Napster: Ridiculous article on MSNBC.com supporting it

[Wangel]

Napster was the most convenient site and easiest to use.

 

[403Forbidden]

AndrewR




<< I know there are legal uses of Napster, but you cannot honestly say that the majority of people who use it are doing so for legal purposes. >>




I assume you are aware of legal precendent since you seem to have legal knowledge.
So you should know that as long as there is a legitimant use for a product, the product
will remain even if the illigitimant use far outweighs the legitimant use.

It's stated in a major case from the mid 1980's...the name escapes me right now.

 

[Peacefull]

Ok...so at what point was I to realize that having a Dr.Dre song downloaded was illegal???

I was banned on Oct 15th....and the list was provided to Napster from May 17th....

Where was my &quot;warning&quot; to get the songs off...before I was banned???

I don't see ANYTHING on their site telling me that some &quot;artists&quot; (using the term lightly referring to Dr. Dre of course) would get Pi$$ed off and decide to ban/sue me...

Yes, I download songs on Napster...that is what they are there for...I don't have a CD burner...or an MP3 Player...I simply have the songs on my computer to listen to...they are mostly songs that I already HAVE the CD's and just don't want to play DJ while I work on my computer....

So lock me up....I don't think so...

 

[AudioBitch]

Napster, granted, was created for the illegal sharing of mp3's. Shawn Fanning did not create it so that he could find artists he had never heard of before. However, he created one of the best pieces of software and technology sharing devices we have of the 20th century. Music will be shared over the internet as long as there are no laws governing the internet and its uses.
Napster has gone ahead and added features which allow users to find music from author's they had never heard.
Since I have downloaded Napster, I have increased the amount of music I purchase by a considerable amount. If the RIAA would just take a hold of this great technology and not try to shut it down and stop progress, they could stand to make some money. I would willingly pay 5-10 dollars to use napster for a year or so. The RIAA could take some of this, and Napster would have a source of income rather than working of grants. Napster is a legal company. It is not just a bunch of rebel kids who want to piss people off. The RIAA could easily look at Napster as a way to bring in more profits. I tell a bunch of people to download a band's song and they like it, so they go buy the CD.
MP3 quality is quite good and the original MP3 does not degrade, but CD quality is quite better and easier to transport, granted you can burn them onto a CD. However, not all CD players will play RW disks.
The RIAA needs to pull Lars out of their asses and sit down with Napster to discuss compromises. The RIAA will only accept a total shut down of Napster and for that reason they will not win. A court will not decide to totally eradicate a great technological advance.