Has anyone besides me been following the hearings on the Napster controversy? Now THIS is interesting. For those not familiar, Napster is an internet hub where users can log on and exchange music files in what is known as mp3 format, (a mutated Jpeg file layered and converted to transmit CD quality audio). This system has become an unbelievable success. It was started about a year ago by a 19 year old college drop out who did the programing in his dorm room. It is now used by hundreds of thousands of users at any given time. The system works not by a central web server, but rather it allows users to directly share files by accessing each other's hard drives. The system will ONLY read mp3 files and since an mp3 file is not in itself executable there are no security risks. The controversy stems from whether or not it is legal to share music among your peers via the internet. Until now copyright laws have strictly prohibited the copying or distribution of music without expressed written consent by the publisher and/or composer. There is a supreme court decision now in progress, however, that could change all of that. Earlier this year a lower court judge ruled in favor of Napster. Yesterday a panel of three Supreme Court judges heard testimony by attorneys from both Napster and the recording industry as represented by A&M records. Although no ruling has been made, the judges have again agreed to allow Napster to remain on line. It would appear that the era of music recording copyrights could be coming to an end. Traditionally the courts have ruled in favor of the consumer in this area. You may recall that in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sony saying that it was legal for consumers to record television programs via video tape. This ruling opened the flood gates for the VCR manufactures which have been with us ever since. This appeal of course was made long before Sony was in the recording business. Had this case been brought up today Sony may have an entirely different attitude. Other landmark decisions include upheld arguments of consumer's rights to make digital recordings. This started as a case against the use of DAT machines which at the time were headed toward the home market. As it turned out DAT pretty much remained in the studio and never hit it big with consumers. Nevertheless the Supreme Court ruling gave consumers the legal right to record music in digital audio. Next recording companies tried to stop CD burners, machines which allow consumers to record there own CDs. This argument stemmed from the consumer's right to store computer data on CD's, however the technology also allows audio recordings since it uses the same technology and the two cannot be separated. Again the courts ruled in favor of the consumer. Today the internet has been accepted as public domain and has become the ultimate test for free speech. Since the internet knows no international boundaries it is nearly impossible to govern and no court has come even close to trying and probably never will. The only exceptions have been for the distribution of illegal materials such as child pornography. Even this, however, can be difficult since arrests and prosecution of such cases can only be made if the offender's web server/account is in the U.S. or other country which has adopted similar laws. Threatening e-mail is also illegal, however this falls more under postal laws. Out of curiosity from hearing about this case I down loaded the free software and logging on to Napster for the first time yesterday to see what this was all about. I was absolutely amazed to discover the amount of the music available for downloading, literally thousands of titles. The music is CD quality digital stereo and with a free third party plug-in the files can be instantly converted to wave format for burning onto a CD. This admittedly is a very attractive resource. Admittedly I have downloaded several pieces that I have always wanted but would never otherwise have gone out of the way to purchase. This will be a very difficult ruling and so far the courts have allowed Napster to remain on line and operational. Although Napster's technology invites the violation of current copyright laws, it does not prevent anything that the court has already agreed to, that being the use of CD burners by the consumer. DVD burners are expected to be available within the next year or so. With certain freedoms of the internet at stake and the traditional judicial sympathy toward the consumer's rights of making recordings is is very conceivable that the 19 year old kid who invented Napster may change the rules forever. As one talk radio host stated yesterday, "the genie is already out of the bottle and it will be very difficult to put him back in now that the technology is already here". In spite of Napster's existence CD sales are at an all time high. The use of video cassette recorders has not appeared to have effected movie theater attendance. Napster users openly admit that the material they download is primarily music they would otherwise not go out of their way to buy. There is also non copyright music available on Napster and again since the two cannot be separated this makes things even more difficult for the courts to decide. Napster only provides the connection and has no way of controlling it's users. I would be curious to hear other's comments on this. Has the era of internet music arrived? Is it even possible to stop it now that the technology has arrived? Have the supreme court's past decisions already dug the grave? What will this mean for the future of the recording industry? It has been suggested by experts that artists may soon bypass recording distributors entirely and go directly to the internet. Is this the future of the music industry? Has anyone else on the list used Napster? Rob Goodale, RPT Las Vegas, NV
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC