r the file exchange, as well as the participants in such a forum are not making profits out of this exchange. So, if the spirit of the law goes in the line of preventing people from making money with some other's creative work, I would claim that sharing music files is following the standards set by the law and it should be protected.Obviously some people might not agree with this vision of the purpose and application of the law. At this point it is still possible that the court will rule against Napster and will find that the law is against this type of file sharing. Even assuming such contingence, as I said above, the legality or non-legality of copying files does not make it moral or immoral. Laws just create a frame of rules that people should use as a standard. These standards are not built in stone. Standards change and so legislation should, according with the times. There was a moment when owning slaves was legal even thought today it would be virtually impossible to find a person raised and living in a Western culture who would agree with the moral acceptability of such an ownership. In this line, if the final conclusion of the legal system is that sharing music files in the internet using services like Napster is illegal as the law stands today, I would argue that is time for society to take a serious look at the legislation and basic definitions for copyrights. New technologies had historically changed preconceptions. The law is an instrument to the service of society and it should not be, under any circumstance, a tool used to take advantage of certain groups of population.I think that there are very few chances of having Napster protected by the system as things stand today. However, this case will generate major changes in the music industry. They have to change their business model, as many industries had done in the past, under pressure by new technologies. The record companies could do many things like: lowering the pri...
