Demostatably false the literacy rate
in the US is much less that what it was in the
1860 or 1830, before teachers got
training in teaching.
I'm not sure where you received your statistical data, but I'm more than 90% positive that your assertions are incorrect (if you have data otherwise, please enlighten me). You state that the literacy rate has decreased. In fact, the percentage of people who are capable of reading has increased. Perhaps, the depth of the larger portion of the average literate citizen has decreased, but that's only because it's more than simply the elite who can read. Effectively, what you're saying is that the quality of literacy has been watered down. IMO, this is a very elitist statement indeed, and that it overlooks the fact that, despite all the problems the education 'system' has at the moment, it has suceeded in producing an increased number of academic elites (with the sort of literacy you state has decreased in the last 100 years) in addition to people who have competency in reading.
The problem lies in that expectations have risen faster than the system can rise to accomodate.
Two modules, connected by a relatively simple and very long tether creates its own problems. a) the aforementioned breakage, and b)if you have the service components--say important instruments, you'd have problems w/ repair. You need to have systems nearby the habitation module in case of the need for emergency repair.
Also, given our current state of rocket technology, we can hardly afford to accelerate for any significant portion of the trip. The trip would take months if not years.
Therefore, it makes more sense for the ship to undergo spin only when the main propulsion module isn't active.
The only thing that seems to make any economic (or practical engineering) sense is to have the vessel constructed in several phases, similar to the ISS. Module 1, crew habitation quarters, life support, and control systems. Module 2, main propulsion, with several disposable sections, other sections meant to be later converted into ground habitation modules, module 3 would be the full lander module, with full facilities for life support, ground rovers, solar panelling, and extensive batteries in case of emergency.
this would lie on opposite end of crew section--all supported by a laticed metal frame with multiple support beam--imagine two arcs, maybe 30 degrees each with supports connecting to a long cylindrical central module. in the connector between crew, lander, and main engine, could be a tube connecting across to each end of the "ship" so that crew could pass from hab quarters to maintain components without needing to leave the confines of breathable atmoshphere.
Additionally, it doesn't seem to make sense to prepare the vessel for a return trip so much as to provision the ship well and make it nearly self sufficient (at least for a number of years) and allow the crew the tools to work off the raw materials on Mars (obviously a bit beyond our current applicable technology).
To return, a vastly trimmed down vessel could be sent. It would necessarily be unmanned--decreases the cost many times...no need to spin, less mass, can simply make it a giant fuel tank, supply pod, connected to a massive rocket. Fast acceleration, and rocket-assisted gravitational decelleration into docking-orbit w/ main rocket frame to merge w/ the frame where the lander module had been. A lift-off module would be dropped to the surface. Transport back to main vessel.
IF you wanted to have mars continually inhabited...use 2 manned transports 2 unmanned "fuelers"
order of launch...1st manned...1st fueler/2nd manned--fueler to arrive first..allowing 1st ground crew to reprovision in preparation for 2nd crew, which would arrive later...1st crew takes the first manned station back w/ the fueler module attached as balast for spin...2nd manned remains in orbit awaiting the return of the 1st manned vessel and 2nd fueler...
Sort of a cyclic multi-stage colonization of mars...?
You could a) copy all your texts manually (type the damn thing) and distribute via FreeNet or Gnutella (though you can track IPs much more easily IIRC).
Or else print screen and high jpeg compression...
Either way it's pretty ludicrous.
Being the fan of public policy as I am, I would go for the consult your senator route first...that and socialize the damn issue. Slashdot is mostly preaching to the converted. Get an article in your local paper; letters to the editor are great. Major City papers are better still if you can swing it.
A large number of lesser acts *do* in fact allow and encourage recording of their shows. Cameras are different. Flashes disrupt the show. No one wants morons shooting at the stage blinding musicians. Your comment about if a live recording was produced by a company is also invalid. If it was produced by a company, then I would have made an attempt to purchase it (unless I'd heard that it wasn't worth the effort--which is ultimately, a moot point).
Also, there's the question of how Constitutionally viable contemporary copyright law is... There are definitely flaws to it. There is far too much power given to publishers/recording companies over artists.
I personally, am not a musician. I can play guitar if my life depended on it and can play drums well (over a decade of experience), but all the same I'd rather be scripting or writing a 40 page essay on political discourse. I simply try to sell the albums and do internet publicity on the side. I'm considerably more practical than my father and would prefer to work in a more profitable line of work. I.T. or law (though I still have quite a few years for the latter).
