University Wire
07-31-2000
(Daily Bruin) (U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES -- 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/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, because 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 their 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 because 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.
(C) 2000 Daily Bruin via U-WIRE
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий