| Infringe On Copyright Laws? Essay, Research Paper
Re: How and What is Napster doing to infringe on Copyright Laws?
Issue: What is Napster? Why is Napster causing such a commotion? What
are they doing about it?
Napster is the world’s leading file sharing community. The Napster
software (http://www.napster.com), launched early in 1999, allows
internet users to share and download MP3 files directly from any
computer connected to the Napster network. The software is used by
downloading a client program from the Napster site and then connecting
to the network through this software, which allows sharing (uploading
and downloading) of MP3 files between all users connected to the
network. While Napster does not condone copyright infringement, there is
no opportunity in the software to stop this, or for royalties to be paid
to artists whose songs are being duplicated for free. Unlike similar
file-sharing applications (Gnutella, Freenet), Napster limits users to
uploading/downloading of MP3 files only. These files are compressed wave
(.wav) files.
The advantage of MP3 files is that they are approximately one-tenth the
size of the
corresponding .wav file and can be close-to-CD-quality. It is for this
reason that many
artists, record labels and other music industry stakeholders are
concerned by the MP3
file format and applications like Napster that simplify the sharing of
copyrighted
material.
What Napster tries to tell its users is that they are not supposed to
use the files on Napster for any Unauthorized copying, distribution,
modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works
is an infringement of the copyright holders’ rights. What has happened
to Napster is a Federal Judge in San Francisco issued an injunction
against Napster, effectively shutting down the popular song sharing
service. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA) sued Napster in December
1999, alleging that the service encourages copyright violation, since
Napster allows users to share music files for free. In their motion, the
entertainment industry presented evidence demonstrating ongoing harm to
CD sales, and harm to the emerging legitimate market for downloading
music. Slightly controversially, they also claimed that Napster “leads
to a devaluing of music, as Napster teaches a generation of music
consumers that artists do not deserve to be paid for their work, and
their creative efforts are free for the taking.”
The reaction from recording artists, record labels and other music
industry players has been varied, but primarily anti-Napster. The first
action to be taken against Napster
was by the band Metallica. In April of this year, they sued Napster Inc
for copyright
infringement. The case was settled out of court when Napster agreed to
ban some
300,000 users who had allegedly downloaded Metallica songs. Again in
June Napster Inc
was sued for copyright infringement by The Recording Industry
Association of America
(RIAA), a trade group representing the US recording industry, alleging
“Napster is
enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and distribution of
copyrighted music”.
Napster claims that Audio Home Recording Act that permits copying of
material for
personal use, allows it’s users to swap MP3s. Napster further claims
immunity by defining the company as an ISP under the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act. The RIAA
unsuccessfully applied to have an injunction to stop Napster’s
operations until after the
court case in September, so Napster will continue to operate until (and
if) the court
rules against Napster.
Other artists and record labels
http://www.napster.com/speakout/artists.html and
http://www.napster.com/speakout/labels.html) have responded to the
advent of
Napster and similar applications in a more positive way, embracing the
new technology
rather than rejecting it. On their website, the Offspring says “MP3
technology and
programs such as Napster are a vital and necessary means to promote
music and
foster better relationships with our fans.” Interestingly enough, the
Offspring’s last
album, Americana, was made available online illegally before
commercially released, yet
it is the band’s best-selling album to date. Besides, a number of
surveys have
proven that Napster users actually buy more CDs, after ’sampling’ the
songs online
(http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12093.html). It is this issue
that is at the
basis of the RIAA lawsuit, whether Napster and similar companies will
mean reduced CD sales. Napster does challenge the traditional
distribution of music (CDs, cassettes, vinyl etc) but whether this
should be viewed as a threat or simply a new medium to be
abused by the music industry is another issue. Some record labels, most
notably
Epitaph (http://www.epitaph.com) have partnered with sites like
e-music.com to sell
full albums and single songs in MP3 format over the web. In this case,
the record
company has in fact gained a new distribution method, rather than seeing
it as the
‘enemy’. Of course, in this scenario, the record company still gets a
cut of the profits,
something that artists’ whose songs are downloaded through Napster don’t
get.
Questions Presented:
1. What is the current status of copyright law in America?
2. How exactly has Napster infringed upon any types of Copyright Laws?
3. What are the possible outcomes that Napster might face?
Analysis:
The Current Status of Copyright Law A copyright provides the creator of
an
intellectual production with ownership and exclusive rights to publish,
print, distribute, or sell the copyrighted material. Intellectual
productions that are eligible for copyright privileges include written
material, written and recorded music, paintings, sculptures,
photographs, movies, videos and video games, computer programs, and many
other mediums of creative expression. To qualify for copyright
protection a work must be creative, exist in physical form, and be
originally produced by the author. A copyright cannot protect ideas,
facts, titles, names, short phrases, or blank forms. Generally,
a copyright is owned by the creator of a work, but
there are some exceptions. If an employee creates a work during the
course of employment, the employer may own the copyright. Likewise, if
an independent contractor creates the work, the copyright may be held by
the commissioning organization. Additionally, if the owner of a
copyright sells the rights to a work, the purchasing party becomes the
copyright owner. In the case that two or more authors
contribute to a joint work, they are considered joint copyright owners
and have equal right to register and enforce the copyright. For works
published after 1977, the copyright is enforceable for the life of the
author plus seventy years. After this time period, the work enters the
“public domain”, and anyone has access to it without infringing on the
copyright. As of March 1, 1989, a published work is automatically
protected as soon as it is created. It is advantageous, however, to
register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office for a number of
reasons.
380
|