On the point of Napster being good for distribution, but not paying. In all truth, you're missing the boat on this one. Do you honestly think an unknown artist who very few people have ever heard of before is going to be able to get random people to PAY for downloading a song? In short, the answer is no. Even having a full list of songs available (in CD format, or close enough such that it doesn't matter) is enough to garner *significant* returns in CD purchases. Furthermore, it gets people interested and willing to go check out a show. What do you think pays off better, CDs or concerts? (The answer is, concerts, FYI.)
CDs, help a lot however. They mean that you don't have to be touring every single day of the year. (Not like independent artists don't need other jobs as well.)
The bottom line from the artists perspective is that they do profit from free distribution. Enough people buy the album to make it very much worth their while, so much to the extent that many independent labels have become significant challenges to larger "big money" labels.
Insofar as your view of Napster as a bad thing.
On the view that people who hear the music for free won't buy the album. I entirely disagree with this. The majority of people I know. Virtually everyone at school, when they have the money, they *will* go out and buy the album. MP3 players aside, people who like music, will buy a CD over listening to MP3s. Why? CD quality is, quite frankly, a hell of a lot better. If you like music you won't settle for less. I won't. Most everyone I know won't.
Also, I always support my favorite artists directly. If they pass through the area, I'm at thier show, giving my support to their cause.
I think what we're seeing here is more of a paradigm shift in the very way we view and consume our art. The fact that more people are able to hear and experience the multitude of artists out there is enriching as a whole. The internet and programs like Napster allows thier voices and respective messages to be widely distributed. Which is better, a few tightly controlled media sources ruling the majority of all art consumption, guiding popular culture or allowing people to take control of it for themselves. Free consumption of music, frankly is the only way that seems to make sense. This also creates a greater incentive on the performer to strive to be better. For an artist to make revenue, his/her talent must stand out. Music, above and beyond is a performance art.
Minor point on Napster:
It is entirely possible to use Napster lawfully. Yes, it seems amazing, but it's true.
I used it regularly to find copies of live concerts of my favorite bands, or unsigned artists that did in fact encourage distribution. I purchased much more music after using Napster than before. However, I did purchased almost nothing from major labels...
Why would an artist do such a thing?
Simple: As a point another poster tried to get across, major labels effectively control the artist. Applications like napster that allow lesser known artists works to be easily spread, essentially gives them free publicity. Their works are not controlled by major labels. Often these artists have their own labels, and have little monetary clout. Major labels have a very large interest in silencing these independent up-starts.
Why? The infamous "They" control major publicity outlets: Radio, large amounts of capital to pay for conventional advertising. (TV, Record-store promos). Lesser known artists don't have this option due to that very lack of capital. Now keep in mind that the amount of disposable income for purpose of buying music is a constant. If people begin to hear all the lesser known unsigned artists (and there are VERY VERY many of them) who have their own independent labels (which by and large allow them to reap a far larger peice of the pie per the amount of people who buy their albums) then there will be less capital to flow to the major labels that control most distribution. This isn't conspiracy theory 101 here; this is common sense marketing. Hell, if I were on the board of a major label, I want to stifle Napster too!
BTW, my father is a musician, the internet is the distribution of the future. It's far more accessible, it's far cheaper. Anyone can put out a quality cd these days with little money. 30, hell, 10 years ago this wasn't true.
As an aside, show some tolerance and control when posting. Reactionary messages with agressive wording is not constructive and tends to be looked upon as immature and undereducated.
Murder is a social freedom, as is rape, looting, theft, and lots of other unpleasant bits of nastiness. The very basis of a social contract is to limit social freedom so that society can continue to operate justly.
Okay, there was a minor fault in my argument. I was operating under a "Locke-ian" assumption of freedom that is limited such that one person's pursuit thereof may not hinder any other person's freedom (and vice versa).
This is somewhat of an idealist concept, but a necessary logical base.
Insofar as a healthy system, the U.S. system has been the most stable and successful in the world for a very long time. We've had a stable government and economic system for longer than any other country in the world (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, our system (economic and otherwise) is not perfect, but I would disagree that there are better models out there. This is not to say that there are no helpful hints that we could take from other nations. However, any drastic change would be fatal.
