OCR Text |
Show NAPSTAR: THE STORY BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY Katie Stahl 107th Congress indicated it would examine copyright and fair use in greater detail to determine whether more laws are needed to ensure proper intellectual property rights. The situation in the courts was another matter. Napster was sued by some of the biggest names in the industry, including A & M Records among others. On February 12, 2001, an injunction was filed against Napster by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in A & M Inc. v. Napster. The purpose of the lawsuit was to force Napster to cease providing the file sharing until the company found a way to compensate artists more effectively. The firm did not oppose this broad goal. As Hank Berry of Napster stated, "We have been saying all along that we seek an industry-supported solution that makes payments to artists, songwriters and other rights holders, while preserving the Napster file sharing community experience" (Barry, 2000, 3). While Napster was able to reach agreement with two important distributors, Edel in Germany and TVT in the U.S., it could not reach agreement with the major record companies that had brought suit against it. Since July 2001 the Web based operations of Napster have been shut down, in response to a preliminary court ruling. Unable to generate much in the way of income, the company languished, until in May 2002 the media giant Bertelsmann agreed to acquire Napster's assets for $8 million. Bertelsmann will acquire the assets through an expedited Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding (Foege, 2002). While Napster has been shut down, the technology it developed continues to thrive. Jupiter Media Metrix estimates that in March of 2002 two million Napster users employed the technology they had downloaded before the shutdown to continue to swap music. However twenty-one million used the free services like Kazaa, Morpheus and Audio Galaxy, all of which imitate the Napster model. CONCLUSIONS The peer-to-peer technology developed by Napster cannot be stopped. A court may place an injunction on it and shut it down or Congress can pass stricter copyright laws, but Napster represents an incredible technology 14 one that cannot be ignored. Rather than shutting it down, we have to learn how to deal with it. People from all over the world, from all different backgrounds, with all kinds of different tastes, can come together and share their music and talk about it. We do not live in a Utopian society; there are people out there who are dishonest and who use the system and the music in ways that are contrary to international copyright laws. The benefits of the technology far outweigh the disadvantages, however. More than the damage these few cause the industry, the millions who use the peer-to-peer sites as they are intended, are going to provide such an incredible benefit to the music industry and individual artists that the long-term advantages that will come about can scarcely be comprehended. Big record companies are in a state of fear because they recognize the potential companies like Napster have of diversifying the music industry. People might discover that they like someone's music other than Britney Spears or the Backstreet Boys. None of these superstars are going to be defeated, just like Tom Cruise and Steven Speilberg made it through the VCR craze. As radio stations become more and more centralized and corporatized, it is extremely refreshing to know that there is somewhere people can go to get away from the hype and just hear some music. Similar to the development of other technologies, Napster has run into significant resistance in its early stages. Other industries have overcome such resistance and made their respective fields stronger. In this new millennium, there is no way to stop technological advancement. What needs to be done is to figure out how to use this technology so the respective parties gain the greatest benefit. I believe that this can be achieved by self-regulation in the market and not by more congressional action. REFERENCES Barry, Hank. 2000. CEO, Napster, Inc. "Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee," October 9. Breinholt, Peter. 2000. "Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee," October 9. Copyright Law of the United States. Sound Recordings and Music Videos, Chapter 11, Section 1101, 177. Fanning, Shawn. 2000. Founder, Napster, Inc. "Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee," October 9. Foege, Aleo. 2002. "Bertelsmann's Quest to Harness the Napster Genie." New York Times. Kan, Gene. 2000. "Utilitarian View on the Intellectual Property and Music on the Internet," Testimony on the future of intellectual property in the digital age to the Senate Judiciary Committee. July 9. Napster. 2000. "Napster Hires Senior Hatch Judiciary Committee Advisor to Lead Company's Strategic Development Efforts," December 7. www.napster.com/pressroom/pr/001207.html Napster. 2001. "Artists Sound Off," January 19. www. napster. com/speakout/artists. html Napster. 2001. "Napster, Inc. Response to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on the U.S. District Court injunction with A&M Inc. v. Napster", February 17. www. napster. com/pressroom/pr/010212.html Robertson, Michael. 2000. "Statement on: 'The Future of Digital Music: Is There an Upside to Downloading?'" July 11. Ulrich, Ears. 2000. "Statement on: 'The Future of Digital Music: Is There an Upside to Downloading?'" July 11. United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2001. A&M Records, Inc., v. Napster, Inc. February 12. U.S. Copyright Office. 2000. "Copyright Basics," December 15. www.loc.gov/copyright/circs/circl.html 62 |