Okay so I understand the intellectual property issues involved in this whole Napster MP3 phenomenon, but personally I believe it is a very interesting situation for a number of reasons.
First of all Napster is a force to be reckoned with just taking into consideration the sheer number of users, they have experienced a 480 percent increase in unique visitors since February of this year! That brings the number of people using Napster in at around 20 million MP3 traders.
Secondly Napster itself is not storing the MP3's that get distributed through its system. They are housed on individuals hard drives; Napster just provides the conduit so that users can trade files. Very similar to services provided by ISP's.
Thirdly, what are the legal issues involved if I download MP3's of songs that I have purchased on albums, tapes, or CD's down through the years? I have already paid for the right to have a copy of this song once - should I have to pay a new fee each time a new playback format emerges?
Fourth, It seems that overall recording industry sales are up 24% since Napster and MP3's have been around.
Additionally:
Lars is not the best spokesman against Napster. He's not helping the anti Napster crowd. It seems the members of Metallica admit to taping (copying) music before they were rich and famous. When they were told in 1997 that MP3's of their music was being traded over the net, they reportedly said " We don't give a f###!".
In the end I believe that Napster and the RIAA will work something out. It's in everyone's best interest. Artist should get paid for their work. Does this mean that the top stars and record companies continue to make the huge fortunes that they have enjoyed for the past 50 - 100 years. I don't know.
