Napster: Do you agree with the ruling?

Napster, the popular online music sharing service, has received a heavy blow.

Although it has not been ordered to shut down immediately, a federal court in the United States has ruled that Napster must stop trading in copyrighted material.

Some legal experts say this effectively spells the end for the company, which is facing a copyright infringement case brought by record companies.

Many Napster devotees were clearly fearing the worst over the past few days, logging on to the site in their thousands for a last chance to share MP3 music files. But Napster, popular though it may be, also has its detractors.

What is your view of the court's ruling?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

If artists cannot be assured of the legal protection and due reward for their efforts, why should they bother?

Raj Rijhwani, UK

Of course the court made the right legal decision. If artists cannot be assured of the legal protection and due reward for their efforts, why should they bother? The warm fuzzy feeling of having expressed your inner feelings doesn't count for much when you're trying to feed yourself on the proceeds of your efforts.
Raj Rijhwani, UK

If Napster should be banned, then so should CD-burners, tape-recorders and and MD-players. They cause an "infringement" of the copyright act too!
Twaha Rajabu Ali, Tanzania

I would be quite happy to pay a reasonable annual subscription fee for the Napster service, which has allowed me to download older, "out-of-stock" tunes. I would, however, want to know that the monies paid by subscribers to Napster went directly to the performers and production crews.
Diana Thomas, USA

I think the Napster court ruling is terribly wrong. I like Napster very much. I can download music whenever I want, which makes it easier. I usually have to go to the stores to find CDs like techno and pop, and they don't have techno CDs in Turkey.
Michael, Turkey

Users of Napster and similar systems are trying to avoid paying for copyright work

John, USA

Copyright is a well-established and necessary legal protection for artists. There seems little doubt, despite the crocodile tears, that users of Napster and similar systems are trying to avoid paying for copyright work. What is it that makes this, or any other, form of stealing acceptable?
John, USA

When the VCR hit the marketplace the studios also panicked, taking the issue to the Supreme Court which ruled, by a single vote, that the technology could not be terminated despite the copying and loss of revenue to the entertainment industry. Ironically, the VCR has improved their profits. I predict there will be a plan to reimburse the industry for any copying which will give them untold millions more in their already over-compensated industry.
Steve B, USA

I use Napster to find recordings of live concerts by bands that ALLOW their live shows to be traded for non-profit use. This is obviously LEGAL, since the recording companies allow this. Should roads be made illegal because drug dealers drive on them? Should computers be made illegal because hackers use them to break into sites? So, should software be made illegal because some people trade copyright material? Napster is a medium of exchange! Why can't the courts see that?
Ben Bakelaar, New Jersey, USA

Since I live in Kuwait it's hard to find everything I need in the marketplace. Napster allows me to hear a song before buying it, and that is a big plus...
Dawoud Al-Kabaz, Kuwait

Napster should stay! There are many records that we can't buy in China and the internet is the only media to communicate. Also, record companies, don't be too greedy. The P2P is clearly the future and any attempt to delay or block the trend will only fail, there is no question about it!
Joshua Zhang, China

This is a straightforward royalty issue

Dan Casey, UK

I agree 100% with the ruling. This is a straightforward royalty issue. Any acceptable resolution will require a new royalty model, perhaps a download fee, or subscription. To make this work currently will require a subscription element as the credit card/ financial system does not cope well with minor payments over the internet. However, it seems to me that the Napster system could and should be used to make available all sorts of material including deleted and back catalogue material for download at a sensible price. Given the current CD pricing model this should result in happy users, artists and record companies.
Dan Casey, UK

Let's be clear here, music is a luxury not an essential and therefore no one has a right to free music owned (i.e. copyrighted elsewhere). What we are seeing here is market forces in action. CDs are perceived to be too expensive by buyers so they are voting with their feet by downloading from Napster. Consumer power will force through change in the business model in the same way that the mobile phone market and the internet ISP market has been altered by the buying demands of customers.
Bob Taylor, UK

It's no excuse to say that, because some copyright owners are rich, it's OK to make their work available without their permission. Theft of intellectual property, even from rich people and corporations, is still theft. The jobs of many not-so-rich people depend on the protection of intellectual property.
Paul Danon, UK

