I examine the closure of Freedrive and Napster as major setbacks for free online services, contrasting these developments with the fundamental legal argument that code should be protected as a form of free speech.
Freedrive closes public storage space. Along with Napster, that’s a nail in the coffin of free software. But what about the argument that code is speech, and hence “free speech”?
This legal conundrum explores whether corporate PR responses to public criticism, specifically Nike's response to sweatshop allegations, should be classified as commercial advertising or protected free speech under the First Amendment.
The decline of online advertising has killed the free PC and free ISP models, yet free software like the Opera browser continues to succeed, highlighting a divide between ad-supported hardware and open software ecosystems.
A court ruling mandates that Napster must pay royalties to record labels, marking a pivotal moment in the legal battle over peer-to-peer file sharing and the future of digital music distribution and copyright enforcement.
I examine how music swapping persisted in 2002 despite Napster's shutdown. The RIAA's legal actions against KaZaa highlight the industry's struggle against shifting consumer habits and the rise of decentralized file-sharing networks.
I’m looking at major headlines today, including the legal fate of Napster, the mapping of the human genome, and why biotech investment reports are currently the top sellers on MultexInvestor.