It is obviously very unpopular to be against Napster ... As a full time musician with the California Guitar Trio, which is currently at the point where we about break even financially, I can understand the idea that Napster could help unknown musicians become known. But it is obvious that the public majority misunderstands what it is like to be a musician who has worked very hard at making their recordings something of value and then have Napster provide a way for people to access it for free without the artist's permission.

Many of the arguments on an AOL "post your thoughts" page on Wednesday suggested that Metallica already has enough money, and asked why are they being so greedy and wanting to stop Napster. I would suggest that this is not necessarily an issue of money, but one of principle. The principle that it is not right for someone to give away something that is not theirs to give. The members of Metallica may or may not be financially wealthy individuals, but they represent only a handful of musicians that have a high level of continued financial success, while many of the rest of us scrape for every penny. If the California Guitar Trio's main aim was one of making lots of money, we would have chosen a different line of work a long time ago.

I was recently e-mailed by a friend who said that there is a fair amount of California Guitar Trio stuff available via Napster. I can see how this might help people become familiar with our music that had previously been unaware of us, but the problem is that it is all done without our permission. Limp Bizkit is currently doing a free Napster tour and has openly embraced the Napster music trading, so this is fine for them. They have openly given their consent and agree to have their music freely traded, so their position is clear. But what about all the artists who haven't given their consent? If Napster is supposed to be about giving unknown artists a helping hand, then why is 85 percent of the stuff available on Napster copyrighted material traded without the consent of the artist?

Michael Robertson, CEO of digital music warehouse MP3.com

I think it buys a small reprieve for the record labels. I say that because Napster was created because there was a void of digital music on the Net. Now that they've shut down Napster, consumers are going to have to look elsewhere. They're either going to look to commercially responsible alternatives, or the Net in all its collective wisdom and inevitable evolution will create litigation-proof Napsters.

You haven't seen a groundswell of movement toward Gnutella and all the other alternatives because they're impossible to use, they're not well supported. But with Napster shut down, all those engineers with time on their hands are going to start building litigation-proof versions of Napster that are easy to use. Before that happens, the industry has a window of opportunity, a chance to get behind some new solution that protects their copyrights.

Metallica (from a written statement)

We are delighted that the court has upheld the rights of all artists to protect and control their creative efforts. In what we feel is a heroic and historic decision, Judge Patel confirmed that musicians, songwriters, filmmakers, authors, visual artists and other members of the creative community are entitled to the same copyright protections online that they have traditionally been afforded offline.

Hank Barry, David Boies and the rest of Napster's legal team left no stone unturned in this battle, and we respect that. However, a society that does not value intellectual property is a poorer society, both economically and esthetically. In her decision, Judge Patel uncompromisingly endorsed this country's long tradition of encouragement of works of the mind. We thank and applaud her for that.

We also want to thank our fans for standing behind us in this fight. We believe that they and in fact most people in this country are as uncomfortable as we are with the idea that stealing, by whatever means, is OK. The court's decision is a welcome affirmation of that belief system.

Entertainment and copyright attorney Neil Rossini, of the New York firm Franklin Weinrib Rudell & Vassal

I don't see how any judge can look at Napster's traffic of millions of copyrighted works being exchanged and say it's legal. It really sends a message that businesses cannot be built on the wholesale taking of copyrighted works.

I think of MP3.com and Napster as two of the "Three Little Pigs," with Diamond Rio being the third. Its case was built of stone and law. MP3.com and Napster built theirs from straw and technicalities.

I heard [attorney for Napster David] Boies talking on the radio this morning and he said Napster couldn't separate authorized works from unauthorized works. That's like saying I'm going to build my house on your land because I can't tell where my little piece ends and yours begins. Well, you're just going to have to try a little harder.

Rob Reid, CEO of Listen.com, an online music directory

Act II of this needs to be the labels, the artists and the online music communities working together to give consumers what they've made it clear they need: broad access to online entertainment. We're really looking to push to get a legal and legitimate solution out. Napster pointed to downloadable music being important to the mass market; it is really, really part of the mainstream and that's something that no one had certitude about until now. I think a subscription model is what makes sense; and maybe a streamed model makes more sense right now, as downloads are still fraught with security issues and the [Secure Digital Music Initiative] process is not moving ahead as fast as anybody had hoped.

The Free Software Project
Read Andrew Leonard's book-in-progress on Linux and open source -- and post your comments.