Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Napster and Software

Author:Mark A. Hershberger
Posted:7/12/2000; 12:48:32 PM
Topic:scriptingNews outline for 7/12/2000
Msg #:18507 (In response to 18498)
Prev/Next:18506 / 18508

I have read, but you haven't answered my question. It's true I've waited a while to ask that someone to answer this question -- so long that maybe everyone else has dealt with it in their own mind and so now it is off topic to ask -- but I haven't seen this issue addressed.

Why should we treat copyrighted music different than copyrighted software?

So we should be giving money to the artists in the form of tips or salaries. I'm all for that. But the people who own the music now aren't. And neither are the people who own the software. I'm sure that Microsoft would call us all pirates if we started trading Office instead of paying them.

It feels the same, but you seem to think it isn't. Why?

In the past, you've said that open source highlighted programmer's natural generosity. And, sure, Napster highlights (some) musician's genrosity. Great. Some musicians don't care about the RIAA and some programmers don't care for the BSA. For those who don't care, there is the 'Net.

But, many musicians care about the distribution of their music just as many programmers (even "open source" ones) care about the distribution of their software. Copyright, in both instances, allows the musician or programmer to control the distribution of their creation.

I appologize for going on and on. Perhaps you have talked to my specific concern in the past. If so, a url would be sufficient.

Thanks.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:38 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.