oup, The Offspring, told Jolie Lash of Rolling Stone Magazine, "I don't know what Metallica's motives or reasons for what they're doing are, but as far as we're concerned, I support the exchange of MP3 files online" (1). Other newer groups followed suit with The Offspring. Fred Durst of Limp Bizkit said, "We believe that the Internet and Napster should not be ignored by the music industry as tools to promote awareness for bands and [to] market music." He goes on to say in an interview with Eric Boehlert of Salon.com, "We could care less about the older generation's need to keep doing business as usual, we care more about what our fans want and our fans want music on the Internet"(2). Artists definitely have a legitimate complaint, but it is not with Napster. The problem has to be with the actual people who have taken the trouble to convert the digital song into a MP3 file, and then stored it on their computer for the world to download. The genius behind Napster lies herein; will the recording artists litigate ten million of their fans? Can they stomach to prosecute them? This is what makes the lawsuit against Napster preposterous. It is like suing Smith and Wesson for a tragic school shooting. They did not do the crime they just built the gun. This is an exaggerated example but the principles are the same.Scott Bruffey says in a response to the Napster lawsuit, "As a musician myself, I don't mind the occasional 'borrowing' of my copyrighted material; it's almost always encouraged the borrower to purchase some of my other material. Mp3's are NOT as high quality as an original CD, and whenever someone I know has downloaded unauthorized material, they use it as a 'test drive' prior to purchasing the legitimate release" (1). With all of this upheaval from both sides, the winds are kicking up a storm and it smells of a revolution. That is right ladies and gentlemen a revolution is brewing, a revolutionary way of getting music, of global comm...
