OCR Text |
Show NAPSTAR: THE STORY BEHIND THE CONTROVERSY Katie Stahl 22 To display the copyrighted work publicly; And in the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission (U.S. Copyright Office 2001, 177). "It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of the copyright. Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright" (U.S. Copyright Office 2001, 177). These criteria, taken directly from the U.S. Copyright Office, posed interesting questions about the legality of Napster. Napster was able to survive initially by a major limitation on these rights 14the doctrine of "fair use." Fair use is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. What this entails is that if I purchase a copyrighted item that has been properly licensed and specified royalties have been paid, I can loan the item to another individual for his or her personal use. I buy a book and finish reading it and give it to my friend to read. I am not in violation of the law. What has happened as technology develops is that it is no longer a matter of loaning a friend a book. It is loaning a hundred or a thousand or more people my book or my music or my videos via the Internet. While there is not anything that is physically being stolen, people will often share software, burn CDs, or violate copyright law in other ways. Napster was founded on the principle that people will share their passion for music with one another in a way that does not violate copyright law or evoke piracy actions, just as sharing a copy of a book with someone is not breaking the law. What the music industry feared was happening on a large-scale basis, however. People were not being honest with Napster and indeed copyright infringement was occurring. Because Napster did not host, post, or serve any music directly, they argued they were not responsible for copyright infringement. They did not provide or distribute anything except a way for two computers to connect. What the recording industry claimed is that "hundreds of thousands of citizens in every state are copyright infringers" (Barry 2000, 3). Since there was no feasible way to prosecute all of these people, the industry sought to shut down the source 14Napster. Napster claimed that they were not in violation of copyright law, and that they supported the copyright and the benefits it ensures both artists and the public as a whole. They strongly believed, however, that the public has the right to share copyrighted works as long as they are not doing it for commercial gain. As Hank Barry, President and CEO of Napster asserted, "Copyright is a tool of public policy; it does not vindicate a private right. The copyright laws are for the benefit of the public as a whole, not the individual copyright owners" (Barry 2000, 5). He argued that while he believes works should be protected, copyright laws need to be limited so that information can be shared and society can grow as we build upon each other's creativity. People on the site shared their own works and the works of others in an environment where innovation and the expression of ideas could be fostered. This, in Napster's opinion, should not be viewed as a violation of the law, but rather as a way that our society is bettering itself. Aside from the feel good accounts of improving society, Napster also had legal precedent working on its side. This is not the first time that technological advances have landed companies in controversy and/or court. At their onset, the radio, the cassette recorder, cable television, and the VCR all spurred controversy from copyright holders, and all proved to be enormous moneymakers for the copyright holders who originally contested them. Many believe that Napster's technology had this same potential and indeed promoted the sale of albums worldwide. In 1984 with the growing popularity of the VCR, Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America, testified before Congress that the VCR was to the movie industry what "the Boston Strangler is to a woman alone" (Barry 2000, 3). As most of us know, the movie industry in America is alive and doing quite well. Box office receipts in the United States in 1999 alone reached $7.5 billion (Barry 2000, 4). Tom Cruise is not starving on the street and Steven Speilberg was able to keep his house. All of this is despite a greater than 85 percent VCR ownership rate in U.S. households. The VCR has tremendously helped the movie industry and currently accounts for more than half of the industry's revenues. WHAT MUSICIANS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT NAPSTER As can be imagined, there were mixed emotions throughout the music industry in regard to Napster. Some people think the technology is a great idea and should be supported while others worked to slow it down, if not shut it down. The most vocal dissent about Napster came from Lars Ulrich of Metallica. Metallica became the first band to sue Napster after discovering that a work-in-progress version of a song had been leaked through the site. The group then learned that their entire catalog was available for free download for anyone who had a computer. "Napster hijacked our music without asking.... My band authored the music which is Napster's lifeblood. We should decide what happens to it, not Napster 14a company with no rights in our recordings, which never invested a penny in Metallica's music or had anything to do with its creation. The choice has been taken away from us. They never sought our permission 14our catalog of music simply became available as free downloads on the Napster system" (Ulrich 2000, 1). Mr. Ulrich makes a powerful argument. The music he and his band spent hours of their time and talent creating 14 60 |