The Constitution wanted artists to have control over their works because they knew it would create incentive to create more works. That is clearly still the goal.
We are going after a targeted group of businesses that are creating opportunities for themselves using other people's property. The Internet has very little to do with this.
A lot of artists are much more concerned about how their work is used and how it's disseminated. That, to artists, is as important as the money, for some people.
A protracted legislative fight will not move us closer to where the music industry wants to be - delivering music to fans through a variety of different, innovative Web sites.
For music, unlike a $500 software program, people are paying a buck or two a song, and it's those dollars and pennies that have to add up to pay for not just the cost of that song, but the investment in the next song.
I don't have any illusions that what we are doing is sticking the the bottle. I don't think that's what we are doing. We are trying to make sure that the genie has friends, has food to eat, a way to grow.
Napster is essentially using the music to make money for themselves and that's the part that's both morally and legally wrong. That I think is more relevant than whether or not I'm losing money.
The marketplace can handle this. The laws are there. The courts have shown a consistent ability to find a balance between copyright owners and copyright users.
There are some very real areas where working together is critical, whether it's talking about public policy issues, enforcement, or how to work together to facilitate new business opportunities. The RIAA has gotten much more involved in that.
There is no sense in owning the copyright unless you are going to use it. I don't think anyone wants to hold all of this stuff in a vault and not let anybody have it. It's only worth something once it's popular.
