My argument is simple. Allowing users to download, sample, listen, enjoy and share music that they find directly affects a musical artists fan base. It’s simple to share music that you can attain at the click of a mouse. Burn a mix of great songs for a friend, that friend will share it with another… and another.. it’ll spread like wild-fire. Music is inspiration that should have no limits or restrictions on who can be inspired. Napster allowed users to do just that… spread their inspirations and share them with one another. I feel that the rulings against Napster were not fair. I was personally affected by Napster restrictions of use. I had a library of hundreds of songs in 2000 and I enjoyed every minute of it. This library grew ten fold when I hear of the Napsters trial. I had hopes of actually buying the albums, thinking that it would save Napster. All of the music I owned then… I had the original albums to back them up. Sadly, the hard stuff is still hard to buy so we’re left with searching all over the net to get them. It’s funny to see how much work goes into a simple song download now days when it used to be so easy when Napster was in it’s prime. I’m against the decision. Napster’s means of sharing were completely just and true. I would probably never have found some of my favorite bands without Napster’s simple little, “Find It” button… Ah, the glory days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment