Napster is essentially using the music to make money for themselves and that's the part that's both morally and legally wrong. That I think is more relevant than whether or not I'm losing money.
From Hilary Rosen
The innovation is going to come, and that is good for everybody.
There is no sense in owning the copyright unless you are going to use it. I don't think anyone wants to hold all of this stuff in a vault and not let anybody have it. It's only worth something once it's popular.
This is a business built on promotion. We've been giving music away to radio stations for 30 years.
A lot of artists are much more concerned about how their work is used and how it's disseminated. That, to artists, is as important as the money, for some people.
Our profile was pretty low, deliberately so. Our constituents were a relatively small audience.
The Constitution wanted artists to have control over their works because they knew it would create incentive to create more works. That is clearly still the goal.
The enforcement is the flip side to the growth. And that's OK.
We are going after a targeted group of businesses that are creating opportunities for themselves using other people's property. The Internet has very little to do with this.
Music has an intrinsic value that touches Americans - they love their music, and want more.
4 perspectives
2 perspectives
1 perspectives