Walter Mojica Mojica
1
Prof. Cross
Eng. 305cmp
5/3/01
I Loved napster
Section 1
In
today's
world we have such luxuries such as the internet and access to
information at our fingertips. Who would've guessed
that
I can have access to virtually any song I want through the internet. With
the
technology we have today, I can virtually download any song I want from a
file
sharing program called napster. The way it works is by connecting users so
that
they can download music from each other. This is great. Up till now I have
about a million songs downloaded on to my computer. Everything from
classic
rock to rap. After a couple of years in the making, napster is being shut
down. Copyright infringement is
what
the prosecutors are shouting. Well to my knowledge, I always believed that
artists were paid on a contractual basis, and not so much by c.d.'s
sold. I am
also aware that once someone buys a c.d. it becomes their property. I
thought
this was the whole idea with blank cassettes. I never believed it was a
crime
to distribute copied music. The band which creates the music has complete
copyright
to the music as far as in profit. In other words it cant be resold by an
undeserving party.
Mojica 2
It is the selling that is illegal, but not everybody
that is
on napster is copying c.d.'s for profit. For example, me. I just love the
fact
that I can have any song I want.
I'm reading this book called The Presence of Others,
pieced
together by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. In the book there
are
many different opinions spoken out through excerpts of books and essays
written
by well known authors. One in particular, was called, "The Digital Rights
of
War" written by Pamela Samuelson. This article was the one that brought my
attention to the "first
sale" rule.
This meant that after I have purchased
a particular item, the merchandise is now mine and I
can do
whatever I want with my property. With that line written one would think
Samuelson would be pro. napster. Since the article was written before the
napster case was even around, I dont know for sure, but I really doubt it.
Samuelson foresaw the bootlegging of D.V.D movies, and wrote of the wrong
in
that. On the other hand she explains the importance of exposure. Samuelson
is
interested in the fine line between exposure and copyright
infringement.
I
think
there is never going to be a regulation on information available on the
net.
Technology is constantly out-dated, and it seems that there is a
Mojica 3
hack for everything. I believe the shutting down of
napster
isn't going to
solve anything, but make things worse. I also believe
that
anything taken from the public that is in high demand, will find a way
into the
public's hands like it or not.
The
prohibition of alcohol is an example of this, on an extreme measure. When
alcohol was taken away from the public in 1920-1933 it was thirteen years
of
damage to America. Crime doubled and it went downhill from there. Not an
exact
comparison, but consequences are the key here. The taking of napster will
fire
up the hackers and programers, and the problem will be many napsters. I
don't
understand what the big deal is? In fact I heard that record sales were
actually up the last year when napster was at a peak in
users.
So I
want
to know....what's the problem? If the napster case isn't about money or
about
issues that were thought of back when blank tapes were introduced, then
what is
it? I'm curious to know if the bands aside from Metallica and rappers like
Dr.Dre that are against napster are mad because of selfish money reasons,
and
as far as the big names I'm curious to know whether or not they will burn
all
of their blank tapes?
Mojica 4
Section 2
In
this
section of the paper I am going to test my previous assumptions of my
theory of
why napster shouldn't be shut down. I can see now that some of my
assumptions
of the way things are run in the music industry were a tad off. I also
think I
understand where Pamela Samuelson's article a little bit better now. I do
feel
as if I was half proven right because of the money issue. Big name
musicians
are concerned of the money issues, but not all of them. The smaller bands
are
the ones that are greatly affected.
In the
beginning of this paper I discussed Pamela Samuelson's essay "The Digital
Rights of War." In that essay Samuelson explores the "first
sale" rule. She
explains that, "Virtually all private and noncommercial uses of
information are
lawful. Yet the underlying law is somewhat more complicated. From the
standpoint of copyright law, it is permissible to read a play not so much
because one has paid for a copy, but because the law does not confer on
owners
a right to control the reading of protected, or copyrighted, works. It is
okay
to borrow a copy of the play from a library or share a personal copy with
a
friend because the law treats the first sale of a copy to the public as
exhausting the copyright owner's right to control further distribution of
that
Mojica 5
copy (The Presence of Others. 316)." Sounds like a plus for napster....But
is it
really? The way I now understand this is how can distinguish between
borrowing
and stealing if this is the way on-line music is going to be dealt with.
