It is time for the music industry and web sites like Napster to realize how necessary it is for them to work together and that everyone will profit from such a conjunction.
For years, people have been making tapes of their newest CD so they can listen to them in the car or give them to a friend.
Now those same people can make their own CDs, and computers often play a huge part in that process. Many new computers have the capability to save information onto recordable CDs.
Other than CDs, individuals also get music for their homemade CDs from the Internet. There are lots of web sites devoted to the idea of allowing individuals to download music files onto their computer. Once they do, those individuals can create CDs for themselves and their friends.
Then, along came Napster. This music site is based on the notion of peer-to-peer sharing of information. It allows people to share files stored on their individual hard drives.
The music industry is, of course, opposed to this. The fact that the Internet allows so many people to make use of this technology is what causes the music companies to panic. It feels threatened because 35 million people now make use of Napster.
And in some respects, the music industry should feel threatened. The way the technology is being used is definitely an infringement of copyright laws. Individuals can find any songs they want and make CDs for numerous friends without paying a dime to the creators of the music.
But the same arguments used against Napster and lesser-known companies with similar technologies were used against audio tapes and VCR tapes.
The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 protects the right to copy songs for personal, non-commercial use, and the use of VCR tapes is widely accepted.
The AHRA could be translated to permit downloading audio files from your computer to a disk to make your own compilation, thereby justifying the use of technology like that offered by Napster.
And since Congress determined that personal use includes sharing with friends, the sharing of music through sites such as Napster should be protected by the AHRA. Burning a CD to give to friends is no different than making a tape from a CD or the radio. In both cases, the artists and the music companies are not receiving payment for the reproduced music.
No artists have been in the news complaining about tapes and how they harm the music industry, detracting from the music sales. But with this technology, well-known bands like Metallica have decided it is important enough that they need to voice their disapproval.
Bands like the Offspring have kept the punk tradition alive by saying “screw the corporations” and promoting the idea of free transfer of music. According to some studies, sales of CDs have actually increased since Napter’s inception, and some individuals claimed it opened their eyes to different groups or different genres of music.
Another way to think of companies like Napster is to compare them to Xerox. Napster does not make any copies of the music. So, if Xerox is not liable for copies made on its machines, why should Napster be?
Shutting down Napster would not stop the sharing of digitized music. It would just push it underground, where there are many companies waiting to take over.
In the end, the music industry and companies like Napster need to work together to protect the intellectual property of the artists. The two sides need to come to some agreement so that the artists can retain the rights to their work while the public can take advantage of this technology. It is not going to go away. So finding a way to regulate its use would be the optimal situation.
The possibilities for mass music distribution are enormous. The music companies should realize the potential of this technology and try to make it work to their advantage, rather than try to shut it down.
Brice Nixon, a junior journalism major, is editor in chief of the Campus Times. He can be reached by e-mail at nixonb@ulv.edu.
