I know that they are still trying to shut down napster but what i don't get is what is the difference between napster and the radio or the music stations that's on your cable service?

I can record any song off the radio in CD quality and then email it to my friends winamp.com for example (winamp radio) they have radio stations in 128 kps 44Khz and i think that's the same quality as a CD? i can just record the songs i want from there and share them with my friends that's not as easy as napster but it's basically doing the same thing isn't it?

Yep, you can record them and send them, but you are breaking the law if you do. Radio and other media such as the music on you cable system have either paid for the right to play that music or have permission from the artist to play it.

Napster is essentially facilitating copyright violations. I know there are strong feelings over this on both sides. I feel the music industry has engaged in price fixing over the years, but two wrongs don't make a right. I know that is cliched, but it is true.

I never understood where anyone would have the rationale to justify the sharing of copyrighted music.

While we are at it, lets get a site up called warezster and have users exchange programs. Same concept, yet this site would be shut down as soon as it got started.

Although radio isn't exactly the best comparison, other file sharing programs are, and beyond that, any means that you can 'send' or 'share' files.

I've posted about this before, and if napster doesn't come out on top of this, then it will be a shame. Napster is a program. It is no more responsible than the carriers that transport the data.

You could shut down the entire internet and there'd still be illegal mp3's. The blame is misguided and should fall upon those who are responsible, the ones making the illegal music available.

But that's too difficult, easier to go after the program. *sigh*

A gun is a tool, You can **** it and leave it on a table for 450 years, as long as no one touches it will be right there cocked waiting.

Napster the same way.

NAPSTER ROCKS. I love NAPSTER. NAPSTER SHALL LIVE FOREVER

p.s. please excuse that sudden outburst of nothingness

Unlike guns and the internet, Napster only has one function - facilitating copyright infringement. Just my opinion. I can see your point though about the fact that it is just a program. I guess I have gotten caught up the illusion that it is an entity.

That's just wrong - it's like saying the Internet itself is only useful for facilitating copyright infringement.

Napster is just a collection of search and file-transfer protocols. Sounds a lot like HTTP, FTP, etc. The only difference is that Napster makes it a lot easier to find users that are making particular types of files available. These users could just as well be posting their files to web pages, or on FTP servers, or trading over ICQ, etc.

I won't argue that the majority of file-trading activity on Napster is in violation of copyright. But that isn't the point. In a truly free country, a carrier is not held responsible for the actions of users using its network. To be blunt, it really is not Napster's problems. You have a problem with what users are sending across the network? Go after the users.

Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

I won't argue that the majority of file-trading activity on Napster is in violation of copyright. But that isn't the point.
That is exactly the point, and the only point. As a former recording artist, I firmly believe it should be up to the artist to determine how his or her work is published. Napster exists only to make it possible to publish copyrighted materials in a way that robs musicians of their livelyhoods, and control of their work. There is no other purpose for it. It is theft if it is done without permission. It is no less theft if you make a copy of my recording and give it to a friend, but Napster makes it possible on a grand scale. Yes, yes, yes: the media loves the David vs Goliath image of little Napster going up against the major record companies; but there are many, many artists who record for small indie labels or produce their own recordings, for whom the loss of revenue from sales is the difference between making a living and giving up their music for a "day job." It may help some musicians to have their work distributed in this way, giving them greater exposure. OTOH, as a musician friend of mine likes to say, "Exposure?! People DIE of exposure!!"

Napster should be restricted to distributing only those works it has permission to distribute, or shut down. Or should they be allowed to distribute your control panel, or Cp3, or Plesk, or MS Office without permission via a similar service? There's no difference.

Hot button issue for me as a former recording artist with a small indie label, as you can probably tell.

Deb,

Make no mistake - I understand and respect the position of the recording artists who want to maintain control over the distribution of their music.

My point, however, is that Napster is no more or less a facilitator than AT&T or UUNet for providing Internet connections - or anybody else who provides any element of the connection over which the copyrighted material is flowing. Why are they being singled out? Who's next - the connection providers, FTP software makers? Or should we sue Tim Berners-Lee for making HTTP, which facilitates lots of unauthorized transfer of copyrighted material every day?

The basic problem is that there currently isn't a technologically feasible way to determine if a user is within their rights to offer a file for distribution. There are, of course, two options available at the moment:

- Shut down Napster
- Restrict Napster to only supporting transfers of approved material.

However, option number two still isn't technologically feasible. You can filter on filenames, but that will have far from 100% accuracy, and people can alter filenames easily. You can filter on "signatures" created by analyzing the audio content, but that's computationally expensive, and can probably also be fooled by modifying a song's duration or amplitude, or by simply compressing or encoding it.

Of course, there is much work being done right now on solidifying technology that *will* address rights management for copying of digital material. But the fear in a lot of people (including me) is that this will extend beyond reasonable prevention of piracy, and into undue control of fair use and copies for personal use.

I respect and understand both sides of the issue. Personally, I haven't bought a CD in years! Since I've been using Napster I (and my wife) have bought approximately a dozen over the past few months. My wife likes to listen to the music using napster, and if she likes it she often goes out to HMV and buys it. We may not be the norm, but Napster has only bolstered sales for the record companies in our house.

