I pretty much have a que sera sera mentality about the Napster case at this point (like I was when I was using it), so just a few closing statements:
Gomez - The things you have to understand is 1) This isn’t a black-and-white issue, and 2) in any event, it’s extremely difficult to rationalize the RIAA’s full-bore two-smoking-guns damn-the-torpedoes lawsuit.
First off, the “overwhelmingly favorable press” that Napster has gotten. They reason they’ve gotten it is because the service has done a lot of positive things, especially giving publicity to little-known artists and enabling them to make a living (which pretty much kills the “destroying artists’ livelihood” argument dead). And the record stores benefit as well, since they’re the ones capitalizing on the artists’ newfound popularity. The ones that are hurt the most are the big record companies (who have a proven track record of overcharging for CDs) and some old groups living off of royalties. Which side do you expect a free press to take?
As douglips and many others have pointed out, killing Napster isn’t going to stop file swapping; it’ll just pass the buck to any number of smaller, decentralized services, any one of which will be difficult to target. If the RIAA had any sense, they would have realized that Internet swapping was not only inevitable and unstoppable…but usable! You know, use Napster as a source of advertising, publicity, pay-per-use special services, and so forth. There was a potential gold mine here which the RIAA completely missed out on.
Underlying all this, however, is a far more basic issue (which Ted has pointed out) of whether it’s even worth it to prosecute each and every little law. I mean, how many people obey every speed limit every time? Yet only a small percentage of speeders get into accidents, the same as the rest of the population. Of all the traffic altercations I’ve had, all of them occurred when I was going less than 5 MPH. Of course speeding is illegal all the time, but since it’s impossible to catch every single speeder and there’s relatively little harm done, most of the time it goes unchecked. And even those that do get caught only have to pony up a fine, not their licences. Same with “stealing intellectual property”. Yes, it may be violating a copyright, but where’s the harm? The big reason I rarely buy CDs is that they’re too expensive, so Napster really hasn’t given me anything I wouldn’t have paid for in the first place…and again, any lost sales have to be balanced against the good side of the service. Also, with millions of downloaders and numerous services waiting to take over Napster’s place, how can anyone even attempt to prosecute them all?
I’m not advocating lawlessness by any means. Serious crimes such as rape and murder should continue to be fully prosecuted. But these are actions which are known cause great harm and generally accepted to be wrong, and it is possible to prosecute all, or at least a large number, of such offenders. See. Priority. Perspective. Will of the people. Not just the letter of the law. That’s how a free society works.
There’s also the issue of whether anyone has the right to make millions out of music, something a lot of people who are pretty good at it don’t get a paid a cent for, but I won’t get into that.
RTFirefly - I’ve read the arguments against Napster, and to me they’re just as weak and unconvincing as some of the arguments in favor of it. Reality check…opposing a popular service on the grounds that it’s technically “illegal”…or worse, immoral…is unlikely to change anyone’s mind. Another example: We already know that “the only safe sex is no sex”…so what, is that supposed to keep us virginal for our entire lives?
