From the Napster site:

Q: We all know that the RIAA is fighting a losing war against something that, quite simply, they can't stop. I personally think the biggest worry RIAA has on this is a threat to the distribution medium on which they depend, not the piracy. MP3 is changing the way music is distributed and they don't see themselves in it. I think there are other ways of curving piracy other than trying to make everything MP3 illegal. Any thoughts on this?
Eileen Richardson (interim CEO, Napster) - Yes, we wanted to and still want to work with them to help them understand that the horse has already left the barn on the MP3 front. They have an opportunity to get in on it now. Copyright laws were created before there was an Internet. So when there are old laws that don't apply to the modern day, usually they eventually catch up.

From the RIAA site:

Q: Is this a lawsuit to stop the use of MP3 technology?
No. The suit is against Napster, the company, and not MP3 technology. Any company that offers to help distribute illegally obtained music is a problem -- whether that music is transmitted on tape, CD, or on the Internet in whatever form. No one is trying to stop technology -- all the RIAA and its members are trying to do is to put a stop to a new high-tech type of theft. Keeping someone from trying to use your ATM card doesn't mean you are trying to stop the use of ATMs.

Q: What about consumers' rights?
This is not a consumer rights issue. There is a big difference between a consumer making a copy for his or her own personal use, and that same consumer making the file available on Napster where it can be freely downloaded by thousands of people.

Q: Napster's copyright protection page clearly says it revokes the ability of users to access Napster if they violate copyright law. Isn't that enough?
A few words cannot undo the harm caused by hundreds of thousands of Napster users unlawfully downloading millions of infringing music files. In any event, Napster's actions speak louder than its words. Napster is actively encouraging and facilitating the illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted music. While Napster now claims that it's all about creating a community for the new and unknown artist, that's just made up to try to help them in the litigation. Before this litigation, Napster was more forthright about its true purpose. On its web site, Napster touted itself as the "world's largest MP3 music library" that "ensures the availability of every song online." Leaving little doubt about its disregard for the unknown artist, Napster boasted that "Napster virtually guarantees you'll find the music you want, when you want it ... and you can forget about wading through page after page of unknown artists." This is unfair to the artists and musicians who have invested time and effort to create music. It is illegal, and wrong. The majority of artists, musicians, and other members of creative professions want to be compensated for their efforts -- and like anyone else who invests hard work and creativity, they have the fundamental right to decide which innovative business models they want to pursue and which they do not.

Here comes the Judge!!

And how are the courts ruling on all this? Well, most likely by the time you ready this article many new developments will have been encountered. Welcome to the information distribution in this New Millennium! However, at "press time" (even though that is an ancient catch phrase) here are the latest developments:

From Netscape Newservice- SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal judge ordered music-swapping company Napster to halt the trading of copyrighted material, angering fans around the globe. The injunction symbolizes a pivotal moment in the historic case, one of the first legal confrontations between Internet technologies and the rights of intellectual property holders. Two federal appeals court judges on Friday (7/28) granted Napster Inc. a stay allowing the music-trading business to stay online -- at least for the time being. Napster would have been shut down at 3 a.m. EDT Saturday (7/29) after a lower court sided with the recording industry, which sued Napster, claiming it allowed users to infringe on recording artists' and companies' copyrights and threatens their business. Friday's ruling allows Napster to remain in operation until the case goes to trial. No trial date has yet been set.

RIAA President Hilary Rosen was disappointed with Napster's last-minute reprieve but issued a statement saying: "We remain confident that the (9th U.S. Circuit) Court will ultimately affirm once it has had an opportunity to review the facts and the law." Napster founder Shawn Fanning said he was "grateful that we do not have to turn away our 20 million users."

In issuing Wednesday's injunction, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel said Napster "is enjoined from causing, assisting, facilitating, copying, or otherwise distributing all copyrighted songs or musical compositions. If you design a site designed to enable infringement, you can't stand by and claim you don't know what's going on."

What do the artists think about Napster?

Ron Stone (who represents Tracy Chapman, Bonnie Raitt, Ziggy Marley, and others) calls Napster "the most insidious web site I've ever seen."
Scott Stapp (lead singer for Creed) says Napster is "robbing me blind."
Simon Renshaw (personal manager of the Dixie Chicks) said, "While there are great efforts being made to ensure that the rights of the artists and songwriters are protected, Napster's apparent way of doing business sets those efforts way back."
Rusty Harmon, who represents Hootie & the Blowfish, said "this type of Web site makes us sick."
Gary Falcon, who represents Travis Tritt, Michael Peterson, Christy Sutherland and others, said Napster "threatens the whole artist community with its irresponsible actions."
Rock icon and Internet media whizkid Todd Rundgren says "Napster is the most transparently illegal thing that I've ever seen on the Web".

You can lead a user to the cash drawer but you can't make him pay -

So what will the outcome be of all this? Well, MY slant on it is that there two legitimate sides to the issue:

1) I understand and to a certain point sympathize with the Napster community that a new model of music distribution is needed, given the power of Internet "instant gratification". However, it would be unfair to assume those artists and songwriters should give up their just dues in the form of publishing royalties. It appears the current generation of Internet music lovers are attempting to boycott "legitimate" channels of music distribution, but IMHO this will not accomplish the intended goal.

2) The future of music and movie distribution WILL be on the Internet, and as the old methods of content distribution move away from physical media, a re-defining of the business structure will have to follow. Today's legal decisions will be tomorrow's excess baggage if hasty actions force askew measures. But in the end, some form of control MUST be encouraged on behalf of the writer. Perhaps a simple system of "pay per download" could be adopted.

Napster, and other peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies, will eventually become central components of the music business. Record companies will "seek some system in which the operators of the technologies voluntarily seek licensing arrangements with respect to the music transmitted," according to one American University expert.

"Ultimately, the big question from the industry's perspective will be when the artists have total control and the ability to distribute their music and don't need the record companies any more," said Jonathan Tankel, an associate professor of communication at Indiana University Purdue University Fort Wayne in Indiana. As the artists become savvier, there is the possibility of a democratization of the industry where the recording companies could become obsolete. As such, the record companies "have bigger problems than Napster, but this is the one that's in front of them," Tankel said.

I just received my most recent issue of Gig Magazine on Friday (7/28). The cover reads, in huge type: "It's Over!" The secondary heading reads "Major Labels fall to Online Music Distribution" The entire issue is filled with articles on this issue. Editor Bill Evans sums it all up by boldly stating that the "thing we call copyright is dead". In the coming months you will see more and more reporting on this delicate issue. The August issue of YAHOO! Internet Life magazine has no less than 22 pages covering many facets of the Napster and MP3 technology if you desire more information on the subject.

So, while the current copyright laws are not dead YET, they ARE mortally wounded and it's just a matter of time before a new copyright model will be implemented. The Napster suit is just the lid popping off Pandora's Box. What will follow in the next few months will be the wake caused by these decisions made today. Nothing less than a revolution in music distribution and artist royalties is in the works. H-m-m-m-m��. "A Revolution"..���� Does that sound familiar ??

Bob Ketchum, the Minister of Musical, reminds the reader that not all can be bought with a song