Now, that doesn't justify the illegal copying of music, but it certainly isn't hurting the record companies (nor the musicians) in our case.

I completely disagree with Deb.

If users didn't make the music (illegal music that is) available on their hard drives, there would be absolutely no illegal file transfers.

People transfer mp3's via ICQ. Shut it down?
People transfer files via other FTP file sharing ultilities. Shut them all down?
People transfer mp3's via email. Shut down pacbell, and all the connections that facilitiated this?

It is just wrong. Mind you, I'm a musician, a drummer, and know many musicians in the L.A. area.

This is happening with so many other programs, and connections that I just can't see how it is that simple, to quote you, "and the only point". It's just not possible to be the only point.

Picture this: In the future, it is discovered that drugs are being transported in the best selling Chevy van (this is due to the van being more popular and outselling all other vans combined). The authorities determine that it is the van that is responsible, decide to go after Chevrolet and attempt to shut down the automobile maker.

Why wouldn't this reasoning work? Hmmmmmm. Seems flawed wouldn't you say? Maybe we could shut down the stretch of road that is being used to transport the goods? Nope, still terribly flawed.

You can shut down Napster, -and one by one shut down every Napster-type utility, but someone, somewhere is going to realize that it wasn't the program after all.

Napster could be a viable method of legal music distribution, as could the internet in general. It isn't being used that way, due to the users. Liability has to be placed upon the people who are violating the law and no where else. That is how it must be.

Again, I am a musician and these are my views on the subject.

[Edited by Chicken on 02-14-2001 at 12:02 AM]

hmmmmm...... this is the kinda issue you can argue for ever and ever... the basic fact is, napster is a tool... how it is used is upto the user... it is not the tools fault if its used to brake laws or make laws or whatever... its simple common sense... some one uses a knife to kill some one else... do you put a ban on knifes? No. Why napster then? Its just a lame excuse for the music industry to pull some one to court and nurture their wounded egos.


Memo to the RIAA: Call off the lawyers and put your marketeers to work. Buy out the Napster guys and put them to work for *you*. (General Motors and Microsoft have been doing it for years.)

I'm no expert on this issue, in fact I don't even use Napster. But didn't the latest ruling say that they "Knowingly encouraged copyright infringement" or something like that? I think rulings in the past have basically said "Napster is just the tool, don't blame the tool" but the latest one has actually said "The corporation behind the tool is encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement".

Although I did hear another interesting argument. Someone reckoned that Napster was undermining fair trade by "not competing fairly" in the market - sort of cheating the music trade.

But I'm not really swayed either way, because I don't know all the facts on the issue.

Originally posted by Lawrence
...but the latest one has actually said "The corporation behind the tool is encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement"

Now that's an argument that I can understand at least. I don't think it is one that someone could answer yes/no to (tends to shift toward opinion more than anything), but at least it is opinion that could be decided through a majority vote (of whoever ends up in charge of deciding these things).

Truthfully, I don't know if they ever encouraged it or not. I have never seen anything on napster's site that said, "Share your illegal mp3's", but then again I've used the program a total of three times, and gone to the site twice so I'm really not an authority on that issue either. I've heard it has helped some bands (etc.) as well, but I've never seen numbers so I can't really comment on that either.

I would be interested in hearing any information about this if anyone knows anything.

hmmm.. i guess time to do some research on this topic.

"The corporation behind the tool is encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement"
Exactly right. They are as responsible as a host that makes a business of hosting warez or child porn sites on their servers. Warez and child porn are illegal. Copyright infringement is illegal. If it was copyrighted software instead of copyrighted music being transmitted over Napster, it would've been shut down long ago. Music is not highly valued in our culture, nor are musicians.

Someone reckoned that Napster was undermining fair trade by "not competing fairly" in the market - sort of cheating the music trade.
Also true. Broadcast radio pays royalties for their use of music. Napster pays none, except for that one music company with which they recently made an agreement.

People transfer mp3's via ICQ. Shut it down?
People transfer files via other FTP file sharing ultilities. Shut them all down?
People transfer mp3's via email. Shut down pacbell, and all the connections that facilitiated this?
These arguments are specious. Napster is a broadcast business. They are a virtual radio station, their software a virtual receiver. You have to buy a radio to listen to broadcast radio. Does law enforcement control radio broadcasts by coming into our houses and confiscating our radios? No, they make laws, already on the books, to regulate the broadcast industry, including those protecting copyright.

Napster is a broadcast medium, and as such should be subject to the existing laws under which other broadcast media operate.

How are they "encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement"? Nothing is stored on the Napster Servers. So, it cannot be compared to a webhosting server. And it cannot be help liable for any damages caused because of its users.

Im kinda lost.. Napster a "broadcast" medium? I dun think so. Its not an online radio. Its simply a file sharing medium.

Originally posted by Deb Suran
Music is not highly valued in our culture, nor are musicians.


Deb, I agree with your other remarks except for this incidental one. Music has been an important part of humanity since before there were civilizations. Let's skip the history of music and get right to current, pop culture. What are the most poipular radio stations? Those that carry music. Why is Michael Jackson so rich? It's not because he's the poster boy for a natural look.

