Feelings on Napster?

Napster Doesn't make money for the people who run it. Do you see any advertisements? NO. They make there money by getting hired to do other jobs and they get payed big time. Napster gave these guys a name and put it out there. Now everybody wants to use them for something. That's where they get there money. If they actually made a penny directly from napster say from ads then there is no way the judge would have been kind enough to allow napster to stay up. There arguments would have meant dirt because everybody would see that they would be using napster out of plain greed like the record companies greed. Also I would never buy most of the songs albums I downloaded anyway. there just one hit wonders. But when I find good stuff I'll buy the CD. I dicovered terry bozzio's music and I'm going to buy some of his cd's. I would have never known about his own albums if I didn't search his name on napster and get to hear what he does.

We don't "buy" properties like recordings or software unless our name is Gates, Verve, etc. In most cases a record company, software developer or individual retains the actual rights of ownership. What we pay for is the right to use a property within certain boundaries. Commercial use of these properties without paying an additional royalty, as well as unlicensed distribution to other users, even at no gain to ourselves, is generally disallowed by Federal statute. So, while they may not be breaking the law directly (and the courts will rule on this point soon), Napster and others like them, such as warez sites, do encourage their users to steal by facilitating their actions (the appropriate slang is "fence"). That makes them suspect of being an accessory to the crime. And it is a crime. My wish is that somehow an arrangement will be worked out so that samples of music can be legally distributed using a vehicle like Napster. Properly implemented it wouldn't cut into sales and could be a boon to the industry. But until some agreement is reached and the owners of the materials in question agree to the open distribution of their property I have to take the position that Napster is engaged in illegal activity or at very least encouraging it. With twenty years in the software business I've developed quite a negative attitude toward those that willingly steal others' work. If it's too expensive, don't buy it. But don't make up excuses about being wronged in the past and present to rationalize why it's OK. It's still theft and it's still wrong.

Fpeel well put.Stealing is stealing.

Let's make one thing clear. I am not against the concept of a Napster. In fact, I think that's the way we're all headed. Complile a favorite song list, downoad it to a flash chip the size of a pack of gum and throw it into your nearest MP-3 player. This will probably become so seamless it will replace radio some day. I think it is not an argument or an indictment of the technolgy but of the company's practice. This is akin to downloading all movies into a database(via individuals who own a digital copy of it) and allowing you to view on-line. This could well be the case in ten years or less! Is the argument then supposed to be; "Wow I like it on-line, now I'm going to buy a ticket and see it at the theater!" Or "I liked it, now I'm going to buy it on DVD"! I don't think so. Yes, we may be talking about songs right now, but think about the legal precedent it would set! And it wouldn't stop there. Do we really want more specialized laws - or more laws in general? That's what would happen if Napster wins this thing.

After spending the last 20 minutes reading ALL of these titillating posts, I'm just happy to see that Carl Eber and Issabre kissed and made up. It just gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling about being a modern day audiophile...I think I'll go buy some new cable now. It also made me miss Mr. Gridlock. Where'd ya go man? Your posts were dope.