It will be interesting to see how long the courts can be used by large, bloated and highly inefficient corporations. Artists and consumers will continue to lose out. But the IT revolution will eventually topple these corporate media dinosaurs and replace them with many smaller media companies giving consumers a much wider range of choice at a much more reasonable price. And yes, even artists will benefit form this. That is if they have talent to sell without the support of corporate media marketing.
Shakeeb Khan, Malaysia

Does this mean that if I want my daughter to listen to my old CDs in the future I have to buy a separate set for her, because she would not have the right to listen to the ones that I already have?
Serge, Canada

Napster is sometimes the only way that freelance journalists can get review copies of singles

Ian, UK

Napster is sometimes the only way that freelance journalists can get review copies of singles (I even deleted them after I had reviewed them). Music companies are increasingly tight-fisted, sending fewer and fewer review copies out to reviewers, and making it harder for new bands to be heard. Napster was a saviour - how else are the penny pinching recording studios going to get the word of mouth out about their new singles? Commercial Pop stations - I don't think so!
Ian, UK

I agree wholeheartedly with the ruling. I suggest for an encore that the American Government close down all their public libraries for allowing people to read books without paying for them.
Craig Grannell, UK

Who cares anyway? There are more important things around.
Andrew Fanner, UK

If Napster is closed down, it will only be a matter of days before another similar service will spring up outside US jurisdiction. The software is available, so too is the determination of 50 million users not to have this service taken away from them
Mark Shelmerdine, England

In an ideal world, software, music etc would all be free. But If people are prepared to put their time and energy into creating music surely this should be rewarded and not taken advantage of by freeloaders like Napster!
Neil Dawson, UK

It is the fear of the record companies that has driven this decision, and legal action. Artists actually get very little from the price of an album. The majority of the money goes to the distributors and record labels. Napster provided a model that could be used by up and coming bands to distribute their music without the control and manipulation of the multinational conglomerate.
Meekon5, UK

I increasingly despair at the state of our music industry - and I know I am not alone. 'Pop' music is reduced to a factory of adult artists dressed as children singing candy-floss garbage which bears no resemblance to anyone's life experience outside of a schoolgirl fantasy. All sense of rebellion and individuality is gone. Yet although we moan about this, we accept it as the money-raking racket that it is. And along comes Napster, and these corporate traders in schoolroom fantasies panic, faced with the prospect that their respectable profits may diminish.
Mad Cow, Scotland

I wish Napster every success in turning around the court's decision

David Hughes, England

When I purchase a musical recording, as I understand it, I am paying for a licence to listen to that music, and surely that licence lasts a lifetime. Many of my earlier purchases - some dating back to the 1960s - are in rather poor condition as the years have taken their toll on the recording medium, particularly on the vinyl and tape recordings. UNFORTUNATELY, there is no way to go to the local music shop and buy replacement media without paying the licence fee over again. FORTUNATELY, today's technology has allowed me to replace the medium on which the music (for which I have paid my licence fee) is recorded and Napster has played a vital part in that; along with software compression and the advent of CD writers. I wish Napster every success in turning around the court's decision to close it down and for a prosperous future.
David Hughes, England

Napster usage grew from 20,000 to 50,000,000 in one year. In the same time period, album sales grew by a massive 10% in the UK and the States. There is a direct link. Please don't be fooled by the majors who are willingly shooting themselves in the foot and blowing away the most potent marketing tool ever created.
Anth Hartley, UK

How does (did) Napster help artists reclaim their music from the faceless industry giants? If they're being ripped off by the corporations paying them meagre mechanical royalties, surely removing even this source of income doesn't help?
Paul McStay, UK

Who said the American courts had jurisdiction over the entire globe (much as they like to think this is the case)? What's to stop competitors or even Napster itself moving to another country?
Toby, UK

The non-commercial exchange of music between individuals should be encouraged and not outlawed.
Z. Cortes, Jr, Philippines

It proved to be the only method that allowed me to download songs sung even 90 years ago, which I otherwise couldn't have found. I fully support Napster which must be considered the best way of promoting music and its performers.
Marinos Malissianos, Greece

