ng is stealing. All of theseideas of Metallica, all things that they had to comeup with in an effort, they were hoping, they wouldsave there industry and still make millions. And Burkealso say that we find a way to seperate ourselves fromthe way things start out and do. The way that napsterstarted out was just free sharing of Mp's online, andnow we have stepped away from that and it is now anissue of stealing and whether or not money should bemade off of people downloading songs. And there are many different ways to say in thissituation who is right and who is wrong. There arealso many answers to what can be done to settle thisproblem. The option of Napster paying royalties toartists whose songs are downloaded would be a positivemove because it would mean that artists receive faircompensation for their work. However, on the otherhand, to support the enormous cost of such a move,Napsterwould either have to turn into a paid subscriptionservice, or show advertising. Added to this, the costof modifying the application, and working out a way todetermine what songs have been downloaded, theadministration costs for Napster would skyrocket. Theoption of a cooperative effort with the music industryhas the advantage of being totally legal and stoppingall conflicts between Napster and the RIAA. However,such a model would mean a great reduction in thenumber of songs available and would eliminate the'sharing' aspect of the program. There is also theidea of no one taking on the company name of napster.The advantage of the anonymous peer-to-peer model isthat if no corporation, individual or other entityclaims ownership, no one can be sued. And because nofiles are stored on the central server, no copyrightis being infringed there. The disadvantage of thismethod, would be that Napster would still be breakingthe law, and undoubtedly new legislation would bebrought in and measures would be taken to stop theservice. Furthermore, if Napster could not take c...
