To understand where the lines are drawn one has to, first, want to know and, second, take time to become aware of what the law says. Mostly its common sense, but not always. Do understand my belief is this country is so mired in legalities that the average person is doomed to eventually violate them. Sometimes knowingly, sometimes not. That's not an absolution for intentional theft, just a recognition of how ignorance and circumstance can manifest itself. But enough of my disgust with the legal climate in the USA. We don't buy music, we pay a royalty for restricted use. It's all right there on the package. When a radio station broadcasts copyrighted materials they pay a royalty, too. The restricted use granted generally does not include right of duplication for distribution. Stated simply, if it seems you're getting something for nothing you are probably breaking the law. Further, no judge has agreed that Napster is without wrong doing. Instead, they were granted a stay of any "cease and desist" order until an actual ruling is handed down. This is a very common occurance in cases of this nature and has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Such stays are allowed to specifically avoid undue damage to a company. It is understandably a harder concept to grasp. As for what the music industry charges, I have serious doubts it has anything to do with "foresight" on the music industry's behalf. Instead, since prices have risen gradually over the years, it's simply a matter of them charging what the market will bear. In conjunction with a measure of greed, of course. Capitalism at it's finest. (I am not a lawyer, but certainly played one above. My knowledge of the subject is derived from first hand experience in legal proceedings over copyright issues in the software industry. There is no intent to imply this knowledge is necessarily accurate or applicable. It is essentially my opinion, so use it at your own risk.)