Napster and P2P is the only real future

Becky Heading, England

As someone who worked for one of the big producers, I can tell you they have been working on downloadable formats for a long time. Unfortunately due to the inherent stupidity of top level management these downloadable music formats are generally four to five times larger than their mp3 equivalents. Generally down to copyright protection mechanisms and restricted play counts. Napster and P2P is the only real future and it's up to the larger companies to start using instead of abusing technology if they want to carry on making a living out of their musicians.
Becky Heading, England

Sites like Napster bring much needed publicity to unsigned artists who work harder than the greedy pop stars who are causing all the fuss.
Stu, England

At last I can sleep at night knowing that Britney can afford another aeroplane.
Themba, UK

Ageing musicians are failing to understand the internet

Mark Fletcher, UK

The talk of lost royalties is ridiculous. Ageing musicians are failing to understand the internet. When good music gets heard, albums are sold. Nobody claims to lose money when their music is played on the radio. And to prove it, album sales are actually higher this year than last.
Mark Fletcher, UK

Napster is fun. It has made my young daughter computer literate. Once again greed wins.
Pat Weir, Australia

All positive Napster users should unite together to have some protest action, such as stop buying cds again....
Wong Ka Wai, Hong Kong

I agree that the music industry might have won this battle but they have started a war; a war against technology itself. Their action will only trigger us to resort to other sites in the future.
Kanako Fujiwara, Japan

The record companies are fighting a losing battle

Steve, UK

Many people seem to feel that Napster should have stayed open because it was not actually breaking the law, its users were. However, I'd like to know how these people would feel if Napster was used to share, say, child pornography? I believe that the court was right, but the record companies are fighting a losing battle. If Napster closes there are a thousand other places people can go to find music for free.
Steve, UK

The arrival of the domestic tape recorder all those years ago didn't exactly achieve the end of the music industry. People have been doing tapes for their friends for years and all it's done is increase awareness of an artist's music. Why is Napster any different? Just because the quality is a little better? Pfah! So what? Theft of music? I don't think so!
Dave Gillman, UK

Wake up and smell the coffee - people are fed up with being ripped off by a notoriously unpleasant and greedy music industry. I agree that artists should reap the rewards of their creativity, but let the staggering popularity of Napster be a long-overdue warning shot to profiteering music bosses! Napster should be allowed to charge a subscription, which should support the artists, and them alone.
Alastair Stevens, UK

It is high time the recording companies and artists started caring for and respecting the customers. They seem to be getting more arrogant and ruthless in their approach.
Kartik, Singapore.

Personally, as a long-time Napster user, I am now more determined than ever to never again buy a CD produced by one of these record companies. There are many other 'Napsters', many other methods of downloading free music, and there always will be. People in growing numbers are realising that we don't have to be slaves to huge multi-nationals who get to define legality as they see fit. Napster lives.
Natalie Rowser, Australia

Leave Napster alone

Debbie, USA

I experimented with Napster and found defects in many records such as premature endings and extraneous sounds. My time spent reviewing and editing to burn a quality CD is worth more than the cost of a new commercial CD. So I say leave Napster alone. It's good for sampling and for finding "out of print" stuff.
Debbie, USA

I can't believe anyone thinks Napster is about anything but money. They don't care about "free access" and "sharing" they want to make a buck on someone else's work.
David H, Canada

The record companies have been ripping customers off with huge profits for years, is it no wonder people resort to using Napster. The record companies are worrried as they won't be able finance their extortionate lifestyles.
John, UK

I don't use Napster because it's free - I use it because it's a massively more CONVENIENT method of accessing the music I want to hear. In many instances, it is also the ONLY method I have of accessing the music I want to hear. Napster's existence should be a wake-up call to the majors - as downloading is the only future for music purchasing. Freed of manufacturing and distribution costs, music should and will be cheaper in the long run. And every track ever recorded will be instantly available worldwide. This has to be good for music in the long run, and there is no reason why it should not be economically sustainable for record companies as well. The majors should follow BMG's lead and direct their energies toward a new, sustainable model of distribution, rather than wasting their time and money trying to stem an unstoppable force.
Mike Atkinson, UK

The court ruling is a huge disappointment, but definitely not the final say on the issue. Whether or not Napster survives, the technology is now out there - and other Napster clones will get popular. OpenNap, freenet, gnutella, musiccity, powernap - the users will simply use another utility. The record companies should get a clue - they can't fight technology; the only option now is to work with it. Personally I think Napster has encouraged me to buy more CDs than I normally would have by listening to bands which I normally wouldn't listen to. If anyone loses out on the ruling, it's the record companies. The rest of us will simply go through other avenues.
Hari, USA

