I think that the article shows that the court feels that it is possible for indivduals to continue to exchange music files via the internet, with certain constraints that conform pretty much to the fair-use doctrine--in other words, in principle P2P exchange of files, via the internet is *not* stealing--Given that, the court was also clear in indicating that there are certain types of distribution that infringe on copyrights--The courts always like to give a little bit in principle to both sides--In practical terms, Napster is destroyed (except for those of us who are sharing the music that is old and obscure--but, as the author points out, in the long run, P2P wins out--

Those who are interested in the "making a living" aspect of this should read what he says very carefully, like it or not, that is the way things will be going--

Now on to you Mousethief--

The true fact of the matter is that the recording industry and the availability of recordings (which we love so much) pretty much destroyed the career prospects for most musicians--there was a time that, if you wanted to dance, you had to hire a band, or at the very least, sit Uncle Fred down at the piano--then radio, jukeboxes and sound systems made it possible for people to listen to their favorite songs, by their favorite artists--

The time was, if you learned to play an instrument and read a little bit, you had a career(meaning when you played, you got paid, and there was enough work to pay the rent and feed the family on a steady basis), same as a roofer,a teamster, or a plumber--now most of the money goes to the people who distribute the records. with only a small bit going to those who actually play the music on them--