To Steal or not to Steal

Anarchy cannot work with democracy.  So the question becomes one of trying to figure out how to maintain some form of internal law & order to a place that exists in all a no nations at the same time; a legal paradox that may never be solved.

If you are for the transfer of free information on the internet then you may argue that it's OK to exchange ideas online.  But what about other people's ideas? Without their consent?  This was exactly the case with Napster a few years back.  Through client software they provided, people could 'trade' music files with each other online.  Exchange of free information or piracy?  No doubt Napster's popularity brought in advertising revenue which was all based on the free distribution of a product Napster did not have the legal rights to.  While some musicians argued that any publicity is good publicity, the major record labels disagreed and set out on a legal battle to cripple Napster.  In the end Napster was shut down but later reopened for business as a legit service that provides music for purchase, not for free.

However hard the major record labels try, the battle remains uphill.  Since the legal case against Napster many new music 'sharing' softwares have emerged Kazaa, soulseek, and Limewire are just a few of the big ones that are working in exactly the same manner Napster used to work.  People can still get their hands on just about any song you can think of totally free of charge in a matter of minutes.  So did Napster's trial really set any precedent or was it just a witch hunt?  

One service that was launched recently is called itunes by Apple.  This is a totally legal, pay per download online music store.  It works in conjunction with a hi-tech MP3 audio player.  You can go to the store via the MP3 player, preview songs you are interested in a download then for $0.99 a piece.  Whether the relatively new itunes project will succeed remains to be seen.  It seem to be more an experiment in ethics and honesty (optimists might say convenience) than anything else.  Why would one 11 year kid whose been raised on a healthy diet of Playstation and online gaming choose to pay for his music when he can get the exact same thing for free?

I'm not sure if anyone has the answer to that.  Music piracy is a crime with such a minimal chance of punishment (outside of the US I'm not sure anyone could ever be arrested for it) that there is literally no threat of the consequences of breaking the law.  If people are going to start paying for the same thing they can already get for free it has to be because they decided to do this by their own free will and feel a moral obligation to do so.  But if in the future piracy has reached such high levels that major record labels begin to shut down then the people doing the bootlegging will have effectively cut off their own supply of nourishment and taken everybody down with them.