Napster: When Property Rights and Technology Collide
While the technology is new, the argument is not. From the phonograph(and probably well before), to the VCR, new inventions have always been demonized by those who believe that the technology will rob them of their livelihood. At the turn of the last century, musicians claimed that the phonograph would eliminate the interest in live music performance. Radio would destroy record sales, TV, and much later, the VCR, would steal moviegoers away. Other than the phonograph, which only was abandoned due to better technology, all of these inventions and the markets they were supposed to destroy are alive and are making more profit than ever before. Most Libertarians favor taking a "wait and see" approach to new technology, instead of blindly legislating against a consequence that may never materialize. However, those who are suing Napster and other similar Internet sites are citing property rights as one of their main sticking points, which is at the crux of most Libertarian thought. So which side are Libertarians on?
To give a quick overview of the Napster controversy, the company developed a software program that visitors to the site can download for free, which allows them to efficiently swap any song currently on the user's hard drive. Unlike most other free music download sites, one can find a plethora of top sellers, not just independent or unknown artists. And most importantly, they are copyrighted artists. The Recording Industry Association of America, having already filed copyright infrigement lawsuits against many other free music download sites, see the Napster website as no different than the others: copyrighted music made available for free without authorization by the label is a violation of copyright law. But unlike the other Internet sites, who have configured their programs to abide by the law, Napster has launched an aggressive defense, claiming that the recording industry has participated in anti-competitive practices, and under an obscure law, thereby forfeit the right to the copyrights they hold.
Sound a bit questionable? It's not as clear cut as it might seem, most legal experts contend. The key is how the court interprets the copyright law: a liberal reading might get Napster off the hook; a more conservative reading will at least hold Napster contributory liable. Of course, Napster has other weapons in its defense, such as that the website's owners aren't downloading music, the website visitors are, and as long as they are not making profit from their music swapping, those actions are protected by law. Heavy metal superstars Metallica were not impressed with this line of defense: in a highly publicized move, they produced a list of over 300,000 Napster users who had downloaded their songs illegally. Despite the copyright infringement disclaimer posted on their website, it's clear that the Recording Industry Association of America(RIAA) is not going to let Napster off the hook that easy.
Latest Articles