(quasi off-topic, now that I notice that you're an "Obie")
As for not being a capitalist: Fine by me, as long as you don't prosyletize the ISO paper (or whatever Revolutionary-Communist-Weekly is in vogue next semester) in front of Wilder or Tappan Square. };-)>
On a more serious note, if you agree that there should be a system where there is an incentive for competition, and that said competition is enforced, then you are necessarily a capitalist. (Unless, you have some plan of creating incentive other than by economic capital. IMO: This really is the only real incentive that works.)
As far as the accusation that I hate money - I happen to love money. That's why I'm so behind the peer-to-peer revolution - if allowed to continue its ultimately going to completely revolution the economy by bringing more and more of this centralized power base to the people.
So what about MS's.NET? While touted as a highly necessary evolution in internet and computer technologies (by not only MS marketing goons, but IT professionals).
Obviously, a side effect (if not the overall market strategy) is to bring control of applications and more importantly the capital that the applications generate, more fully under control of the corporation. While it produces a massive incentive to apps programmers, it also slices at freedom. Why? Information control...it's routed through central sources.
Yeah, I know it's paranoia, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
enough for now...
g.e.
"I know it sucks, but I still dig the Earth."
-Chuck of moe.
We voted for Sony with our wallets, the question for the future is do we still have the power to vote them out?
Simply stated:
Of course! Don't buy Sony products. There are plenty of alternatives.
Actually, for non-political reasons, I won't buy Sony products. They build peice of $#!t products that break easily. I can't vouch for their gaming system as I rarely have time to play video games, and when I do, they're PC-based.
However, the not-so-easy problem is whether all similar companies with related interests will for political alliances. The answer to that is fairly obvious. (Of course they will, and in fact many such alliances exist...RIAA is only one example.)
So what is the user to do? In the face of mass political apathy it is difficult to accomplish anything substancial. The bottom line is that the lives of most people aren't effected enough by the issue for them to give a rat's @$$. Those who are concerned will act or at least complain loudly and noisomely. The technically savvy, who hang around like geeks surveying the myriad of articles that is/.org, are definitely noisome complainers if I'd ever seen any; myself inclusive. =)
We bitch hypocritically of the pervasive faults of "corporatocracy", and in the face of this, only serve to empower the powerful as we persist to buy their products. Rule of thumb: It's easier to bitch than to act.:p
On corporations
Think about their goals: The infamous "They" (Sony and large corporations like them, M$, etc)need to find a way to produce a product at the minimal cost to bring them revenue. How is this different than any other of life's imperatives, biological or otherwise? Simple: You find the best way to thrive, with the highest payoff and minimum level of work. This is the effective result of capitalism. IMO, once an effective the economic system that is Capitalism is established and internal power structures solidify to enforce only that only the economically powerful may prevail, the constraints in which the system operates should be altered in the form of law. Laws may be created to enforce a high rate of innovation, ensure quality, and stiffle inefficiencies.
The best way to combat such corporate goliaths is to prove that they have effectively stiffled real competition and innovation, and more noble capitalistic pursuits in their respective industries. In the music industry, it may just be possible to do this. The only effective way to revolutionize how information is dealt with, and how real consumer value is ensured is to fundamentally challenge the very definition of intellectual "property."
In the spirit of Neuromancer, however, there is always the possibility of all out information warfare. I mean, why not. Who needs bombs when you can use information? Why risk life when there is only capital at stake? The more savvy of us here, have tools and skills under their belt to physically challenge the status-quo. Granted, this is definitely a last resort approach (war always is). However, if there are ever real imbalances in power, we must keep in mind, that we (the people, in general) are not governed by the savvy. We're governed by the ambitious. Take that as you will.
This is all true, and piracy is a crime anyway you look at it. But the issue is then what we value more: economic freedom or social freedom. Sony's stated methods of eliminating Napster-spawned piracy may preserve the former (depening on how you look at it), but certainly trample the latter. Objectivists aside, I tend to favor the latter over the former. And the effects can be used for any number of things other than just stamping out piracy.
Short, but important point:
I disagree with the distinction between economic and social freedom. By your own words, you have inadvertantly shown that there is no distinction.
If a precedent is set here, there's nothing stopping the same technology from being used to stamp out "indecent" speech,
An economic freedom is necessarily a subset of a social freedom and social freedom is, simply put, freedom.
By restricting freedom economically, you necessarily restrict it socially. Hence, prefering one type of freedom over another is a moot point.
Granted, in this very line of thought, you run into problems of whether campaign finance reform is right or wrong. Is it a good precedent? Is it not? That's a large topic that isn't appropriate to this thread, and would take far too long to explore.
