> How could Napster work legally? The thing that pop into my mind is to change the existing copyright laws regarding home taping. MP3 files don't degrade from copy to copy. It's a format that wasn't even considered when the copyright laws were changed in the 70's to allow home taping.
>
> MP3s aren't CD quality. They are close, yes, but not exact. Change the law to allow trading music files that aren't CD quality (or whatever quality the copyright holder publishes the work) and then fine, go ahead and trade.
>
> -Faux Pas

If only it were that simple. I don't think that would work. The artists/musicians represented by RIAA probably wouldn't see this as a viable solution.

Perhaps the majority of current MP3s out there are not exactly "CD quality". But they are /close enough/ in terms of near-CD playback calibre as to make virtually no difference. A typical MP3 has a 44 kHz frequency response range, compared to the fact that radiocasting might be compressed down to a 22 kHz range. You can infer that hearing the MP3 version of a song will probably be much better than hearing it over a radio station or from a videotape. Things like RealAudio pose no 'threat' to the music industry because the quality of streaming audio is nowhere near that of a CD.

Even if the law were changed, to permit free exchange of solely lower-quality MP3s, there is still the problem of people appropriating and using even 'poor' sound samples to promote their own private interests. Artists do not want their work to be misrepresented without permission. Digital technology makes it too easy to download a song, and use a sound editor to chop and change someone's work. Then the 'new' version can be uploaded anonymously and an infinite number of disreputable copies can be distributed. This is a problem that was never faced by the courts when changing the law to allow home-taping.

Wolfspirit