is freely appropriated by all, if there exists communal rights to new ideas, incentives for developing new ideas will be lacking. The benefits derivable from these ideas will not be concentrated on their originators. If we extend some degree of private rights to the originators, these ideas will come at a more rapid pace". But does this idea extend to intellectual property as well such as music? (2) If digital information prevails in the Napster case, does this mean that eventually, musicians will no longer produce music because there is no gain to them because it can be distributed freely? Will not the economics of law and demand take over? If musicians stop producing, will not the demand, as can be seen by the current case, induce the musicians to produce? If the record companies prevail, will not black markets spring up? Do the record companies realize who is demanding Napster (their own consumers who purchase record companies CD's)? I would suggest looking at the VCR technology case, in wake of that decision, which at the time was described as catastrophic by the copyright industry, it has become quite clear that both the public and the copyright industries have reaped enormous benefits.As copyright industries seek to impose the strictness of their view of copyright law on technology innovators, the courts and legislatures would do well to keep the lessons of the VCR case in mind. Napster represents a turning point for copyright. As these new peer-to-peer technologies emerge (as I am sure we have only seen the beginning), the copyright industries will be asking that their view of copyright be imposed on those unused to its strict ions, like noncommercial users and technology. This represents change. And before imposing it on members of society, the copyright industry might want to check whether people are willing to embrace it.Demsetz also states, "Changes in knowledge result in changes in production functions, market values...