The bottom line of this argument over Napster is about the definition of the very nature of the information being shared and to whom it really belongs. Obviously, much more hedges on this decision than Napster and RIAA, though obviously Napster and the RIAA have a huge stake in the outcome.
Other posters have described the details much more effectively than I could, so with this I return to lurk-mode.
Slashdot Mirror
Demostatably false the literacy rate in the US is much less that what it was in the 1860 or 1830, before teachers got training in teaching.
I'm not sure where you received your statistical data, but I'm more than 90% positive that your assertions are incorrect (if you have data otherwise, please enlighten me). You state that the literacy rate has decreased. In fact, the percentage of people who are capable of reading has increased. Perhaps, the depth of the larger portion of the average literate citizen has decreased, but that's only because it's more than simply the elite who can read. Effectively, what you're saying is that the quality of literacy has been watered down. IMO, this is a very elitist statement indeed, and that it overlooks the fact that, despite all the problems the education 'system' has at the moment, it has suceeded in producing an increased number of academic elites (with the sort of literacy you state has decreased in the last 100 years) in addition to people who have competency in reading.
The problem lies in that expectations have risen faster than the system can rise to accomodate.
g.e.
Two modules, connected by a relatively simple and very long tether creates its own problems. a) the aforementioned breakage, and b)if you have the service components--say important instruments, you'd have problems w/ repair. You need to have systems nearby the habitation module in case of the need for emergency repair.
Also, given our current state of rocket technology, we can hardly afford to accelerate for any significant portion of the trip. The trip would take months if not years.
Therefore, it makes more sense for the ship to undergo spin only when the main propulsion module isn't active.
The only thing that seems to make any economic (or practical engineering) sense is to have the vessel constructed in several phases, similar to the ISS. Module 1, crew habitation quarters, life support, and control systems. Module 2, main propulsion, with several disposable sections, other sections meant to be later converted into ground habitation modules, module 3 would be the full lander module, with full facilities for life support, ground rovers, solar panelling, and extensive batteries in case of emergency.
this would lie on opposite end of crew section--all supported by a laticed metal frame with multiple support beam--imagine two arcs, maybe 30 degrees each with supports connecting to a long cylindrical central module. in the connector between crew, lander, and main engine, could be a tube connecting across to each end of the "ship" so that crew could pass from hab quarters to maintain components without needing to leave the confines of breathable atmoshphere.
Additionally, it doesn't seem to make sense to prepare the vessel for a return trip so much as to provision the ship well and make it nearly self sufficient (at least for a number of years) and allow the crew the tools to work off the raw materials on Mars (obviously a bit beyond our current applicable technology).
To return, a vastly trimmed down vessel could be sent. It would necessarily be unmanned--decreases the cost many times...no need to spin, less mass, can simply make it a giant fuel tank, supply pod, connected to a massive rocket. Fast acceleration, and rocket-assisted gravitational decelleration into docking-orbit w/ main rocket frame to merge w/ the frame where the lander module had been. A lift-off module would be dropped to the surface. Transport back to main vessel.
IF you wanted to have mars continually inhabited...use 2 manned transports 2 unmanned "fuelers"
order of launch...1st manned...1st fueler/2nd manned--fueler to arrive first..allowing 1st ground crew to reprovision in preparation for 2nd crew, which would arrive later...1st crew takes the first manned station back w/ the fueler module attached as balast for spin...2nd manned remains in orbit awaiting the return of the 1st manned vessel and 2nd fueler...
Sort of a cyclic multi-stage colonization of mars...?
food for thought...
Perhaps the powers that be think it's time to upgrade to Constition 2.0
You could a) copy all your texts manually (type the damn thing) and distribute via FreeNet or Gnutella (though you can track IPs much more easily IIRC).
Or else print screen and high jpeg compression... Either way it's pretty ludicrous.
Being the fan of public policy as I am, I would go for the consult your senator route first...that and socialize the damn issue. Slashdot is mostly preaching to the converted. Get an article in your local paper; letters to the editor are great. Major City papers are better still if you can swing it.
A large number of lesser acts *do* in fact allow and encourage recording of their shows. Cameras are different. Flashes disrupt the show. No one wants morons shooting at the stage blinding musicians. Your comment about if a live recording was produced by a company is also invalid. If it was produced by a company, then I would have made an attempt to purchase it (unless I'd heard that it wasn't worth the effort--which is ultimately, a moot point).
