Napster: Ethics of use and the whole mp3 thang.
Sep 21 '00 (Updated Sep 22 '00)
Well, everyone and his dog it seems to have an opinion about Napster, not to mention use the program. I am really interested in the ethical choices people make in downloading copyrighted material. I mean, what are we to do? The home recording act has made it very clear that there is such a thing as home use: it's a very good argument for saying hey, I am not making a profit from it, neither is anyone else, and the damn record companies make huge profits leaving the artists with hardly anything to live on. So why not use it?
I personally can't make any kind of argument against that kind of logic at this stage. It's a hard place to stand because we have a situation online where no-one has stepped forward with a foolproof and fair method of dealing with micro-payments online, so paying for downloading music is just too hard for the average user, especially seeing as it's so easy to just get it for free.
The thing is, we've seen exactly the same issue come up again and again with each new copying technology: DAT tape, video tape, audio tape, photocopiers: did you know that even the printing press was petitioned against by scribes who were afraid of losing their livelihoods? It's exactly the same situation now. The RIAA sees this new technology as a potential threat to their income and wants to squish it into the ground: hence the suit against Napster. If they'd only realise that perhaps the technology is not harming their industry, but is in fact helping bring new listeners to music they might never have come across, and thus increasing their sales, then perhaps there would be some genuine progress. I think what the Industry big-wigs must hate most is that somebody grabbed the ball from them before they knew what to do with it.
I'm incredibly curious about what the outcome of the lawsuit will be, because though on the one hand there is very obvious evidence for contribution to copyright violation, there is an equally strong argument to say it is not copyright violation by the understanding of the current law. Of course, the current law didn't see digital music become of such good quality and ease of transference as it has in such a short space of time. I'd say there is no doubt that the law will be changed/updated in the very near future, but whether Napster will actually go down in the process is another matter. I think they have a pretty good chance in actually surviving relatively unscathed.
The issue of how copyright law needs to be changed to be able to accommodate digital distribution and publishing is pretty important. Internationally there are various different amendments and in some places, no contingency as yet. Here in Australia it has been a carefully monitored issue but it seems we are waiting to see what happens in the US before making any really big changes.
I am amazed at how polarized different people are on the issue as well: it seems to be largely the old vs. the young - or old school vs. new school? The Offspring example is particularly worth noting - here we have a band willing to (essentially) bet $1 million dollars that free online distribution of music is not only not going to hurt their sales, but will actually increase them. It will be interesting to see if their prediction is correct.
On the whole I am really excited about the dynamics in the online world at the moment as the result of these issues. Never before has there been the ability to discuss and research issues with so much public input and opinion. I just hope we don't get sent into the dark ages.
If you'd like to read my opinion on the software itself, check out:
http://www.epinions.com/cmd-review-475B-1ADC080D-39CB027E-prod6
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
_Cassandra_
|
|
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Reviews written: 35
Trusted by: 30 members
About Me:
Designer and Filmmaker - and an artist in many guises.
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.