Re: Napster destroys Western Civilization

On Wed, 10 May 2000, John Lederer <johnl[_at_]ibm.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The same reasoning would apply to a Xerox machine or a camera,
> wouldn't it?.
>
> Some portion of mp3's are legal. Buried under the publicity of
> perfomers that object are a fair number of performers that regard
> copying as good. Indeed if you go to http://www.mp3.com/ you will
> see a fairly wide selection of free "performer sanctioned" mp3's.
>
> Indeed my neighbor's teenage son is "distributing" their band's songs
> through Napster in the hope of an eventual paying gig --- so far an
> unsuccessful strategy though their classmates do listen to their
> performances that way.
>
> Not to pick at your analogy, though your prediction that we would is
> correct, but do we really want to equate music/speech to alcohol and
> guns?

John: No, the same reasoning would *not* apply to a Xerox machine -- see the response I've already posted in response to a similar comment by Daniel Lee. Furthermore, it applies even less to the example of a camera, because a camera does not necessarily make an "identical" reproduction the way other formats do. Changing your point of operation with a camera even just 2 degrees one way or the other offers a completely different perspective of the subject matter, and how one chooses to compose the image in the viewfinder has limitless possibilities for originality.

As far as the "performer sanctioned" MP3s, I really hope you aren't trying to sell me the idea that these even remotely resemble the majority or, for that matter, were Napster's primary concern. According to 3-4 articles I have read on this, it was created because classmates wanted a more streamlined way to find music online -- not music of unknown bands, mind you, but that of established artists (who, by the way, haven't given permission for such copying). While I don't dispute that an offshoot from this whole thing has been the ability of unknown bands to potentially promote themselves, it is *not* the "rule" or chief form of use, nor was that the intended function. Furthermore, watch and see just how thrilled about non-permissioned copying those unknown bands are should one of them get "discovered" and turn into a big deal -- watch how quickly their perspective about unlicensed music will change then.

And please, let's not stretch to the ludicrous here -- I anticipated that some of you may be literalists, which is why I had already qualified up front that the analogies were to be used for the sake of example only, as in "to demonstrate the abstract concept behind the analogy." Apparently, some still need interpretation on that: it means that I didn't say (nor did I intend to suggest) that music/speech were of the same gravity as guns and alcohol or that they should be viewed equally as evils.

Marty Hayes
<9ball[_at_]hostsite.net> Received on Thu May 11 2000 - 17:50:06 GMT