MP3 Controversy and the Music Industry


	Vs.

Piracy is an ugly word usually associated with stealing, raping, and plundering. But if you put the word "online" in front of it, the whole term of "online piracy" can be sensationalized, blurred, and misconstrued to fit the argument of any side of the worldwide controversy of free downloadable MP3's.

The first amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution guarantees every U.S. citizen the right to free speech. And yet people still devote their lives to working for censorship committees that aspire to assign limits to this basic human right. Artists have battled such people and have won the right to say what they want to say and express themselves however they wish, whenever they want. And if they've defended their rights to say, are we not supposed to defend our right to listen, and listen freely.

Some well-known artists have gone on record to express their displeasure with such companies as Napster and MP3.com when they really have no idea how it works or if it is even in compliance with the law. All they know is that money is being taken out of their pockets (as if they don't already have enough). Artists such as:

"I am excited about the opportunities presented by
the Internet because it allows artists to
communicate directly with fans. But the bottom line
must always be respect and compensation for
creative work. I am against Internet piracy and it is
wrong for companies like Napster and others to
promote stealing from artists online."
-- Elton John

"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work."
-- Lou Reed

"Napster and other such sites were obviously not
conceived to lose money. They, like the labels, must
make money or they're out of business. And
whatever money they are generating from their site
is dirty money. It's being taken out of the hands of
the artist and the record labels and put into the
hands of another corporation."
-- Lars Ulrich, Metallica

"I think the fact that Napster is stealing recorded music is something that we have to stop. It's taking money out of my kid's mouth. That's the way I look at it. It's wrong. It's inherently wrong. It's stealing."
-- Art Alexakis, Everclear

"Napster is robbing me blind"
-- Chris Robinson, Black Crowes

"All of a sudden a song could get out without the
act's knowledge or the label's knowledge, and all the
hard work that's been put into the project is then
lost."
-- Ken Crear, Creative Management Group
(represents Next, Sisqo, Mary Mary and others) "If Napster had our best interest in mind then they would ask our artists. Nobody at Napster has ever called to ask our permission. Artists say 'Ask me.' Explain what it is and ask if I want to participate. But Napster doesn't give them an opportunity. They're basically saying 'f**k the workers.' Let them work their asses off and we'll give it away for nothing. The bigger the lie the more you get away with, I suppose. There's no question Napster's going to lose in court. The only question is how much money in damages they'll have to pay. I hope it's enormous because then the big money investors, which Napster needs, will walk away."
-- Cliff Burnstein, Q Prime Management (represents Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica)

As you can see, all of these quotes either complain about the money artists are losing and they prove no knowledge of the workings of Napster's shareware and server. As you may have read in a previous section, Napster allows its users to download free software which connects you to other users' computers and their music files, after you log on to the Napster server. Napster keeps no songs on file and does not introduce new music to its users. Any new music comes from CD's or MP3's purchased by the users and then shared with others.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) with the support of many of the artists above has filed charges against Napster and MP3.com for the copyright infringement of works of many artists. MP3.com has already lost its case specifically due to its "Instant Listening Service" and "Beam-It" programs. In regards to its business activities, Napster has motioned the court for "summary adjudication of the applicability of a safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) 17 U.S.C. section 512(a)." Section 512(a) basically limits liability based on five specific guidelines. However, the court ruled that Napster did not qualify for subsection 512(a) based on the guidelines it had to qualify for initially in subsection 512(i)(A).

Napster also has been sued by hard rock group Metallica. Metallica sent computerized lists of 317,377 Napster user names allegedly infringing upon Metallica's copyrights. Metallica has requested that, in compliance with the notice and takedown policies outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"), Napster act now and disable all of these users. Napster has replied, "We intend to fully comply with the DMCA and our policies. We will take down all users Metallica has alleged, under penalty of perjury, to be infringing."

So what do you think? Whose side would you take? Could you take a side? Copyright laws such as the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA), the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and the No Electronic Theft Law (NET) are the weapons that the RIAA and Metallica are using against Napster and MP3.com. MP3.com was caught, proven guilty, and held responsible for illegal operations. However, Napster is drumming up public outcry from a society that is tired of being ripped off by having to pay $20 for a CD that costs about $1 to make. We as consumers appreciate the work and emotion that artists put into their music, that is why we gullibly pay what we pay for their CD's. But the profit that artists and record companies accumulate from us is enough so that, if Napster continued, they probably would not even begin to suffer noticeable losses for another five years. We must do all that we can to retain consumer power in a business that is run by profitiering fat-cats who simply won't be satisfied until they've run themselves out of business by bleeding consumers dry. Napster lost the first round, but they have not lost the fight. Even if they lose, perhaps they will be able to bring about some reform in the music industry from which consumers, as well as themselves, can benefit. There are different paths to success and the path taken might not always be the kind that was intended, but as a wise man once said:

"To laugh often and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better; whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeded."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Created as part of a term project for SCEN103 at the University of Delaware
All pages designed and best viewed at 800 x 600 resolution high color (16 bit)
Last Updated May 23, 2000
 2000 Joseph Brobst, Ian Cosden, Patricia Jenkins, Garry Quinton, Deborah Watson, Univ. of Delaware

"I am excited about the opportunities presented by the Internet because it allows artists to communicate directly with fans. But the bottom line must always be respect and compensation for creative work. I am against Internet piracy and it is wrong for companies like Napster and others to promote stealing from artists online." -- Elton John
	"Artists, like anyone else, should be paid for their work." -- Lou Reed
"Napster and other such sites were obviously not conceived to lose money. They, like the labels, must make money or they're out of business. And whatever money they are generating from their site is dirty money. It's being taken out of the hands of the artist and the record labels and put into the hands of another corporation." -- Lars Ulrich, Metallica
	"I think the fact that Napster is stealing recorded music is something that we have to stop. It's taking money out of my kid's mouth. That's the way I look at it. It's wrong. It's inherently wrong. It's stealing." -- Art Alexakis, Everclear
"Napster is robbing me blind" -- Chris Robinson, Black Crowes
"All of a sudden a song could get out without the act's knowledge or the label's knowledge, and all the hard work that's been put into the project is then lost." -- Ken Crear, Creative Management Group (represents Next, Sisqo, Mary Mary and others)	"If Napster had our best interest in mind then they would ask our artists. Nobody at Napster has ever called to ask our permission. Artists say 'Ask me.' Explain what it is and ask if I want to participate. But Napster doesn't give them an opportunity. They're basically saying 'f**k the workers.' Let them work their asses off and we'll give it away for nothing. The bigger the lie the more you get away with, I suppose. There's no question Napster's going to lose in court. The only question is how much money in damages they'll have to pay. I hope it's enormous because then the big money investors, which Napster needs, will walk away." -- Cliff Burnstein, Q Prime Management (represents Red Hot Chili Peppers and Metallica)