Whatever the rights and wrongs of the RIAA vs Napster case, or even the technical possibility of putting the genie back in the bottle, it does not come down to the same thing as CaptainSpam's argument above. The argument boils down to:

I don't picture Napster/Scour Exchange/whatever trading of music to be too much different than going to, say, a dance club, or going to a friend's house to jam to the latest sounds by . In all cases, someone bought the music, but multiple people listen to it. Sure, on the internet, LOTS of people listen, but that's roughly the only viable difference.

Now that last line is the crucial one - LOTS of people listen - enough to eat into the profit margin of the record company - but also of the publisher, songwriter and artist.

"Radio, of course, would be radically changed." - No it wouldn't. Radio stations pay ASCAP, BMI or SESAC to play records (in the UK the PRS). This money goes to the writer and to the publisher - who is usually a member of the RIAA due to corporate mergers.

"What about the dance clubs? " - Who operate on the exact same basis...
There is a huge difference between giving music away for free and broadcasting it with payment to the artist/publisher/record company. And your playing records for your friends comes in as fair use. Making someone else's work available for free to anyone who wants it is theft.

Of course, I, like every other person on this site I assume, do trade MP3s and so on, and I think in moderation that it can actually be a good thing for musicians - but caricaturing the other side of an argument rather than trying to understand it is not the best way to win a debate...

---

This was written in response to a w/u that is no longer here