The remaining revenue will be distributed as follows:

 The post drew a ton of  from the Internet community and tech people for a couple of reasons.

Case Code : BECG007Case Length : 07 PagesPrice: Rs. 200;

The independent Legislative Analyst's Office found that 64 will both raise revenue and decrease costs. By collecting unpaid taxes from marijuana, it will bring in over $1 billion of revenue every year to help California. And it could save tens of millions of dollars in reduced law enforcement costs. Together, that is a benefit of $11 billion over the next decade.

Table 7.1. field formats and values

Although these same technologies were also being used for non-infringing purposes, including sharing of authorized songs, live concert recordings, public domain works, movie trailers, and video games, the record industry has won most of these lawsuits—but it is still losing the war. After Napster was shut down, new networks quickly appeared. Napster was replaced by Aimster and AudioGalaxy, which were supplanted in turn by LimeWire, Morpheus and Kazaa, which were then partially supplanted by eDonkey and BitTorrent.

supports Prop 64 because it incorporates best practices from states that already legalized adult marijuana use, and adheres closely to the recommendations of California's Blue Ribbon Commission on Marijuana Policy, which included law enforcement and public health experts.

The official ballot title was as follows:

At the trial-court level, Napter's arguments fared badly. InApril of 2000, .On August 10, and granteda .The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has been somewhat lesshostile. One day after Judge Patel's second ruling, the Courtof Appeals stayed the imposition of the injunction pending anappeal. on the appeal was heard on October 2, 2000. The tenor of the questionsasked by the three-judge panel (although surely not a reliablepredictor of the judges' votes) suggested they were more receptivethan Judge Patel to Napster's position. .

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

However, even an outright victory by the RIAA in its strugglewith Napster will not end peer-to-peer copying. Systems such asand Freenet, though not as convenient and efficient as Napster,provide comparable services. Because these alternatives do notreply upon a centralized system of servers and search engines,they are . In short, Judge Patel wasprobably correct when, in her second opinion in the Napster case,she analogized the lawsuit to a tort claim brought by a farmeragainst someone who had burned his field; meanwhile, a wildfirethreatened to engulf the entire farm.

Napster then handled rest of the work itself.

We all know California's current approach toward marijuana doesn't make sense.
It's time to put an end to our broken system, and implement proven reforms so marijuana will be safe, controlled, and taxed.

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

In its defense, Napster has made three legal arguments. First,it has invoked the protection of sections of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA),which provides to the operators of "transitory digital networkconnections" and "Information Location Tools" "safeharbors" against liability for copyright infringement. Second,Napster argues that peer-to-peer copying of digital files usingits system constitutes ""the noncommercial use by aconsumer" of "a digital audio recording device,"which, pursuant to , cannot constitute copyrightinfringement. Because its members are not engaged in copyrightinfringement, Napster argues, it plainly cannot be liable forcontributory copyright infringement. Finally, Napster insiststhat involveslawful copying of musical files -- either because the owners ofthe copyrights in the songs in question do not object to (indeed,encourage) the duplication of their works or because the characterof the copying is such as to make it a "fair use." Consequently,Napster argues, its system is manifestly "capable of substantialnoninfringing uses," and thus is immunized against liabilityfor contributory copyright infringement by the decision of theSupreme Court in the case.

The full text of the measure is available .

If the war described in the is allowed to run its course, the public will almost certainlysuffer. If the recording industry prevails, it will depriveus of many of the potential associated with the Internet distribution of digitalmusic. If the recording industry loses, we may be left with than we would wish.