Regulation would be impossible. There is a catch though that I wasn't
aware of
though that Samuelson failed to mention.
I
found out
that there is a minor clause in the law that clearly explains why there is
so
much controversy over napster. While I was surfing the net I came across a
site
called "Stop Napster." In the site I found something important. On a reply
to a
e-mail sent in I happen to read the following," The law is very clear: You
are
allowed to make copies for use in your home or vehicle. OR even to
distribute
it to your "normal circle of friends." It does not apply to the wholesale
distribution of files among millions of anonymous strangers, an opinion
that
the legislative history of the Audio Home Recording Act fully supports
(www.stopnapster.com 2001). According to these web site hosts called The
Tabloids, to say that you "own" it as if you created it is ludicrous! The
main
argument here is that the illegal distribution of music is the problem and
not
so much the sharing. If I can go out and buy a blank c.d. for $1.59,
download a
whole album from napster, turn around and
Mojica 6
sell it for $7.00, why not? The funny thing is although
I've
never sold a burned c.d., I own many of them.
As far
as
in blank tapes, they are not as easily widespread as far as in
accessibility.
The internet makes attaining music very, very easy. Another downfall with
cassettes is the sound quality. Is it not in fact that we buy c.d.'s for
their
clarity? Sure I can go to swap meet and buy these bootleg tapes, but I
always
find myself complaining about the quality.
So in
contrast to what I believed there were other issues with the napster case
I
wasn't aware of. In the same Pamela Samuelson essay, she suggests that if
we
abolish the "first sale" rule imagine the tremendous impact this would
have on
libraries! Would we be charged to read a copy from the public
library? Samuelson states " If you want read an
article in Time but don't have a subscription... Why shouldn't you have to
pay
50 cents or a dollar to read it - even at a library - and twice as much if
you
want a print out (The Presence of Others 318) ?" On the other hand we have
groups like The Tabloids that are looking for a stop to the "first
sale" rule,
yet I wonder if they are ready for the consequences?
Mojica 7
Section 3
Now
that
I've concluded my research, I can truly say that I loved
napster. Loved... past
tense. After all the negative feed back I don't think I can look at
napster the
same anymore. I thought I was going to get more information for napster,
but I
was surprised to find more of the opposite. I never had this bad taste in
my
mouth when I used to download. Today napster is at about 30%. Even if I
wanted
to, all the popular songs are filtered out. It's just a matter of time
before
the public responds.
The
case
against napster was easy. The explosion of c.d. burners in the last two
years has been tremendous. And why
wouldn't they, napster is at a financial peak also. What I'm saying is
that
even though I hate to admit it most people download off the internet, burn
a
c.d. and sell it for half price. Condoning this would be like saying it is
o.k.
to record Disney movies and selling them for half price. An artists is an
artists is an artists. Whether the person is an author, musician, or
cartoonists.
The
problem
with on line music though is it's inability to be regulated. I believe
that as
long as we have the internet, music will never be the same. Just the other
day
when I was doing my research I ran into what people are
Mojica 8 calling "new" napsters. The point is that if I have the
patience, and the time and really wanted a certain song I can surf the net
and
find a way to download it and make it mine. I don't think taking napster
away
is going to solve anything but maybe if we were to make merchandise where
copyright can still be regulated.
One
suggestion came from the Samuelson's article. The DivX is her example. She
says," If you purchase a DivX disk, you can play it on your own player for
48
hours, but after that, the data on the disk is inaccessible unless you pay
another license fee. There is no technical reason why this can't happen
with
other kinds of information as well. Why shouldn't recording companies
issue
c.d.'s that are coded to self destruct or lock up after 15 plays, forcing
those
who want to hear more to pay more (The Presence of Others 318)?" The only problem would be a
circumvention.