This ruling is foolish, but it's typical of the increasingly parental American government. Holding Napster responsible for illegal downloads is like holding Peugeot responsible if someone driving it ignores a traffic signal. This is just another case of powerful corporations bending legal rulings to suit themselves. It's not a logical extention of any true justice.
PJ Cochran, USA

Massive Napster fan here. I down load tracks form preformers I hear on the radio to see if I like their stuff. Singles often bear little or no resembalance to album material. If I like I buy it. I also track down old stuff to see if it still resonates with me.
Piet Topp, Australia

No Napster = No Music for the Common Man. Well, my guess is Napster caters to a segment of people who will never pay a heavy price for procuring music CDs. They are either a bunch of college students, office-goers who have access to a computer and people like that who choose this option as this is free. The premier segment will still purchase CDs and I guess there is going to be no drastic increase in sales of CDs if Napster were shut down. It would only leave behind a lot of disappointed people who just have no music of of their choice to listen to.
Prakash Krishnamoorthy, USA

Programs like Napster should be seen as a selling tool by the record companies. If the user likes what they hear the chances are they will go out and buy the full product.
Tim, UK

I've been using AudioGalaxy rather than Napster and I've bought 10 CDs in the last 4 weeks by artists I had not heard of that were introduced to me as being similar to those for which I had demonstrated a liking. I've also started listening to other genres. Surely this is a good thing.
Mark Walmsley, UK

Napster has given us the chance to listen and appreciate artists we would never have listened to before. We have then purchased their CDs. Simply, Napster has benefited us and the record companies.
Steve & Sam, Germany

This is of course a sad day. It's the day music died; killed by a judge. Copyright infringement has always been going on, without being seen or heard of. Napster isn't the same. It has founded this community legally, and had to pay the price for not working under cover. Not only the ruling is killing Napster, but also the millions of users that are bounded by such service. It's a global massacre of art! If the court thinks it's fair, then can it just order the non-use of blank tapes and videos? Napster as research said, helped the progress of the music industry, not the other way round.
Moataz Abou-Eita, Cairo, Egypt.

The government cannot stop technology. This is something that someone else probably already another "napster" because of the technology and they can't stop it. Also, Napster is something that is really helpful. Napster let's you listen to a song, that you probably won't buy a CD for. If you buy a CD that you don't like any of the songs there, you have wasted your money. Napster is needed for our daily entertainment. If they take away Napster, they have something else to worry about - the copycats that want to make another Napster.
Sasha, US

I went to the library, and found tons of CDs to burn in my player. So why don't they stop the makers of the burners and stop the libraries?
Treega, USA

I have used it to download a track I have heard part of on the radio. If, on re-hearing it, I still like the track I purchase the CD online. This is no worse than recording tracks off the radio.
Caron, UK

Napster allows people to download other people's songs. These are shared, for no profit whatsoever. Sony and other record companies allow Puff Daddy and others to sample other artists' material. The record company then avoids paying royalties to the composer (the same ones they claim to be protecting in their suit against Napster) by having the talentless gunslinger "rap" over it. Record companies have many ways to avoid and delay paying artists they employ, so it's pretty hypocritical of them to use artists intellectual property rights as the basis of their case. What will they call the Sony Bertallsman server - GREEDSTER?
Ian, Canada

It's absolutely shocking ... large multi-national companies make millions of dollars every year ripping off not only consumers, but also their 'stars'. Napster provided an incredibly important outlet for music lovers and artists to 'reclaim' what they had lost under the control of large recording companies. Of course, there are hundreds, possibly thousands of lesser known, but similar sites to Napster, so if the record companies think they have won, they are very much mistaken.
Derek,UK

You can tape anything from the radio or the TV. With the obscene profits made on CDs it's just sheer greed.
Brian Wright, Australia

I think this could be a case of the record companies winning the battle, but losing the war. Napster is so popular that someone else is bound to set up a similar site outside the US. The strength of Napster is that you can find rare or limited release tracks. Make these widely available and Napster is probably dead.
Jon, Canada

