Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Thu, May 04, 2000, Daniel Lee <dlee[_at_]library.utah.edu> wrote:
>
> As someone who sees copyright as a public right for education and
> learning and not as an author's right, I would phrase the question
> a bit differently. My question is what is the difference between
> Napster and VCR's? Given the decision in the Sony case, what is
> the grounds for the RIAA and Metallica suits? Are there substantial
> differences that I am not seeing, or are they hoping for a different
> decision from a different court in a different era?

One significant difference between Betamax machines and Napster is (theoretically) control. Sony had no way of controlling use of its product after it left their hands. It could not differentiate at the factory whether a recording made on its machines would violate copyright or not. The Court held that the use of the machines to "time-shift" programs fell under fair use. Since it was impossible to distinguish in advance a fair use in this context from a violation, Sony was held not to contributoraly infringe. Napster, however, should (does?) have the means of screening out access to copyright protected material. It would be a pain, and probably kill Napster's business model, but it is technologically possible. Also, "time-shifting" as fair use doen't apply. Without a large fair use out there that is impossible to distinguish by the company from infringing uses, Napster should be hard pressed to justify not blocking access to copyrighted material that it does not have permission to distribute.

As a side note, it seems like an analogy to the time shift fair use might apply in the my.mp3 case of making cd's one already owns available remotely. But that is different from Napster.

-David

David Hale
<dhale[_at_]aggt.com> Received on Fri May 05 2000 - 14:29:47 GMT