legal for now, but is it right, or even smart? If a way can be found to make music free while its makers are still rewarded for changing and inspiring the way people live, then let it be done! And there are people trying to do that now, but it will be hard to find a happy medium. The speedy exchange of digital info is invariably the future of basically everything, but I don't think Napster is doing justice for music in THE arena. Before your panties get all knotted about Napster getting shut down or the RIAA being a bunch of pigs, think about it. Don't fight for Napster. Don't fight against the RIAA. Fight for the people who make the music you listen to and enjoy... oh shit... that is what this is all about... right?
Like the Pope said when he saw the greedy Napster people and the greedy RIAA people fighting each other: "Jesus Christ!"
RIAA - But all we want is to take money from artists and consumers.
Napster - But all WE want is to earn money using the artists.
Napster Users - And we don't want to GIVE our money to the artists.
The Pope - God damnit! Look at all those greedy bastards!