Napster Essay, Research Paper

Napster

Back in the late 1970s, out of nowhere, a college dropout created a computer operating system that changed the world and created the Microsoft empire. Today, a Boston-area college dropout s idea is transforming the way people think about technology and the Internet.

All it took was a laptop, some solitude, and about 60 hours without sleep for 21 year old Shawn Fanning to become a one man info rave. His work, the file-sharing application called Napster, created during the summer of 1999 at his uncle s office in Hull, Massachussetts, has instantly turned him into an icon of information liberation.

Because Shawn s Napster, which was released in September 1999 on the website co-founded with 21 year old Sean Parker, lets everyone trade music and other files over the Net with ease and for free. Enraged media companies and artists have alleged that the application trespasses on their copyrighted material, leading to a massive legal battle from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Shawn turned out to be right. Napster is the fastest growing website in history. According to Media Metrix, an online tracking service, the number of unique users of Napster rose from just over one million in February to around 6.7 million by August. In one month alone, from July to August, the service grew 30 percent. The startup, with 25 employees in San Mateo, California, got off the ground with $2 million in seed funding from investors that included Angel Investors, ValiCert CEO Yosi Amram, and Excite co-founder Joe Kraus. In the spring of 2000, Napster s second-round funding brought in about $15 million.

Shawn, to put it another way, is coachable. That’s a trait picked up from his jock years, when he excelled at basketball and baseball. It may be that his success as an athlete gave Shawn the confidence to quit school to pursue his idea. And it may be through playing team sports running endless baseball drills and basketball layup lines that he picked up the discipline that allows him to focus on whatever is in front of him, to complete whatever task is at hand, whether it is playing sports or writing a computer program. Shawn believes that you learn how to take criticism when you’re part of a team.

In creating Napster, Shawn not only transformed the music business, but he also helped launch a new programming movement and a whole wave of start ups dedicated to what has become known as P2P, or peer-to-peer, client-based Internet software. Among Napster’s revolutionary qualities is that it allows computer users to exchange files directly, avoiding server bottlenecks and, Shawn once hoped, legal problems. Only Napster’s index and directory reside on a central server; the files are actually transferred via various Windows protocols directly from user to user. That means that no copyrighted material is ever in Napster’s possession.

There are myriad and totally legal possibilities for P2P applications, from swapping dense technical files through a local-area network (LAN),something scientists at the Centers for Disease Control are looking into, to replacing corporate servers with P2P systems for business applications. “The old days, in other words the current Internet we have now, were all about centralization and control, almost Soviet-style,” says Miko Matsumura, CEO and co-founder of Kalepa Networks, a six-month-old start-up that plans to link P2P networks into a sort of alternative Internet. “In this new topology, everyone brings their own resources. The new network will be built on top of the old network. Like Rome was built in different layers.”

The new network, in other words, may not completely supply the old, but it offers a new space for creating ideas and transferring them faster, more freely, more widely than ever before. Teams of designers, Web developers and business-school graduates are working up P2P programs and business plans and trotting them over to venture capitalists, who, in the wake of all the buzz about Napster, have been funding P2Ps the way they funded their alphabetical brethren B2Bs business-to-business companies last winter.

Napster, insists Aydar, could not have been written by a team, nor could it have been written by anyone 21 or older. Shawn could focus on problem solving and there was no one to tell him he couldn’t do these things. There was no one who ever really understood what he was doing. He didn’t even understand the legal issues involved. It was such a cool idea that he never once stopped.

