stealing music, and the future of copyright

You are chanting martinworldspeak now and have gone completely off topic. You have been mostly rehashing points discussed months earlier in this thread. Come up with something new or give it up.

 

Clearly much concurrent development was going on around the music industry. One that paid legal royalties and one that didn't.

 

When was that? Look up concurrent, it means "at the same time."

This question?

Hypothetical, agendaless question: If Napster had not come around when it did, how long do you think (if ever) it would have taken for the music industry to take advantage of technology and start the e-commerce distribution of music? Do you think they would have even put forth the effort to innovate themselves if the threat was not there?

The answer, once again, is YES. Obviously. Apple has been the most innovative corporation in America and has been all over emerging technology for decades. You think Steve Jobs sits around and waits for the competition to come up with ideas for him?

Apple took the time to do it right. They got the permissions. They signed the royalty agreements and they have been a huge success making $billions. Legally. Meanwhile illegal Napster got shut down. And guess who has now followed Apple's business model into becoming a legal music provider? Napster?

 

I'm placing you under citizens arrest.

But I have to wonder . . . I remember when people rented Betamax tapes and were outraged to find that they didn't play on VHS units. I thought those people were stupid for not understanding that there were competing formats out there . . .