Back to the HomepageFree Trade or Grand Theft Music?
March 26, 2001 Since the Napster battle is almost over, I figured I would throw my two cents in (and take the side of the winner! - just kidding). While both sides have relatively valid arguments, obviously only one of them will win the legal battle and retain or take control of the music trading industry.
On one hand, I completely understand Napster's position and their belief that music should be traded freely. Music, no matter what language its lyrics are in, or the culture that influences its tune, is an art that is understood by all peoples everywhere. Because of its universal power, it is somewhat easy to say that it should be traded freely and its creation should be encouraged in any way possible. Napster was created by Sean Fanning as a means to allow people (mostly he and his friends) to trade music files known as MP3s easily without having to search the entire Internet to find them. He claims that he never thought it would ever become the international hot spot that it is today. But regardless of original intentions, it is a huge craze which deals in trading copyrighted song material via the Internet...and that's where the problems kick in. Do the Napster users have the right to trade MP3 versions of copyrighted song material that is sold on tapes and CDs? The awesome heavy metal band Metallica was the first to say "No.".
With all of that being said, which isn't even the whole story, I will tell you know that I am a Napster user. As long as it is legal to download the songs (i.e. - until Napster is "turned off"), I will use it's service and get the songs that I love downloaded onto my computer for my eternal listening pleasure. It's not wrong if the law doesn't say so. I've downloaded 135 songs so far and if I had more hard drive space and a faster ISP connection, I'd download a whole bunch more.
Now for the other side. Metallica has been blamed and received A LOT of harsh criticism for their battle against Napster. And even though I am a Napster user, and a supporter of their principle's, I know that they are illegally trading copyrighted intellectual property (song lyrics and tunes). Napster has said that music is simply free domain and should be treated as such. But what they consider free domain and totally public, is actually somebody's legally protected and owned property. If I went to Sean Fanning's house and wanted to trade or borrow his new car, do you think he would have a problem? Hehe, maybe I should go to his lawyer's house instead??? NEwayz, Metallica, and now the hundreds of other artists and music companies that have joined their fight, are simply protecting what is theirs - the creative product of music. This product is also their sole livlihood and source of income. Their talent for creating music is what allows them to escape the "ratrace" so many of you claim to hate. The nine-to-five job in an eight-by-eight cubicle punching computer keys all day. So why shouldn't they stand up and fight for what is theirs?
I really don't feel like typing any more so I hope you get my point. I love Metallica and, as long as it's legal, I'll continue to use Napster. But the absolute bottom line is that Napster is dealing in stolen property and the courts will shut them down. However, Napster may avoid that horrible fate by soon implementing their plan to charge a monthly fee (around $5) plus another fee for downloading any "new" music (whatever that means). E-mail me if you have any comments on this subject. You know I love to hear from you!