Free Speech or Copyright Violation? Originally published November
9, 2000 |
||
Steal (verb) For years, the music industry has been taking advantage of us, the consumer. Instead of album prices going down with the introduction of the compact disc, they nearly doubled. It's not like CDs are expensive to produce. They average around 20 cents apiece. Even after labor, transportation, packaging, mark-up, and various other costs, a CD should only really cost the consumer a few dollars. However, greed is a strong motivating factor, and the music industry has endeavored to make as much money as possible. God bless capitalism. As the Internet became mainstream, we witnessed a new media format take the center stage-MP3's. The popularity of MP3's have grown by leaps and bounds spearheaded by the MP3 "sharing" program-Napster. In theory, Napster represents all that the Internet can be. A free and uncensored exchange of information between people from across the globe. A forum where anyone can express and publish his work without having to submit to the media and publishing giants. It was suppose to be an information communication utopia. Technology experts predicted that no-name bands would become superstars as people found them on the internet and listened to them through their MP3's. This has yet to happen, in fact, nothing has happened. No-name bands are no closer to being big names or superstars then they were before MP3's or Napster. We have perverted this utopia into a black-market underground bazaar. Napster isn't about the free exchange of information and music. It's about gobbling up as much music as you can before some judge pulls the plug. It's about getting something for nothing. Ask someone about Napster and they won't comment on the obscure, difficult to find music titles it's helped them locate. They won't comment on the underground bands they enjoy listening to that top 40 radio stations ignore. Instead, they comment on the number of songs they have downloaded. "I have 300 MP3's." "I've downloaded 500 songs." "I have over 1,000 MP3's." We'll be the first to admit it that regardless how illegal Napster is we still think it's cool. Besides, we feel the music industry owes us for overcharging on all those CD's we've been buying for the last ten years. But reasoning like this does not hold up in the courtroom and two wrongs do not make a right. While Napster is nothing new to this campus, it is starting to have a profound effect. Network traffic has been considerably slower the past several weeks due to people busily stealing-ersharing-songs from Napster. Some people have suggested that Napster traffic has even disrupted their ability to do legitimate work and research on the web. If this is the case, does the University need to do something about it? Should they filter out Napster from the campus network? Numerous universities from across the country have already taken this action. We feel that what Napster does is dishonest. However, filtering it out of the campus network is also a form of censorship. We don't support that because we feel that one of our primary duties as a newspaper is protecting the First Amendment. However, we are torn because there is also the issue of artists and record companies and their ownership of the music. We would like to offer these possible solutions to the current Napster situation on campus. Limit access to Napster to after business hours so that students who are trying to use the internet during the day can. Or just limit the number of students that can access Napster to the point that it doesn't interfere with normal network traffic. This limiting of Napster, whether done as a systematic blocking or as a way to wean the number of people on it at a time, would be an excellent middle ground. It would allow for normal and necessary usage of the Internet during times that it is necessary. This would allow students the opportunity to communicate with their professors as well as to do research on the Internet. It would also allow those people who wish to use Napster the opportunity to do so during times when the network is not so slow and heavily trafficked. So for right or wrong, we believe that for the time being, Napster is a form of speech and is protected by the First Amendment. That's the strength and beauty of the First Amendment, that it can protect something as ugly as Napster. We're going to wait for a ruling from the judge before we make our final decision. However, it is necessary for the University administration to take some action to ensure the regular workings of our campus can take place until the time that the courts figure out where they stand. The First Amendment |
||
![]() |
|