Why are groups like The Rolling Stones and individuals like Mick Jagger and Rod Stewart still popular after all these years?

Why do even elevators have some type of music, however bland it may be?

Why is the music industry a multi-bilion dollar one? Why is the Napster issue even an issue?

I submit you are utterly wrong on this point and that both music and musicians are very important in our culture as they have been in nost cultures throughout the centuries.

Perhaps you meant that you felt the copyrights of musicians were not treated with the same accord as that of software publishers.

Originally posted by kunal
How are they "encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement"? Nothing is stored on the Napster Servers. So, it cannot be compared to a webhosting server. And it cannot be help liable for any damages caused because of its users.

Im kinda lost.. Napster a "broadcast" medium? I dun think so. Its not an online radio. Its simply a file sharing medium.

I agree with Kunal!! That's like saying that Search Engines are a "broadcast" medium since you can easily search for illegal MP3's using Yahoo, Lycos, etc...

Napster may make it easier to find these files, but I don't believe they are responsible for the illegal distribution of music any more than the traditional search engines are.

Originally posted by kunal
How are they "encouraging use of the tool in copyright infringement"?

It was only this week that that court ruling was made (I don't remember the exact wording), so you should be able to find somewhere how they were apparently encouraging copyright infringement. I'm not sure either.

If I feel compelled I'll have a look in a few papers.

Originally posted by tabernack
Napster may make it easier to find these files, but I don't believe they are responsible for the illegal distribution of music any more than the traditional search engines are. Come on. If you're making a legal argument, you're making exactly the one Napster's lawyers have to make. But if you're being just plain honest you know that's not true. Have you heard or read interviews with Napster's founder and leaders? They developed the system specifically to facilitate the free exchange of music files. They used to be completely upfront about that; since the legal entanglements have begun they've been understandably less so. But the intent behind the development of Napster was clearly to provide a means to circumvent copyright on music files.

Whether it's right or wrong, and legal or illegal, are different arguments; but it's silly to say that the intent was just to create a way to generically share files.

Originally posted by JayC
Originally posted by tabernack
Napster may make it easier to find these files, but I don't believe they are responsible for the illegal distribution of music any more than the traditional search engines are.
Whether it's right or wrong, and legal or illegal, are different arguments; but it's silly to say that the intent was just to create a way to generically share files.

Where in my post did you see me mention (or discuss) what was or wasn't the intent of the creators of Napster. I didn't even touch that subject. What I did say is that Napster is a search engine, a revolutionary one, but a search engine nonetheless.

The Acura NSX has a top speed of around 150 MPH, right? What do you think Acura's intent was? To build a car that would keep within the speed limits? No! So when someone speeds down a freeway doing 100 MPH, does acura get taken to court for speeding? Absolutely not, it would be absurd to think so. I know this is an overly simplistic view but I don't believe that Napster is liable for the illegal distribution of music any more than Acura is for speeding NSX owners. Each individual is responsible for their own actions, blaming someone/something else for them is an excuse and a way to avoid the real problem.

Originally posted by JayC
They developed the system specifically to facilitate the free exchange of music files.

I see nothing wrong with creating a tool that "facilitates the free exchange of music files." Where do you see a problem there???? Where is a law being broken by creating such a tool?

[Edited by tabernack on 02-14-2001 at 08:15 PM]

Originally posted by tabernack
I see nothing wrong with creating a tool that "facilitates the free exchange of music files." Where do you see a problem there???? Where is a law being broken by creating such a tool? I didn't say, and am not saying, that they've broken any laws, or that there's "a problem there." That, of course, is what the courts are now wrestling with.

My point is that their intent is clear: their original intent was to make it easier for people to make copies of music; to make it easier for people who choose to do so to violate copyright laws.

What they said in the "early days" when they did speak openly was that the system of copyright is ineffective and out of date, and that the music industry should adopt to present-day realities and abandon the old concepts.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. What I am saying is that defending Napster by saying that its intended use is something other than to promote or ease the violation of copyright laws is either disingenuous or naive. And the fact that it could be used to share files other than copyrighted musical works -- or that it sometimes is -- doesn't change that simple reality.

True. I don't know the history behind it therefore I can't base my opinion on that. Whether or not their intentions were to facilitate the distribution of copyright music or not, my opinion is the same. They're are hundreds of tools in our society that could be used for illegal purposes, whether created for that purpose or not. I just don't believe in blaming something/someone for my actions, or for the actions of others.

But, again, I do not know the WHOLE history of Napster, therefore arguing on the creators intent (and therefore the basis of the court challenge) would not be my strong point.

Originally posted by Marty
I can see your point though about the fact that it is just a program. I guess I have gotten caught up the illusion that it is an entity. Actually, it's both. And a dessert topping!

Seriously, Napster is not just the software application; it is an entity: it's a corporation with some 50 employees backed by $15 million-plus in venture capital funding. If it were the case that it's just software, it couldn't really be shut down by the actions of the US or any other government, any more than ftp or irc could be. It's because there is a legal entity behind it that there are legal avenues available to those who oppose it.