There's nothing morally superior about Napster, that much is true. But there isn't anything superior about clamouring for one's right to be making money on the back of art.

Art should be free. Artists should have full bellies and good lifestyles, but art should nevertheless be free. In municipal galleries, on the radio, on TV, there is already art which is not being payed for by the consumer - a convenient way around the problem of financing was found in the form of sponsorship and advertising.

One of these days we'll reconcile these two opposing principles as they apply to music - and the Napster fracas is the first step on that road.