Those issues what Shawn knew and when he knew it are now integral to the legal proceedings that will determine the future of digital music and perhaps the future of all industries that trade in intellectual property. Attorneys for the record industry have subpoenaed Shawn’s e-mails and taken depositions from him, his uncle and other early Napster employees. Their constant decision is that Napster is guilty of something called tributary copyright infringement, which means Napster is being accused not of violating copyright itself but of contributing to and facilitating other people’s infringement. Which really means that if consumers are not guilty of breaking the law, then Napster cannot be found guilty. The issue may come down to what Napster lead attorney David Boies, who successfully prosecuted the Department of Justice’s case against Microsoft, describes as the definition of commercial or noncommercial uses. It is perfectly legal for consumers to copy music for their own enjoyment or noncommercial use. Congress has even declared, in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, that it is legal to make recordings and lend them out to people, provided it is not done for commercial purposes. It is unlawful, of course, if it’s done to make a profit. “The law does not distinguish between large-scale and small-scale sharing or lending,” insists Boies, who puts Napster’s chance of winning the suit at fifty-fifty.

In the mean time, Napster began having problems with bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre about having internet users download their music for free.

Metallica took the issue into their own hands and decided to sue Napster but first things first. Why is Metallica suing Napster? Metallica is suing because they felt that someone had to address this important artistic issue, and they as well have always been known for taking a leadership role in the fight for artist+s rights. Metallica was the first band to sue their own record company, Time Warner, for the right to control their own future. Rather than allowing the record company or any other corporation to own their recordings and compositions, they chose to fight for control of their music.

This issue is no different to them and ask why is it okay to get music for free? Why should music be free, when it costs artists money to record and produce it? No other occupation provides its services for free they say. Metallica has the resources to fight for what s right on behalf of many artists who may not be in a similar position to fight a company like Napster, or any other corporation who are trying to undermine their art and their well-being.

Another reason for Metallica suing is they want to create an open discussion about the value of music before it was too late. They felt that Napster was taking it out of their hands. They are also using their legal right to go to court to determine whether or not the Napster system is engaging in the act of copyright infringement. The way they have read the law, Metallica believes that it is, and the MP3.com court decision strengthens their opinion. The Napster decision will have a dramatic impact on how artists continue to record and produce music; and as artists, they felt the need to declare our beliefs in the hopes that others will see the severity of the issue.

The record labels certainly disagree with Napster, and they have found an injunction to shut them down, which U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel granted in July. Even though it was immediately stayed by federal appeals judges, the same injunction will be ruled on by a federal court. That ruling is likely to determine the future of Napster.

The ruling was a clear win for the five major record companies that sued Napster claiming that the software could cost them billions of dollars in lost profits. Napster has argued it is not to blame for its subscribers use of copyrighted material, citing the Sony Betamax decision of 1984, in which the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hold VCR manufacturers and videotape retailers liable for people s copying of movies.

But the appeals court said no such protection extends to Napster because the company clearly knew its users were swapping copyrighted songs. We, therefore, conclude that the district court made sound findings related to Napster s deleterious effect on the present and future digital download market, the appeals court ruled. As expected, the recording industry cheered the news.

Hilary Rosen, president and chief executive of the Recording Industry Association of America thought it was a clear victory. The court of appeals found that the injunction is not only warranted, but required. And it ruled in their favor on every legal issue presented.

A lawyer for one of the record labels, Jefferey Knowles, involved in the suit also expressed support for the ruling. They were pleased to see the court affirm the core principle, that companies like Napster have to get permission from people who own the rights to recorded materials. Knowles said the record labels would push Judge Patel to work out the details for the reinstatement of the injunction as soon as possible.

Napster founder Shawn Fanning said he was disappointed with the ruling but pointed out that the music service is developing a payment system for music artists that should be in place later this year. We respect the court s decision, but we believe that Napster users are not copyright infringers, Napster chief executive Hank Barry said at a news conference following the court s ruling.

The Consumer Electronics Association also criticized the ruling in which they believe that the Court of Appeals has ignored basic principles of copyright infringement and fair use established in the U.S. Supreme Court s Sony Betamax decision.

Now that the software that powers Napster and other similar sites exist, the practice of swapping digital music files over the Internet will be impossible to stop. Napster does not encourage the infringement of copyright law, and its copyright statement includes the following: “As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way.”