I'm slightly confused by some of the arguments I have seen here and other places.
In what way are we talking about free speech? The word "free" has at least two given meanings - one as in "free of cost" and the other as in "liberated". When people speak of "free speech" they are speaking about the the right to liberated speech. The right to express yourself without retribution from the government or other groups (at least that is our ideal).
When you talk about distribution of music as free speech, it seems that you talking about something completely different. Philosophers, political critics, and religious groups write volumes and rely on the concept of free speech in order to protect themselves. People who trade pirated music on napster are not expressing themselves, they are repeating the ideas of others and profitting from it. They are getting "free music" not "free speech..."
Has anyone else felt confused by this argument of the napster supporters?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm slightly confused by some of the arguments I have seen here and other places. In what way are we talking about free speech? The word "free" has at least two given meanings - one as in "free of cost" and the other as in "liberated". When people speak of "free speech" they are speaking about the the right to liberated speech. The right to express yourself without retribution from the government or other groups (at least that is our ideal). When you talk about distribution of music as free speech, it seems that you talking about something completely different. Philosophers, political critics, and religious groups write volumes and rely on the concept of free speech in order to protect themselves. People who trade pirated music on napster are not expressing themselves, they are repeating the ideas of others and profitting from it. They are getting "free music" not "free speech..." Has anyone else felt confused by this argument of the napster supporters?