And I don't think trying to take away technology from the public that
would
allow circumvention will create problems. This isn't the only
problem.
Take a
website like "stop napster." Their outlook on the subject is a little
different. They ask questions like," why is it o.k. to rip off big
companies?"
The Tabloids (web hosts) explain that in the long run expenses
Mojica 9
will run through the consumer. Just like Walmart and
Target
the cost of theft is passed through to the consumer. One will end up
paying
higher prices for c.d.'s in the long run. Also, record companies will stop
taking
risks on artists and you'll end up with middle of the road crap that
appeals
only to the masses. If this is true, does this mean the end of creative
music
is slowly approaching?
In my
own
opinion, I have no problem with napster. I feel that at this exact moment
there
is a revolution on it's way. The human race has always been good at
producing
false outcomes. The end of the world, Y2K, flying cars.... My point is if
you
try to get in the way of technology be careful, and prepare yourself to
get run
over.
Mojica 10
Works Cited
Samuelson, Pamela. "The Digital Rights War." The
Presence of
Others. Eds. Andrea A.
Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2000.
315-320
Samuelson, Pamela. "The Digital Rights War." The
Presence of
Others. Eds. Andrea A.
Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2000.
316
The Tabloids." Letter of the Month # 1." Stop
napster. com:
Artists Protecting
Artists.
April 2001. April 4th
2001<http://www.stopnapster.com
Samuelson, Pamela. "The Digital Rights War." The
Presence of
Others. Eds. Andrea A.
Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2000.
318
Samuelson, Pamela. "The Digital Rights War." The
Presence of
Others. Eds. Andrea A.
Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Boston: Bedford, 2000.
318
For my I
search paper I chose to write about the napster problem. The funny thing
is,
now that Ive done my research, my moral self understands why napster is
now
being shut down. I love to download music, but thats like saying that I
like to
drink beer and it doesnt harm my liver, its WRONG. The following sites are
among the top five sites on either side of the issue, including the site
itself...napster.
1). http://
www.newmediamusic.com/ps/riaa.napsterstatement.html
This site is completely against napster. On the home
page
there are a few statements by the R.I.A.A ruling on the whole napster
ruling.
There are also a few archives you can look up to see the development of
the
napster case. A whule lot of information, but kind of biased because of
their
whole opinion on napster. This site is totally against free downloading of
music, and are very good at getting their point across about the way they
feel.
2). "http://www.stopnapster.com"
King of napster enemies. Headed by a band that goes by
an
anonymous name. This sites whole meaning of existence is to just simply
clarify
why napster is being shut down. There are links that show hate mail and
the
bands responses. Although its a serious site with serious content its kind
of
got a funny feel to it. Good at exploiting the laws way of viewing
napster.
3).
"http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0%2c4586%2c2648065"
A neutral site. This site has a summary of what has
been in
the news lately. Also has access to a new napster( the format is a little
different though) , and has links to other neutral sites. There are chat
rooms
on the home page, and there even is a link to where you can leave your own
opinion so other people can read it and respond to you if theyd like. Not
very
much content.
4). "http://www.cnn.com/cnnfn/2000/10/31/bizzbuzz/napster"
Another neutral site. This site tells the whole napster
story along with the pros and cons. A lot of detail. I liked that I was
able to
make up my own decision with what was presented to me. There are links to
hate
napster sites along with love napster sites. There is even a link for the
great
napster site as well. Very similar to the previous site.
5). "http://www.napster.com"
The one that started it all. The king of
controversy. One
used to be able to go on this site and download virtually any song ever
recorded. After tons of trials and litigation, napster truly isnt the same
anymore. Ive got to look for songs under different names. Not really worth
going on anymore unless you had a really weird song in mind like the theme
song
to some game show in the 80s.