Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Tue, 09 May 2000, Marty Hayes <9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't seen anything (and if you have, please chime in) that even
> remotely suggests that this Napster software has any other purpose
> or intent for use other than making copies of music files without
> paying royalties and without obtaining permissions. In fact, the
> creator has explicitly said that his intent was to provide people
> with a way to make copies of music files easily. Mr. Cumbow may be
> right -- Napster doesn't "technically" copy the works -- but the
> creator provides this product/service with the knowledge (and even
> the reasonable expectation) that it will be used to make
> unauthorized reproductions of music.
 

This argument seems attractive, but only for a while. I am still struggling to see the difference between Napster and VCRs. The argument against VCRs (or photocopiers) could have been (was?) that they were made for the sole purpose of copying video content without paying admission/permission fees. Yet the courts determined that because there were legal uses of the device, it, in itself, was not infringing. People put up their own songs to be shared, others use Napster in lieu of hauling their CDs with them, or in place of radios at the workplace. These uses are either non-infringing (in the case of songs put up merely for distribution and not for economic return) or could reasonably be expected to be non-infringing.

Yes the creators of Napster "provide this product/service with the knowledge (and even the reasonable expectation) that it will be used to make unauthorized reproductions of music." But Netscape and Microsoft make web browsers with the full understanding that people, minors included, will use it to look at blatantly illegal content. Following this argument, we would have the Justice Department going after them for contributing to the delinquincy of minors.

Dan Lee
University of Utah
<dlee[_at_]library.utah.edu> Received on Wed May 10 2000 - 18:25:50 GMT