FREE ESSAY ON NAPSTER

NAPSTER

Napster: (http://www.Napster.com) is a company that operates exclusively online as a
virtual music forum. Napster not only allows its visitors the ability to participate in
ongoing discussions through its message board forums and online virtual chat rooms, but
it also allows its visitors the capability to exchange music files (MP3s) with other
Internet users. Because Napster is a virtual online public forum, Napster should be
protected under the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment, we the people, are
protected by these rights of freedom of speech and assembly. The idea of people coming
together in one specific area of the Internet and being able to talk about music is
essentially a right of all Americans. We have the right to freedom of assembly and the
right to freedom of speech. This is why Napster should not be shut down. Napster should
be protected under the First Amendment. 
What is a Napster? Shawn Fanning was a nineteen-year-old college student at Northeast
University, when he first introduced his program Napster. Fanning had two loves: one was
sports and the other was computers. As his curiosity grew for computers, he decided to
stop playing sports. He then concentrated most of his time working with computers. He
primarily focused on two aspects of the computer, programming and the Internet. During
his freshman year at Northeast University, in 1998, Fanning was trying to enter computer
science classes higher than the entry level (Jones, 2001, 1A). Not finding anything
challenging about the courses he was enrolled in, Fanning decided to start writing a
Windows based program in his spare time. He spent most of his time in chat rooms with
experienced programmers who knew the "tricks of the trade," so to speak, of computer
networking. Shawn's roommate loved music files, most commonly known as MP3's, but
disliked most music sites that had limited music files available. He also disliked the
idea of having to search endlessly from website to website for songs. Fanning, having
this in mind, and his programming skills at hand, he wrote a program that he entitled
Napster. He used the idea of all users being connected to one central computer server,
and having access to each other's music files that users wished to share ("MTV News,"
2000, 1). Spoken in a more technical manner "Napster makes its application software
freely available for download by consumers from its website. This software allows users
to connect their PCs to and participate in the Napster peer-to-peer file indexing system.
Users are not required to share any files with others, either as a condition of using the
Napster system or in order to obtain files from other users" (Reuters, 1999). In short,
Napster is a facilitator that allows its users to trade music files. Fanning created it
because other music-trading sites were in his view, unreliable. 
The idea of program sharing MP3s and giving people the ability to make customized
compilation CDs (also known as burning a CD) of their favorite artists. Songs may sound
brilliant to the users of Napster, but to the musicians whom creatively write the music,
this is in their view, is a form of stealing. They have not only spent hours producing
and writing music, but music is something that is published and copy-written. The
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is currently representing the band
Metallica, rapper Dr. Dre, and five other major record labels, which are all plaintiffs
in a copyright infringement and piracy lawsuit against Napster (Reuters, 1999). When the
Napster software is downloaded on a computer hard drive, Napter serves as an online music
community, where you can conduct a search of the other users songs (MP3 files) that are
currently online. According to Fanning, "There are consistently eight hundred thousand
people using the Napster service, limited only by their resources" ("MTV News," 2001, 1).
This statement is the exact argument that the RIAA is using to sue Napster. On May 8,
2000, the RIAA sued Napster for copyright infringement (Heilemann, 2000, 1-2). In their
opinion they feel that there are over eight hundred thousand people stealing music at any
given time. The RIAA believes that Napster and its founders are promoting the illegal
reproduction of copyrighted music, and not giving any royalties to the owners of the
songs (Reuters, 1999). Their theory behind the lawsuit is that there is no reason for a
lover of music to go out and buy a compact disc that they like, why would a person want
to buy a CD, when they could get it for free? They belief that Napster should be shut
down until it compensates the artists for lost revenues for copyrighted music that was
"stolen." "There is not a First Amendment right to take someone else's copyrighted
expression and duplicate it" (Freedom Forum Staff, 2000,1). On the flip side, Napster
believes that shutting their company down is in violation of "1008 of the Audio Home
Recording Act (AHRA), which immunizes all noncommercial consumer copying of music in
digital or analog form" (Reuters, 1999). This basically means that since Napster is not
profiting off of the music, and the sharing of music is intended for the soul purpose of
the "noncommercial consumer" usage, therefore, it is protected by the AHRA. According to
Napster's newsletters, "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" (Earp, 2001, 1). Napster believes that they are just the facilitators in an
online exchange forum. Napster is the program that links computers together, not the
program that "steals music." They contest that they have done nothing wrong and that they
shall not be shut down by a court of law. As to this day, the litigation between the two
parties (RIAA and Napster) still has not been fully resolved. The CEO of Napster, Hank
Barry, and Andrea Schmidt, the executive at Bertlesmann, (one of the world biggest media
conglomerates and a plaintiff) went to the zoo one day and as odd as this may sound,
during a critical point in their eight-week-long secret negotiations about the current
lawsuit that Napster was involved in. They were looking at the exhibit with Lily the
polar bear, all of a sudden, to their horror, Lily shot out a paw and savagely crushed
the bird. The metaphors presented themselves immediately. I don't want Napster to end up
like that pigeon, Barry recalls saying (Stone, 2000, 1). 
