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 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
Earp, J. (2001). Napster online. Napster copyright policy. Retrieved February 8,
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 8, 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 8, 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, 8. MTV news interview: Fanning
speaks. (2001). MTV News. Retrieved February 8, 2001 from the World Wide Web:
http://www.mtv.com/nav/intro_news.html. Reuters. (1999). The business of
information. Napster brief. Retrieved February 8, 2001 from the World wide Web:
http://www.reuters.com/news.jhtml?types=internet Stone, B. & Miller, K. L.
(2000, November 13). The odd couple. Newsweek, 46, 49-51.
Words: 1751
