A lot of you are probably excited that a Federal Court
judge’s injunction, shutting down your favorite Web site,
Napster.com, last Wednesday was reversed.
Recently in a Senate Judiciary Committee, Congressmen heard
testimony from both the Recording Industry Association of America
and Napster representatives to debate the need for Internet
copyright legislation for music. (Napster provides a program that
allows Internet users to access the files of others’
computers, including media files such as MP3s which are the most
common kind of digital music file.) The Judiciary Committee decided
that Federal Courts should resolve the dispute, and an agreement
must be reached between businesses like Napster and the RIAA, which
currently represents major record companies in this copyright law
dispute and similar lawsuits.
Thus, on July 26, a hearing for a preliminary injunction sought
by the recording industry began in a Federal District Court in San
Francisco. The judge agreed to the injunction, which may put
Napster and its counterparts permanently out of business. On Friday
afternoon, however, a federal court judge allowed Napster to
continue operating at least until mid-September, when an appeals
hearing is scheduled.
The source of the controversy is fairly simple. Napster’s
reps, such as CEO Hank Barry, claim that Napster’s
“users are simply legally “˜sharing’ music for
personal use” on Napster’s central server. RIAA, on the
other hand, believes that “Napster is helping users violate
copyright laws” (www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/
computing/07/17/ napster.liability.idg/index.html).
While it is true that noncommercial copying of music, such as
when you record a CD onto a blank tape for a friend, is legal as
long as no money is changing hands, the “sharing” on
Napster’s central server is not necessarily legal, since
users can post both legal and illegal MP3s.
Lars Ulrich, one of the cofounders of Metallica, is particularly
miffed at Napster because of an illegal MP3, an unreleased take of
a new Metallica song. It allegedly leaked into cyberspace and ended
up being played on the radio with neither the band nor the record
company’s permission. While Napster’s Web site
encourages users to post only legal MP3s, the site’s creators
ultimately have no control over what users choose to post or to
download. With no accountability to speak of on Napster’s
behalf, no wonder the RIAA wants to take legal action. Personally,
I wish the Federal Court judge had pulled the plug on Napster and
similar “businesses.”
I realize that not many of my fellow Bruins will agree with me.
This is in part because students in general account for 40 percent
of all the users of Napster and its counterpart, Macster (www.cnn.com/2000
/TECH/computing/07/18/ napster.boom.idg/index.html). This is
also in part because my opinion stems from being a trained
musician. This strengthens my belief that artists, and individuals
who participate in the production of their works, deserve credit
for what they do, ultimately meaning that they have control over
the distribution and treatment of their work. I find that my
musician friends, who are relentlessly fearful of getting their
original ideas stolen or copied, tend to agree with me when I say
that something must be done to control the spread of copyrighted
music over the Internet, whether in the form of legislation, or an
agreement between the recording industry and Napster and similar
Internet music distributors.
Having lived in the dorms at UCLA, I am fully aware of the high
degree to which students use Napster and similar programs to
download online music files, particularly when they have access to
an Ethernet cable network. (UCLA provides one in student housing
and all over campus.) Maybe I happen to know a lot of Internet
junkies, but most of my college friends have hundreds of MP3 files
stored on their hard drives. They use these files as their primary
way of listening to music, rather than using CDs, tapes, or the
radio. Napster activity on certain university networks was so high
that some universities, including Yale, have banned the program
because it was clogging the system. (That and RIAA threatened a
lawsuit).
While college students nationwide seem to love how easy and
convenient it is to access these files through Napster, I am
greatly opposed to the unsolicited access to artists’ music
programs which businesses like Napster provide. Call me a
goody-two-shoes or even a capitalist, but I don’t feel right
about not paying for music. To me, it’s stealing and a
potential violation of copyright laws.
Napster, however, is not without defense. Napster reps claim
that its site is helping, not hurting, the music industry. They say
that record sales have climbed since the introduction of programs
like Napster; it’s true. Napster allows consumers to
pre-“listen” and sample music before they buy it from
retailers, which I agree seems to be helping the industry. My
concern is that people such as my collegemates often use MP3s as
their only source of new music, and never bother to pick up the
albums.
Napster also puts online music retailers out of business since
they nullify the idea of paying for music on the Internet. The fact
that music of high recording quality (digital, no less) is readily
available to anyone is a little scary for the music industry and
music retailers who once had total control over music’s
distribution. As Internet technology advances and connections to
the internet get faster (cable modems, DSL, etc.), the control of
copyrighted material is slowly slipping out of the hands of artists
and their labels.
By no means do I think Napster is going to put the music
industry out of business. It seems that multiple-platinum recording
artists should have little fear of losing their fortunes, but
Napster should also be held accountable for the behavior of its
users. At the same time, the music industry should begin to embrace
the technology facilitated by Napster and the Internet in
general.
The possibilities with this kind of technology are virtually
limitless, and not without the chances of a profit. If there were
no profit to be made, then why would Napster exist? Because its
creators think the music industry is ripping off consumers?
They’d love to convince you of that: they’ve even hired
the same lawyer who won the recent legal battles against Microsoft
for violating anti-trust laws. Let’s get real, folks.
Napster’s creators are looking for a way to tap into the
colossal base of consumers who have already been established by the
music industry. Napster plans to make money through advertising and
chat rooms (www.idg.net/
idgns/2000/07/01/UPDATE/ SenatePanelHearsMusicDebate.shtml). I
refuse to let anyone tell me that Napster is an innocent business
looking to help out both the music industry and the consumer.
I hope that the Senate Committee will agree to take action to
resolve these copyright and technology questions through
legislation. While the debate remains, hopefully the courts will
make a decisive action in the near future that will no doubt limit
the activity of Internet businesses like Napster and its users.
This lawsuit could set precedents for other copyright issues on the
Net as the courts decide if there should be limitations on how much
or what kind of information can be shared over cyberspace. The
results could affect several kinds of media in addition to music,
such as images, animated cartoons, electronic books and even domain
names. Stay tuned (no pun intended). This could get
interesting.
An arena that is virtually lawless could drastically change in
the months to come, and not necessarily for the worse. I have a
feeling that programs like Napster and their users are going to be
faced with a lot more personal accountability.
As for me, I’ll stick to listening to the radio to hear
today’s latest hits.