The issue of electronic copyright has been on writers' minds recently, and the U.S. Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in an electronic copyright case. The finding of the court will, among other things, set the precedent for whether print publishers may reproduce content for their web sites without specific permission.
Napster, founded in 1999 by a college freshman, is backed by millions of dollars in venture capital and employs, according to its web site, 50 people. Since its inception, Napster has offered free downloads of thousands of songs.
Copyright issues have been the business of the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) since 1914, which was created and continues to be controlled by its members. ASCAP's function is to protect the rights of its members--including Sting--by licensing and paying royalties for the public performances of their copyrighted works.
Marilyn Bergman, ASCAP president, has publicly supported Napster, with a major proviso. "We would be happy to see [Napster] grow and prosper. We ask only that it be licensed for its performances of music so that songwriters may be fairly compensated for the use of their works."
At the ASCAP web site, Bergman explains the importance of copyright. "[Songwriters and composers] work hard to earn a living, and their work has real value--even though we can't touch it or hold it.... Their work is the product of their minds, just as objects are the products of someone's hands.... The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works by giving the creators the right to ownership of their original creations.
"Downloading music from a web site that does not have the permission of the copyright owner…is violating the songwriter's or creator's rights. But the popularity of sites like Napster show that many people don't understand copyright and don't respect the right of others to make a living from their creative work."
Obviously, Sting is a wealthy man. Some even say he has "sold out" to advertising and money interests, such as Jaguar cars. But even if that is true, it still doesn't mean his work should be taken by those who did not create it and used for their own purposes. The same is true for new or unknown bands. If the work is good enough to offer to the public, the creators deserve to be reasonably paid for it.
Go To Page: 1 2
