I can''t think of anything bad that could come from this.

i don''t think that could be done since applets cannot write to a persons hd

i can''t tell if he meant ''server'' or ''server-client'' or anything. I don''t see any immediate advantages to writing the server in java. Maybe a client/server pair ala gnutella would be great for java. I was working on a realtime service that resembled napster (but without the legal issues) that had java clients. But some people quit and now there''s no one to work on it.

I was thinking about writing one after hearing about the Napster shutdown. I''d be willing to help out on a project too. I don''t know how these programs work exactly, since I''ve never used them, but I''m thinking a Servlet to tell whose on, get everybodys file list, and when you want something the servlet gives you the IP of the machine and you connect directly so the data doesn''t have to all pass through the servlet. It would be a lot easier making it a application. Also I''d like to give an entire list so if you want a rare item really bad you can contact the person and find out when there going to be online.

Bad idea. The problem with Napster is that it makes it far too easy to distribute copyrighted material illegally. It''s one thing to make copies of stuff you own, even to swap with a couple friends; it''s a completely different matter to make a copy available to basically everyone in the world, for free. That''s just plain WRONG, and I can''t believe anyone''s surprised by the judge''s actions.

Now, I think the RIAA screws artists by withholding profits from record sales and even then only giving them a small percentage of royalties, and I think they screw the music-loving public by charging too much for albums.

But making it easy to freely distribute the music without anyone having to pay for it is NOT the answer, because while there are indeed bands and musicians who may be willing to give away a song or two, most of them would like to get paid for their efforts. Things like eating and having a roof over your head are important, and Napster has the potential to completely eliminate compensating the artists.

I''d rather see someone devoting their energies to coming up with a different alternative. The artists deserve to be paid for their efforts. If a site could be developed where you could download music from MAINSTREAM artists for a small per-song fee, and you give the artists (who record the music themselves, high quality recording equipment is fairly inexpensive now) a high percentage of the proceeds, I think people would be very happy with that. You also allow people to assemble songs into their own custom albums, and then send them a CD for a small fee (like $8 shipped, or something).

I think that that business could be HUGE and will solve a lot of the issues that people have with the RIAA, both consumers and artists.

But making another Napster is ***NOT*** the solution, so please don''t even try. Besides, there''s still Gnutella...

I think there''s a Java based Gnutella client floating around somewhere...

Theres still one problem with servlets. Your not going to find any webhost. If you know any could you please tell me but it has to be professional webhosting

Servlets.net, but it looks like $100/month for even a mysql database. I was just searching google and i came up with this
http://www.ebpcs.net/hosting/java_adv.html
it looks very good with repect to what you get. 100MB, SSL subdomain, private JVM, MySQL, PHP4... wow, i think i''m going to have to move my test stuff here when it gets done. $39.95/mo. Or if you want ''professional webhosting'', just get a dedicated server from www.rackspace.com

SteveMeister, I would only consider doing this because I think it helps out the artists, and hurts only the big conglomerites. Most artists hate these huge labels since they get screwed badly by them, and end up making their money off the tours. Someone who spends a half hour finding a song, then anorther hour to download it is a true fan. This same person will probably buy the CD so they can listen in their car,home sterio, friends houses, and blow $50 to $100 on each concert a couple times a year if they like the band. The only bands who care about this ruling are already huge and greedy too, smaller artists love Napster. I buy a lot of music, but would never pay for a mp3 song that I''d have to listen to on my computer, and the quality is not CD quality. To me I see mp3''s as a test whether I should buy the album.

Anyway I decided not to do it after reading the paper this morning and it mentioned around 10 other Napster like programs who were all swamped with downloads yesterday. So it''s too late, I figure to get in now even though it wouldn''t too long to write.

I am sure it help out the artists when I have friends who have multiple gigbytes of mp3s and have not bought a cd in months. Has anyone ever heard of Adam Smith? For the love of God, people in a capitalistic society, except Japan, buy quality for the lowest price. No mp3 is not an exact copy but for free it is close enough. If any of you ever get a patent and then find out some no talent jackass in the pacific rim is using you idea for free, look in the mirror and see how happy you are. It is theft. Maybe I should be able to get cd for free from a store because if I like the music I might buy a different cd by the same artist. If stealing some one elses ideas and effort is the future of America the I might as well move where there are fewer communists.

I wanrned you! Didn't I warn you?! That colored chalk was forged by Lucifer himself!