Dr. Roberts discusses the economic consequences of leaving Napster unmolested by the legal system. His argument is that in the long run the market will correct for the lacuna of enforcement. The market did produce a viable alternative to Napster, ITunes. If you can remember, using Napster almost guaranteed downloading malware onto the hard drive of your computer. After so many trips to the Geek Squad, (where you have a sneaky suspicion that they are not really doing anything to help anyway), you have to buy another computer. ITunes allowed the user to purchase not only just a single song at the relative diminutive price of $.99 but allowed you to purchase a song in the full knowledge that you would not be downloading some foreign spyware, virus, or malware onto your computer. I would posit that a good portion of our society likes to obey the law, and when given a safe, viable alternative, they will use a legal market to obtain goods over an illegal one. The illegal one, Napster, even if left unprosecuted came with the additional cost of malware, which depending on your computer savvy skills could mean a trip to Best Buy to purchase a new computer.
The internet brings up a host of legal and economic questions. How much government intervention do we want in the cyber realm? Is the market a viable option to the capacious amount of illegal activity in the cyber realm?