Napster may be on its way out but its music will never die. They have already distributed enough MP3's throughout the internet therefore it is too late. Are the music companies aware of this?
John, UK

I think it is a disgrace that something that has actually resulted in increased CD sales is being forced offline, and yet there are thousands of pornographic and paedophilic websites online and apparently immune from justice.
John Papanastasiou, UK

As a recent Napster user, I would be sorry to lose this service. Many of the songs that can be found are not readily available in this neck of the woods, moreover the few I've downloaded are certainly not of the commercial current type. In most cases the performers are long gone, so could not collect royalties. These days companies make a lot of money selling CDs at outrageous prices.
Doc, Canada

It is the ease with which music can be copied that gives rise to both the possibility of sites like Napster and the record industry's vast profits. True, the industry deserves payment for its work but at present it is grossly out of proportion with what the rest of us receive for our labours. If they charged a reasonable price there would be little demand for Napster and in trying to close it down they are alienating their customers who will have even less compunction about using the next system that comes along. Surely the industry could have come up with a more imaginitive solution.
Alasdair Shields, UK

Shutting Napster down will not remove the problem - there are already Napster clone clients that can connect to Napster clone servers. When Napster goes down smart users will simply switch to a free alternative.
Andrew Armitage, UK

The court ruling is irrelevent, there are already many sons of Napsters out there, many outside of US jurisdiction. If the cost of music wasn't so high Napster would never have turned into a problem.
Brian Blackmore, UK

Funny? I thought the internet was a new world to share things and here we go, it's turning into a big commercial place, nothing will be free for much longer. The whole thing will become controlled like everything else on this planet! The music Industry makes tons of cash. I think they are paranoid about money and should lighten up.
Karen Reynolds, UK

As long as CD prices are so unreasonably high, services like Napster will thrive.
Nick, UK

One of the main strengths of Napster is the ability to obtain hard to find or out of press music. Will the corporate MP3 sites offer tracks by General Surgery, Narcosis, Old Funeral or Funebre?
Jay, UK

If the music CDs were selling for two or three dollars there probably would not have been any music file sharing sites.
I think the music companies rip off people by selling their CDs for 20 dollars a CD. The only reason these companies and some artists had this lawsuit was because they were being denied the privilege of ripping people off to the extent they wanted. The whole lawsuit appals me. I think Napster provides a service to the community by providing music to people who can't afford the obscenely priced CDs.
Neeraj Chauhan, USA

The ruling does not mean that they cannot use the service, as new programs have been made ready for this eventuality that use side doors to make Napster just as accessible as it ever was.
Napster as a community of users has now been forced underground. It's going to change into something the record companies have no chance of ever policing.
Chris, UK

The music industry is overpriced - if you buy a £15 CD and don't like it, then that's £15 wasted. If you download an MP3 and like the music, it is not such a waste of money to buy the legitimate CD. Does radio promote the buying of music, even though you can tape record it?
Miapearl, Wales

The record industry cannot win against technology. Stopping Napster will ironically do more harm than good, as it would have been much easier to try to work with Napster, than to force its users to the untraceable underground.
Matthew Charlton, UK

I suppose blank tapes and videos will be banned next so we can't copy anything. The vast majority of Napster users never do anything commercial with their MP3s, and it gives users a chance to hear music that they normally wouldn't, and then they might be inspired to go out and buy the CD.
However, if something like this is free, in the eyes of giant corporations it has to be a bad thing, as everyone can afford to go out and pay £3.99 for CD singles, can't they?
Rob Stroud, England

Music doesn't just happen: it is the product of somebody's imagination and hard work, not a natural resource like water or air. Artists whose music is enjoyed by others should be paid for what they create.
Simon Keiler, UK

In principle I agree with the court because usually you have to pay for music and companies/artists are losing money.
On the other hand most top musicians do earn a hell of a lot of money. Some less well known artists claim they can't earn a living because of the Napster program but they have got to remember that most songs downloaded are of the popular kind which have been written by rich artists. At the end of the day I'm more in favour of Napster but I do understand the court ruling.
Karim Zaoui, UK

I feel Napster should put a membership fee on its service. This would get rid of the lawsuits filed against it and the money hungry artists will not have to complain that people are getting their music for free. If people want to share the music they own I feel that they should be allowed.
Matt, UK