RE: Crooks

I used the kids analogy because I know kids who use Napster to illegally download music. They aren't my kids, so there's nothing I can do about it. But these kids don't know copyright law, don't know what it's like to live below the poverty line, to EVER be hungry, to ever have hardship.

These kids think it's okay to steal because Napster lets them. What message does that send our kids? Seriously!! We're going to have to deal with what this does to kids' pysches, soon enough. That's fucking scary.

Situation 1:

MSIE 5 has a search button. When I click it, it splits my browser window into two panes. The left pane is the MSN search page. an gives me a box to type in some search criteria. When I click the search button the other window pane provides me with results. I click on a link in the browser window and go to a page. I click on a link for an MP3 file. A window pops up asking me if I want to play the file or save it. I choose play. A few minutes later I'm playing a pirated Metallica MP3 on the Windows Media player. All the software and services are provided by Microsoft.

Based on experience watching these kids, I can argue this point. My argument is based on convenience.

1) You type Metallica or Britney Spears into an MSN search box, and you aren't going to be presented with a list of MP3 files. You're going to have to massage a search query, maybe 5 times, before you come close. If you can't find MP3 files directly, you'll have to hunt a dozen sites found off of MSN's search engine to get to the MP3s.

It takes some research experience to do this very well -- 13 year old kids aren't going to be very succesful doing this.

Compare that to Napster. You type in Britney Spears, and there you are. Done -- instant gratification. It's a no-brainer.

2) You type Metallica or Britney Spears into an MSN search box, and you're going to get links to articles, fan sites, interviews, and other information about the artists. You can't get ANY of that on Napster... they only "deal" in music.

3) With Napster, you can have dozens of downloads happening simultanously. It automatically downloads them into a handy place for you. You can choose when you play a file after it's finished downloading.

With IE/MSN/MMP, you have to manage dozens of download windows, save each file individually where you want it, make sure the correct file extension is on the file so you can double click it. And the worst part is it'll probably automatically start playing in Media Player once it's done downloading, interrupting whatever you're listening to at the time.

As I said, it's a matter of convenience. Napster provides all the tools to make it as easy and fun as possible to listen to MP3 files, and they don't live up to their policies regarding copyrighted materials, unless they're sued.

You can't compare Napster to IE/MSN/MMP -- two entirely different experiences, requiring VASTLY different amounts of computer and research experience!

Say Napster implement a micropayments system and allow files to be available for free too. How will that make them more legal. I'll still be able to share pirated files.

And that would still be illegal, in my opinion. Napster, and we, should respect the rights (and laws protecting) of the artists whose music is traded with Napster.

If micropayments were enabled, you'd have to pay if the artist wanted compensation. An optional compensation feature would be nice for the artist too, if they wanted it "by donation"... some might like that.

How will they be able to tell if I rename "One" to "Definitiely not One by Metallica, this file is definitely not pirated"? How will that make them not the "theft engine" they are today?

I suggested a feature where users would be given a commission for hosting songs for download.

Imagine if the respective artists paid those commissions, by proxy of Napster, instead of Napster itself? Then, you'd be robbing yourself of potential compensation if you named your files wrong.

Now, what's to stop people from naming all their files as Metallica songs to get lots of commissions? That's a tougher one, but there must be some way to verify a song -- i know there's been research on this one. Perhaps the songs would have to satisy some checksum (1 per bitrate) or something to be an official Metallica song. That would mean they would have to be ripped in a special way, or originate from the artist itself, somehow. Large technical hurdle, but by NO means infeasible.

The whole concept actually makes me excited!

Lots of industries would benefit from this -- broadband, hard drive manufacturers, people who make MP3 players, etc. And of course, artists could finally be paid WELL for their music, and users could get paid for supporting the artists too!

Jim