OFF TOPIC: Napster

[Bob George <bgp76@pacbell.net>]

I just wanted to pick your brains out there regarding the pending shutdown
of Napster, sorry for the off-topic.

As many of you know, Napster will be shut down on Friday thanks to an
injunction issued yesterday by a California judge.  Napster is trying to
block the injunction, but if they are unsuccessful they will be shut down
Friday at midnight pacific time.

RIAA is contending that Napster is guilty of music piracy.  Napster contends
that they are merely allowing users to do with songs like we have done with
VCRs since 1980.

At the heart of this issue is the term "sharing" versus "duplicating".
RIAA, as well as the band Metallica, feels that this illegal sharing has
cost the recording industry millions of dollars.  Many folks are outraged,
saying that the Internet is a "free trading" medium anyway.

Think for a second.  Every day I read the Boston Globe and the Boston
Herald.  They have no problem with me doing that, since I pay them no money
to buy a paper.  They get advertising revenue, something that Napster hasn't
done (yet).  But each day, I read the Globe and Herald (and others) free of
charge.  The Globe and Herald aren't complaining!

Here is something that no one is considering:

I get NOTHING free on the Internet!  Why?  Because I pay Pacific Bell $50 a
month for my DSL!  Without the DSL, I have no Internet access!  So, how can
these RIAA folks sit there and tell me I'm acquiring music FOR FREE???

Okay, some of you are probably saying "Bob, why don't you just subscribe to
FreeInternet.com or the like?"  No thanks.  I enjoy life at 1.6MBps versus
44Kbps.  Besides, these free Internet services are chock full of annoying
ads and windows you can't make go away without disconnecting.

Anyway, this is part of my solution:

If RIAA is so concerned with losing money, why not push for legislation to
force Napster and other related companies to have to pay to allow users to
trade songs online?  Given the popularity of Napster, they would command top
advertising money easily and could give RIAA any kickback it sought in court
(and believe me, it would have to be done in court).  This way, Napster
could make more money themselves through ads, the artists who rightfully
deserve to be paid thanks to their talents would get something in the deal,
and we can continue to acquire the songs of theirs we love so dearly.

Again, sorry for the off topic, but I'm sure lots of you out there are
angered by these developments.

Off the soap box,

Bob George
http://www.bossports.com
http://patriots.rivals.com