This kid came up with Napster, and before that, none of us thought of content protection.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Napster was a black market for music. Ninety-nine per cent of the music that people were downloading was illegal because they didn't have the rights for it.
Napster hijacked our music without asking. They never sought our permission. Our catalog of music simply became available as free downloads on the Napster system.
If I had kids, I'd probably be way over-protective, researching everything they begged to see to make sure the content was appropriate.
Napster is a consumer revolt. Napster is about my right to have this music and to share if I've paid for it. You know, so we start to see our decisions, our opportunities, our every choice is a consumer choice.
When you think of Napster, you think of music. But the first thing that struck me was that this was an important case not only for the music industry but for the whole Internet.
If you don't move to protect copyright, if you don't move to protect our children, it's not going to sit well.
Napster's only alleged liability is for contributory or vicarious infringement. So when Napster's users engage in noncommercial sharing of music, is that activity copyright infringement? No.
The App Store has democratized the creation of content. As a 12-year-old kid, I was able to put my application on the store. No one knows who's behind the screen so you can't tell I'm a 12-year-old.
I've never supported this concept of going after Napster. I think the rock bands who fought this were wrong.
Napster was predicating its business model on violation of copyright.