What do you think about Napster?

[tw]

I believe you are misreading what I posted. Clearly stated is that the creator has a right to profit. Also that it is critical to the society / economy for innovations to be shared - to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creator. The problem is one of people who stifle the new creations. This is but another problem, another example, of copyright and patent laws that require serious, pro-active legislation.

Xerox had every right to sue Apple for stealing their technology - legally. And legally Xerox had every right to stifle the GUI interface, mouse type devices, etc. IOW if the creator's bosses chose to stifle technology, then why is this not reason enough for the bosses to surrender the innovation to the creator? McPherson suspension is a classic example of an idea patented in 1946 and kept out of America until 1980. In the meantime, the creator McPherson was forced to leave America to continue work on his baby.

However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it.

Originally posted by wst3

How is it anti-anything to want to be compensated for the cost of developing an idea? Why shouldn't it be IBM's choice as to whether or not they license this technology?

I agree that licensing makes the most sense for a lot of reasons... it helps the creator recoup expenses at the least, and maybe even make a profit, which encourages future innovation, and it allows others to enhance the idea.

And if this is alright then why isn't it alright for an artist to license their creations and be compensated for their efforts?

In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community. Even in we fear to innovate Aydinin early 1980s, I was running an internet connected VAX. But the facts known from all that technology should have been sufficient warning for even Congressmen and music industry executives to see the future. No they sat on their asses almost another 10 years after the Internet became more ubiquitious - intentionally ignoring everything about the Internet even before Napster existed.

When is it illegal to copy something if you don't sell it? Also this special exemption for entertainment is new to me - as is the interesting lawyer's twist of claiming the CD's are for music study.

Napster's loss in court was not that they were infriging on copyright but that they were doing damage to the industry. Napster was not selling anything. Indeed most of the music exchanges were not even on their machines. But it was Napsters action's that hurt the industry.

Limiting law only to it myopic perspectives, then OK, that is correct. Lawyers are only interested in the letter of the law - not its purpose. But I agrue that the Napster case ignored the bigger picture - that people and music creator both are denied rights to freely exchange (and profit) from new technologies because, like McPherson, the big industry leaders have conspired to ignore new market demands, needs, and possibilities. Indeed Bertlemann is not being openly blackballed - just like the American auto industry was not blackballing Honda and Volvo - even though the industry kept shutting down trade associations so that Honda and Volvo would be excluded again. Actually Bertlemann is getting a very cold shoulder from it industry peer only because they endorsed the new markets. Bertlesmann has chosen to confront and do business with the internet. The others still sit on their asses - they don't even have a good plan to deal with China after how many decades?

The concepts of the Internet were learned first in the 1970s. To say the industry could not have known in the late 1990 is to prove the industry is guilty of being an ostrich. From PBS's Trimuph of the Nerds - the major internet function was music exchange. That should have been well known to the music industry by the late 1980s. Instead they ignored same.

BTW the same problems in music will also be in movies as technology marches on. Without better internet music solutions, then the same piracy problems will expand to all other electronic entertainment industries.

I am not saying that stealing is supported or legal. Indeed the little people (ie. Metallica) are always the first to suffer when the industry big wigs fear innovation. I share Metallica's pain. But I must first worry about America.

Any industry that is more worried about their profits than about their products - is no different than the mafia. Only the enemies of a free market system would say that the purpose of a company is to earn profits. That is corruption. The purpose of a company is to provide society with new products and services. If said company serves its purpose, then it deserves the REWARD - profits. If said company is only worried about profits, then it is to society's advantage that it have none. Napster indicates that the industry may have more profits than it deserves - not necessarily legally but economically and socially.