Napster is taking this lawsuit very seriously and is throwing everything in its arsenal
to stop the destruction of itself. They are presenting statistics that strengthen their
power, for example in the past year, the recording industry has posted a ten percent
increase in album sales (Earp, 2001, 2). They claim that there is an increase in CD sales
despite the fact that Napster still exists. Napster is not hurting the music industry, in
fact they believe it is helping them, so why bother shutting the program down. Shutting
down Napster is the crime that will be committed; Napster is not the one committing the
crime. The current lawsuit that is still pending between Napster and the RIAA is should
not be considered in the argument that Napster should be protected by the First
Amendment; the lawsuit is irrelevant to my argument. I believe that Napster should be
protected under the First Amendment. Napster is a "virtual" public forum. In this forum
people assemble together, they talk about music, read about music, and most importantly
they trade music. This idea brings up the point that Napster and its users have the right
to assemble, and have the freedom of speech to talk about music. If the courts send down
a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the court is essentially contradicting a right
that has been instilled in this country ever since it was formed. It will be
contradicting a right that was the main reason for the foundation of this country, the
freedom of speech. Americans have the freedom of speech. Napster users also have this
freedom. "...In order to implement the District Court's order, Napster would be forced to
terminate is Internet directory, despite the fact that the directory serves numerous
lawful purposes. Napster has the First Amendment rights to publish a directory, Napster
users have First Amendment rights to have access to such a directory" (Reuters, 1999).
This statement explicitly states that Napster and its users have the First amendment
right to use Napster. In this program thousand of people assemble together at one time to
talk about music and trade music. If Napster is shut down, the courts will be infringing
on the First Amendment rights of Napster and its users. In concern to the lawsuit, the
RIAA is suing Napster for copyright infringement. They are suing for copyright
infringement because Napster users are trading music and then burning the music onto CDs
without ever having to buy them. Napster has presented a proposal that it would charge a
flat one-time fee for the use of Napster ("MTV News," 2001, 2). The idea of having to pay
for a service may not leave a good taste in some users mouths, but on the other hand,
"some local users of Napster say they would be interested in subscribing to the popular
music-file-sharing Web site if an appellate court shuts down the free service"
(McWilliams, 2001, 1A). The idea of having to pay or not to use the service is irrelevant
to the argument, but if having to pay the artists is the only thing that is going to keep
Napster alive and to stop the government from crushing their First Amendment rights, then
the act of paying should be enforced, and both side will be satisfied. In conclusion,
Napster should be protected under the First Amendment. Napster is a public forum where
people can get together to talk to each other and trade music files. The First Amendment
clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" (Bill of Rights). These are the
rights that Napster and its users all have, for they are members of the United States.
Regardless of the current lawsuit about copyrights that is still pending, or whether or
not the users of Napster should have to pay for the services, Napster should be protected
under the First Amendment. 
Bibliography 
References Earp, J. (2001). Napster online. Napster copyright policy. Retrieved February
27, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.napster.com/terms. Freedom Forum Staff.
(2000). Freedom forum.
Napster shutdown not a free-speech issue, experts say. Retrieved February 27, 2001 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.freedomforum.org/news/2000/07/2000-07-27-05.htm.
Heilemann, J. (2000).
Wired interviews. Boise, the wired interview. Retrieved February 27, 2001 from the World
Wide Web: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boise.html. Jones, T. & Carlozo, L.
(2001, February 12). 
Song-swap service vows to keep fighting. Chicago Tribune, A:1 McWilliams, M. (2001,
February 12). 
Court may pull plug on free Napster. The Daily Iowan, A:1, 
MTV news interview: Fanning speaks. (2001). MTV News. Retrieved February 27, 2001 from
the World Wide Web: http://www.mtv.com/nav/intro_news.html. 
The business of information. Napster brief. Retrieved February 27, 2001 from the World
wide Web: http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml?types=internet Stone, B. & Miller, K. L.
(2000, November 13). 
Bibliography
The business of information. Napster brief. Retrieved February 27, 2001 from the World
wide Web: http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml?types=internet Stone, B. & Miller, K. L.
(2000, November 13).