-to-user program is that if no individual or company claims ownership, no one can be sued. And because no files are stored on the central server, no copyright is being infringed there (RIAA). The disadvantage of this method would be that Napster would still be breaking the law, and most likely new laws would be brought in and measures would be taken to stop the service. Also, if Napster could not take credit officially for their software, then they could not profit from it (something they need to do, considering the investment in the company) I believe that Napster is a valuable program and an indication of things to come. However, in its current state, it will have a very hard time remaining legal. I believe the only way Napster will survive will be to change its service because what the courts will force on it in the near future. I would suggest that Napster develops some system of paying money to artists whose songs are downloaded over their software. It is really the only practical way that Napster can continue and even though it will cost the company a lot to start this system, it will mean that Napster will be safe from being hassled by the music industry. It will mean that Napster users will no longer have to worry that they are breaking the law, and will encourage artists to accept online distribution. I would recommend that Napster lower the cost of the payments by showing advertising within its program much like GetRight (http://www.getright.com/) and CuteFTP (http://www.cuteftp.com) do. This advertising could be used by Napster to target future artist and songwriters, meaning increased revenue for Napster. I believe that if the artist payment option, and lowering cost by advertising is used, Napster will be able to continue safely and profitably. ...