Also, there's the question of how Constitutionally viable contemporary copyright law is... There are definitely flaws to it. There is far too much power given to publishers/recording companies over artists.
I personally, am not a musician. I can play guitar if my life depended on it and can play drums well (over a decade of experience), but all the same I'd rather be scripting or writing a 40 page essay on political discourse. I simply try to sell the albums and do internet publicity on the side. I'm considerably more practical than my father and would prefer to work in a more profitable line of work. I.T. or law (though I still have quite a few years for the latter).
On the point of Napster being good for distribution, but not paying. In all truth, you're missing the boat on this one. Do you honestly think an unknown artist who very few people have ever heard of before is going to be able to get random people to PAY for downloading a song? In short, the answer is no. Even having a full list of songs available (in CD format, or close enough such that it doesn't matter) is enough to garner *significant* returns in CD purchases. Furthermore, it gets people interested and willing to go check out a show. What do you think pays off better, CDs or concerts? (The answer is, concerts, FYI.) CDs, help a lot however. They mean that you don't have to be touring every single day of the year. (Not like independent artists don't need other jobs as well.)
The bottom line from the artists perspective is that they do profit from free distribution. Enough people buy the album to make it very much worth their while, so much to the extent that many independent labels have become significant challenges to larger "big money" labels.
Insofar as your view of Napster as a bad thing.
On the view that people who hear the music for free won't buy the album. I entirely disagree with this. The majority of people I know. Virtually everyone at school, when they have the money, they *will* go out and buy the album. MP3 players aside, people who like music, will buy a CD over listening to MP3s. Why? CD quality is, quite frankly, a hell of a lot better. If you like music you won't settle for less. I won't. Most everyone I know won't.
Also, I always support my favorite artists directly. If they pass through the area, I'm at thier show, giving my support to their cause.
I think what we're seeing here is more of a paradigm shift in the very way we view and consume our art. The fact that more people are able to hear and experience the multitude of artists out there is enriching as a whole. The internet and programs like Napster allows thier voices and respective messages to be widely distributed. Which is better, a few tightly controlled media sources ruling the majority of all art consumption, guiding popular culture or allowing people to take control of it for themselves. Free consumption of music, frankly is the only way that seems to make sense. This also creates a greater incentive on the performer to strive to be better. For an artist to make revenue, his/her talent must stand out. Music, above and beyond is a performance art.
I used it regularly to find copies of live concerts of my favorite bands, or unsigned artists that did in fact encourage distribution. I purchased much more music after using Napster than before. However, I did purchased almost nothing from major labels...
Why would an artist do such a thing?
Simple: As a point another poster tried to get across, major labels effectively control the artist. Applications like napster that allow lesser known artists works to be easily spread, essentially gives them free publicity. Their works are not controlled by major labels. Often these artists have their own labels, and have little monetary clout. Major labels have a very large interest in silencing these independent up-starts.
Why? The infamous "They" control major publicity outlets: Radio, large amounts of capital to pay for conventional advertising. (TV, Record-store promos). Lesser known artists don't have this option due to that very lack of capital. Now keep in mind that the amount of disposable income for purpose of buying music is a constant. If people begin to hear all the lesser known unsigned artists (and there are VERY VERY many of them) who have their own independent labels (which by and large allow them to reap a far larger peice of the pie per the amount of people who buy their albums) then there will be less capital to flow to the major labels that control most distribution. This isn't conspiracy theory 101 here; this is common sense marketing. Hell, if I were on the board of a major label, I want to stifle Napster too!
BTW, my father is a musician, the internet is the distribution of the future. It's far more accessible, it's far cheaper. Anyone can put out a quality cd these days with little money. 30, hell, 10 years ago this wasn't true.
As an aside, show some tolerance and control when posting. Reactionary messages with agressive wording is not constructive and tends to be looked upon as immature and undereducated.
Okay, there was a minor fault in my argument. I was operating under a "Locke-ian" assumption of freedom that is limited such that one person's pursuit thereof may not hinder any other person's freedom (and vice versa).
This is somewhat of an idealist concept, but a necessary logical base.
Insofar as a healthy system, the U.S. system has been the most stable and successful in the world for a very long time. We've had a stable government and economic system for longer than any other country in the world (correct me if I'm wrong). Obviously, our system (economic and otherwise) is not perfect, but I would disagree that there are better models out there. This is not to say that there are no helpful hints that we could take from other nations. However, any drastic change would be fatal.
