The Cellar - View Single Post

Dagnabit · 01-30-2001, 01:58 PM

I wanted to talk about this but figured we should start another thread. So, two things spring to mind about Napster.

ONE..... they are very obviously participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.

I would defend the publication of instructions on how to do illegal things - that's free speech. So I'm wondering where the line gets crossed. How arbitrary is the line?

Fedex has been delivering a lot of illegal packages. The law requires that if your package is not actually urgent, an overnight delivery service can't deliver it -- it has to go via the US Mail. Fedex encourages the use of Fedex for non-urgent delivery. Fedex is participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law.

TWO..... where advances in technology enable a new approach, if that approach is not provided by the traditional market, new markets or approaches will spring up to take advantage.

This happens even if the other approaches are illegal -- witness Fedex. And if the companies protect their market through lobbying for legislation or "blank tape taxes" or such, they are participating in a losing situation in the long run. Now that the net is worldwide, information is worldwide and competition is also worldwide. Something being lobbied to be made illegal in the US just means that offshore activity in that trade will INCREASE.

So nobody is let off the hook here. Individuals are knowingly breaking the law; Napster is conspiring to break the law; the entertainment companies are just seeing their comeuppance from years of behaving badly; the government is too dunderheaded to work out better and different copyright schemes; law enforcement just does what's easy and what it wants to do.

In such a ridiculous situation, I'm encouraged to take the "no harm no foul" approach. I'll go by the approach of a friend of mine, talking about software piracy: if I wouldn't have bought the software at their price, I don't feel bad about pirating it; if I like the software, use it, and would buy it at their price, then I do buy it. I give the companies what I believe they should get.

So if I use Napster and find that I like something, I go buy it, even if I can get the entire album via mp3.

01-30-2001, 01:58 PM	#1
Dagnabit High Propagandist Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 115	I wanted to talk about this but figured we should start another thread. So, two things spring to mind about Napster. ONE..... they are very obviously participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law. I would defend the publication of instructions on how to do illegal things - that's free speech. So I'm wondering where the line gets crossed. How arbitrary is the line? Fedex has been delivering a lot of illegal packages. The law requires that if your package is not actually urgent, an overnight delivery service can't deliver it -- it has to go via the US Mail. Fedex encourages the use of Fedex for non-urgent delivery. Fedex is participating in and gaining from a massive conspiracy to break the law. TWO..... where advances in technology enable a new approach, if that approach is not provided by the traditional market, new markets or approaches will spring up to take advantage. This happens even if the other approaches are illegal -- witness Fedex. And if the companies protect their market through lobbying for legislation or "blank tape taxes" or such, they are participating in a losing situation in the long run. Now that the net is worldwide, information is worldwide and competition is also worldwide. Something being lobbied to be made illegal in the US just means that offshore activity in that trade will INCREASE. So nobody is let off the hook here. Individuals are knowingly breaking the law; Napster is conspiring to break the law; the entertainment companies are just seeing their comeuppance from years of behaving badly; the government is too dunderheaded to work out better and different copyright schemes; law enforcement just does what's easy and what it wants to do. In such a ridiculous situation, I'm encouraged to take the "no harm no foul" approach. I'll go by the approach of a friend of mine, talking about software piracy: if I wouldn't have bought the software at their price, I don't feel bad about pirating it; if I like the software, use it, and would buy it at their price, then I do buy it. I give the companies what I believe they should get. So if I use Napster and find that I like something, I go buy it, even if I can get the entire album via mp3.