javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2004-03-03 12:24 pm
javasaurus) wrote2004-03-03 12:24 pm
John Dvorak comments on Napster
Napster is all but gone from the news, though lawsuits related to music piracy still continue. Still, John C. Dvorak's column in PC Magazine this month laments the loss of the music swapping service.
While Dvorak attacks the music industry for driving Napster away, and while his comments are valid, he ignores one thing. The copying of music against the wishes of the copyright holder is illegal. Once we get rid of the sanctity of copyright, what's next, patents? Dvorak's claims that the music industry would, as a whole, enjoy greater prosperity by encouraging free music-swapping services like Napster, and he may be right. But a copyright holder should be able to choose whether or not to participate.
While Dvorak attacks the music industry for driving Napster away, and while his comments are valid, he ignores one thing. The copying of music against the wishes of the copyright holder is illegal. Once we get rid of the sanctity of copyright, what's next, patents? Dvorak's claims that the music industry would, as a whole, enjoy greater prosperity by encouraging free music-swapping services like Napster, and he may be right. But a copyright holder should be able to choose whether or not to participate.