(quasi off-topic, now that I notice that you're an "Obie")
As for not being a capitalist: Fine by me, as long as you don't prosyletize the ISO paper (or whatever Revolutionary-Communist-Weekly is in vogue next semester) in front of Wilder or Tappan Square. };-)>
On a more serious note, if you agree that there should be a system where there is an incentive for competition, and that said competition is enforced, then you are necessarily a capitalist. (Unless, you have some plan of creating incentive other than by economic capital. IMO: This really is the only real incentive that works.)
So what about MS's .NET? While touted as a highly necessary evolution in internet and computer technologies (by not only MS marketing goons, but IT professionals).
Obviously, a side effect (if not the overall market strategy) is to bring control of applications and more importantly the capital that the applications generate, more fully under control of the corporation. While it produces a massive incentive to apps programmers, it also slices at freedom. Why? Information control...it's routed through central sources.
Yeah, I know it's paranoia, but that doesn't mean they're not out to get you...
enough for now...
g.e. "I know it sucks, but I still dig the Earth." -Chuck of moe.
Simply stated:
Of course! Don't buy Sony products. There are plenty of alternatives.
Actually, for non-political reasons, I won't buy Sony products. They build peice of $#!t products that break easily. I can't vouch for their gaming system as I rarely have time to play video games, and when I do, they're PC-based.
However, the not-so-easy problem is whether all similar companies with related interests will for political alliances. The answer to that is fairly obvious. (Of course they will, and in fact many such alliances exist...RIAA is only one example.)
So what is the user to do? In the face of mass political apathy it is difficult to accomplish anything substancial. The bottom line is that the lives of most people aren't effected enough by the issue for them to give a rat's @$$. Those who are concerned will act or at least complain loudly and noisomely. The technically savvy, who hang around like geeks surveying the myriad of articles that is /.org, are definitely noisome complainers if I'd ever seen any; myself inclusive. =)
We bitch hypocritically of the pervasive faults of "corporatocracy", and in the face of this, only serve to empower the powerful as we persist to buy their products. Rule of thumb: It's easier to bitch than to act. :p
On corporations
Think about their goals: The infamous "They" (Sony and large corporations like them, M$, etc)need to find a way to produce a product at the minimal cost to bring them revenue. How is this different than any other of life's imperatives, biological or otherwise? Simple: You find the best way to thrive, with the highest payoff and minimum level of work. This is the effective result of capitalism. IMO, once an effective the economic system that is Capitalism is established and internal power structures solidify to enforce only that only the economically powerful may prevail, the constraints in which the system operates should be altered in the form of law. Laws may be created to enforce a high rate of innovation, ensure quality, and stiffle inefficiencies.
The best way to combat such corporate goliaths is to prove that they have effectively stiffled real competition and innovation, and more noble capitalistic pursuits in their respective industries. In the music industry, it may just be possible to do this. The only effective way to revolutionize how information is dealt with, and how real consumer value is ensured is to fundamentally challenge the very definition of intellectual "property."
In the spirit of Neuromancer, however, there is always the possibility of all out information warfare. I mean, why not. Who needs bombs when you can use information? Why risk life when there is only capital at stake? The more savvy of us here, have tools and skills under their belt to physically challenge the status-quo. Granted, this is definitely a last resort approach (war always is). However, if there are ever real imbalances in power, we must keep in mind, that we (the people, in general) are not governed by the savvy. We're governed by the ambitious. Take that as you will.
Enough mental chaff for now,
g.e.
"I know it sucks, but I still dig the Earth."
-Chuck of moe.
Short, but important point:
I disagree with the distinction between economic and social freedom. By your own words, you have inadvertantly shown that there is no distinction.
An economic freedom is necessarily a subset of a social freedom and social freedom is, simply put, freedom.
By restricting freedom economically, you necessarily restrict it socially. Hence, prefering one type of freedom over another is a moot point.
Granted, in this very line of thought, you run into problems of whether campaign finance reform is right or wrong. Is it a good precedent? Is it not? That's a large topic that isn't appropriate to this thread, and would take far too long to explore.
The bottom line of this argument over Napster is about the definition of the very nature of the information being shared and to whom it really belongs. Obviously, much more hedges on this decision than Napster and RIAA, though obviously Napster and the RIAA have a huge stake in the outcome.
Other posters have described the details much more effectively than I could, so with this I return to lurk-mode.
g.slackerAtWork.e