Napster Irrelevant - Filesharing Will Go On!
Hi Ho, For those who have lived in a cave for the past year or so, Napster is an online service that allows users to communicate with each other and download MP3 music files from each other's computers. They don't actually host any music material, but they do provide the search capability to find the songs you are looking for on other users' computers. In less than a year, Napster has acquired more than 10 million users. Few Internet technologies have become so popular so quickly--nor acquired such powerful enemies. Though it has yet to figure out how to make money, Napster is under attack by the music industry, which objects to its product being exchanged for free. It amazes me how the record industry has come in masse to condemn Napster in what one critic has called "stealing their property and livelihood." Napster has claimed from the beginning that its service is not copyright infringement as the record labels claim, arguing instead that the service is "fair use" of intellectual property -- the same argument that allows people to make copies of music, documents and artwork for personal non-commercial use. I say, if they want to ban Napster, why not ban playing songs on the radio? After all, with a simple tape recorder anyone can "steal" a copyrighted song and not have to compensate the owner. Poor quality, you might say. Well, why don't we ban CD writers then? They allow complete ripping of CD contents onto duplicate CDs without ANY loss of quality. That's even better than MP3's, which many praise for their quality but I can definitely tell the difference. While we're at it, let's ban all dual cassette tape decks, and all stereo systems that have both a CD player and a tape recorder. After all, these can be used by song thieves as well. Of course, if you read the disclaimers on cassette tapes and cassette recorders, many say that they are not intended to be used to illegally copy copyrighted material. Napster has a similar disclaimer on their website as well. We don't hold blank cassette and CD manufacturers libel for any piracy their equipment may enable. So why should we hold Napster to a higher ideal? Why should the owners of Napster be required to play copyright cops for the recording industry, when they have more important things to do? Like promote the work of new unsigned artists, which is what the site is really all about. Many artists, such as rockers Metallica and rapper Dr. Dre have come out against Napster, and have brought a billion dollar lawsuit against them. They claim that with Napster allowing them to download songs for free, people aren't buying CD's anymore and they're losing revenue. I personally haven't bought a new CD in years, but when they cost almost $20 for about 30 minutes or so of music, and usually only one or maybe two good songs on them, why should I? No doubt a lot of people are asking the same question. Other great artists like Prince and The Smashing Pumpkins have fully embraced the MP3 medium. The Smashing Pumpkins recently bypassed their record label and released their 25-song new album straight to the internet to MP3. And the buzz is that this is some of their best work yet. Prince, likewise, had so much trouble with his record company trying to own him that he changed his name to that infamous symbol until his contract ran out. And he also releases all of his new music straight to the online market. I can sympathize with his struggle--I had that ex-employer that I told you all about who thought he owned my mind, until I put an end to it. Anyway, I have about 3.5 gigabytes on my hard drive filled with MP3's, but I can honestly say that I didn't download any of them from Napster. Most of them came from CD's that I either own, or borrowed from friends. What is the difference? Are the copyright police going to come arrest me now for the heinous crime of having music on my computer? Children are abused and mutilated everyday. Women are raped and brutalized. Millions go hungry, and several die violent deaths. And all of these crimes go unpunished, yet they're going to arrest me for the awful crime of filling 3.5 gigabytes of space that I OWN on MY COMPUTER with ones and zeros of my choosing. When it comes down to it, that is all it is--ones and zeros. And they can be permanently erased with the press of a single key. Welcome to the digital age. I have not "stolen" anything. For the MP3's that I have that came from CD's that I don't own (and didn't get ripped off by paying good money for), I can honestly say that the recording industry didn't lose one DIME by me having them. If I didn't have those MP3's, I simply wouldn't have the songs to listen to (unless I happened to hear them on the radio). My money is tightly budgeted these days and there is no room for useless expenditures like CD's of music that will just go out of style in a couple of years anyway. But the record companies actually benefit by me having these MP3's, because I may tell others about some of the songs that I have that I really enjoy, and I may let them listen to them. And they may like them (and have more money to throw away than I do) and actually go buy the CD. Hence, I just made them money that they wouldn't have otherwise made. Word of mouth is the most effective advertising tool known to man, and the only one that many intelligent people trust. Well, it doesn't matter if they shut down Napster or not because the genie is out of the bottle. There are newer technologies available, such as Gnutella, that do the same thing Napster does without having a centralized location that can be shut down. Music sharing will go on. They can either embrace it and find ways of using it to their advantage (like the "Bare Naked Ladies", who have flooded the net with MP3's of their songs with voice-over advertisements for their album), or they can fight it and lose a good chunk of their following like what is happening to Metallica and Dr. Dre. Even though I am a computer programmer by trade, I feel the exact same way about the software industry. Perhaps if they didn't want hundreds (or thousands) of dollars each for CD's containing nothing but another bunch of ones and zeroes, and only cost about 25 cents to produce, I might be more inclined to pay money for their product. But the whole licensing thing is utterly ridiculous to me. If I pay money for a program, why can't I install it on every computer I own? Why should I have to pay those greedy jerks the same amount for every computer I install it on? What business is it of theirs anyway? The LINUX-driven open-source movement is the wave of the future and as my former co-worker Jay used to say on the matter, "resistance is futile." Hi Ho, Kermit the Frog again. Well, there you have it folks. Elmo's Rant for this week. Hopefully he'll have calmed down and will be out of his room in time to do next week's Rant. But until then, it's been real folks. Bye Bye everybody! Kermit the Frog Click here to return to the previous page. |
![]() |