Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Thu, May 04, 2000, James Rogers <jetan[_at_]ionet.net> wrote:
>
> As some of you may have noticed, for a lawyer I take a somewhat
> nihilistic view of copyright, e.g., "blow it up". I realize that this
> will seem distasteful to some on the list, particularly to those whose
> bread and butter comes from protecting their client's IP interests.
>
> If you guys can forgive me for asking sort of an airy-fairy
> philosophical question, I'm a bit curious as to how you guys feel
> about the Napster and MP3 suits in the most _general_ sense. Clearly
> these are just the beginnings of an all out assault on copyright on
> the most basic, conceptual level. It also seems clear that none of
> us can readily conceive of all the tech fronts on which copyright
> will have to be defended.
>
> I am of the opinion that Napster represents a very clear violation
> of the copyright statute. But it also strikes me that the courts are
> going to come to this question rather late in the game. We all recall
> the videotape decision, in which the court virtually rewrote the
> statute in order to permit a widespread use in the face of existing
> copyright law.
>
> My position is (I think) that the court, soon or late, is going to
> have to adopt a new model for copyright, by which I mean a new economic
> model. Assuming that I am correct, what form can you conceive of this
> taking? I realize that in a way I am asking you folks to be science
> fiction writers and extrapolate larger effects from a technological
> development. But I would be interested in your opinions, and
> particularly interested if those who disagree strongly with my
> assumptions and prejudices give their best and worse case scenarios.
> By "best" I mean copyright succumbs to the assault, and good things
> happen, and by "worst" I mean that current copyright law is troubled
> but not substantilly altered by Napsterish criminal mischief, and that
> great economic harm is wrought by the transgressors.
>
> Doubtless most of you have already thought so far ahead on this
> (I'm not being facetious), that the question may strike you as both
> banal and pretentious. Nevertheless, I would be interested in your
> thoughts.

There is a rich history in this country of clear violation of laws that are both "the law" and "good law". Such cases as Koramatsu and the Japanese internment decisions of the State of California serve as an example. They are either based in the view that if everyone is for something it must be right (repeal of Prohibition) or even though you know its wrong so many of us want it that we'll force the lawyers/courts/ legislatures to do it (Plessy and the 'separate but equal doctrine).

So the question is this... is this a bad law or is it a reaction of a spoiled populace that wants something so badly that they'll do anything they can to get it -- and damn the law and what is right.

Does anyone seriously doubt which this is?

Carl Hartmann
<carlhartmann[_at_]icnt.net> Received on Thu May 04 2000 - 13:21:46 GMT