The thing is, what was Napster created for? Is there any legal use for this program? Napster was created for the sole purpose of stealing music. There are no other examples where something was built to directly brake the law and it was okay with everyone. If you create a tool that has some legal purpose, but could also be used in some circumstances for illegal purposes, then I'd say you have some immunity because as far as you're concerned, you thought the user was following your instructions.
As far as real weapons go, like guns, atom bomb, etc. Those things were all created LEGALLY to serve a legal purpose. That is, killing bad guys.
Now, the real issue here goes much deeper than legality because we all know that the law does not necessarily define what is right and wrong. That is, people have an implicit sense of what's right and sometimes the law does not properly represent that sense. I think what the court judge asks is "Is this against the law?" and what everyone else asks is "Is this right?" So there's a gap there.
I will agree that within the logical framework of the law, the judge's decision was correct because Napster was created for an illegal end. But my gut feeling tells me that what they're going to do to that programmer who created Napster is not quite right.
The people who have a decision to make are the record companies. They do not want to face the FACT that they can no longer control the distribution of audio recordings. They are all pooing there pants. Of course, on the one hand the labels are crying because a market is dissolving. On the other hand artists are wondering if they will be able to make a living now. Chuck D says, "Companies like Napster are creating new fan interest and establishing a new infrastructure for unknown artists to attract an audience." He's right, your band can get new fans, but will they give you money? I'm sure you will certainly have alot more people coming to your concerts. Perhaps that is where the market is shifting. Maybe recorded material will become so dispensable that people will be craving the live shit. I suppose then we will have a webcasting piracy issue where concert pirates set up illegal live feeds of concerts and people create software to make this faster and easier. In the end, the thing you will not be able to freely distribute is the artist himself.
What I'm saying is that, at least for the music industry, copyright laws can no longer be properly enforced. Those laws were made ideally so that an artist could make some money by the controlling supply of his music. Supply can no longer be controlled so those laws should be dropped and Napster-like programs should be embraced as a source of promotion. Record labels should now concentrate on other aspects of the business such as concert tours.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is, what was Napster created for? Is there any legal use for this program? Napster was created for the sole purpose of stealing music. There are no other examples where something was built to directly brake the law and it was okay with everyone. If you create a tool that has some legal purpose, but could also be used in some circumstances for illegal purposes, then I'd say you have some immunity because as far as you're concerned, you thought the user was following your instructions.
As far as real weapons go, like guns, atom bomb, etc. Those things were all created LEGALLY to serve a legal purpose. That is, killing bad guys.
Now, the real issue here goes much deeper than legality because we all know that the law does not necessarily define what is right and wrong. That is, people have an implicit sense of what's right and sometimes the law does not properly represent that sense. I think what the court judge asks is "Is this against the law?" and what everyone else asks is "Is this right?" So there's a gap there.
I will agree that within the logical framework of the law, the judge's decision was correct because Napster was created for an illegal end. But my gut feeling tells me that what they're going to do to that programmer who created Napster is not quite right.
The people who have a decision to make are the record companies. They do not want to face the FACT that they can no longer control the distribution of audio recordings. They are all pooing there pants. Of course, on the one hand the labels are crying because a market is dissolving. On the other hand artists are wondering if they will be able to make a living now. Chuck D says, "Companies like Napster are creating new fan interest and establishing a new infrastructure for unknown artists to attract an audience." He's right, your band can get new fans, but will they give you money? I'm sure you will certainly have alot more people coming to your concerts. Perhaps that is where the market is shifting. Maybe recorded material will become so dispensable that people will be craving the live shit. I suppose then we will have a webcasting piracy issue where concert pirates set up illegal live feeds of concerts and people create software to make this faster and easier. In the end, the thing you will not be able to freely distribute is the artist himself.
What I'm saying is that, at least for the music industry, copyright laws can no longer be properly enforced. Those laws were made ideally so that an artist could make some money by the controlling supply of his music. Supply can no longer be controlled so those laws should be dropped and Napster-like programs should be embraced as a source of promotion. Record labels should now concentrate on other aspects of the business such as concert tours.