NAPSTER finally has resorted to bribery to win its escalating battle with the recording industry. A three judge panel ruled Monday that the company must monitor its system and prevent users from freely infringing copyright laws, and that it could be held financially liable for violations.
In light of the decision, Napster has offered to pay a hefty sum of $1 billion over the next five years to some of the largest companies in the recording industry in return - of course - for the dropping of their potentially lethal lawsuits. Napster's challengers would be wise to accept the deal and pacify the demonic kitty that has quickly become the icon of more than just the company before it comes roaring back.
Napster has become the bad boy of the music world. It's a respectable establishment, but has a rebel-with-a-billion-dollar-cause image that has broken all social norms of intellectual ownership. The recording industry only has managed to muster up its most impressive argument as saying their side is fighting for the matter of principle, not the money.
The recording industry has Lars Ulrich on its side. Napster has 50 million users who, aside from their worship of his demagogic career as a member of Metallica, hate him.
Napster is fighting for the masses. The recording industry is fighting for filthy rich CEOs, law abiding social drips and musicians who use hundred dollar bills as toilet paper. College students love Napster, soccer moms hate it. This is how the battle is perceived by the general public, and the bottom line is, no matter whose side you're on, Napster is cool, the recording industry isn't.
This disparity goes far beyond just a popularity contest. A college student's perception of coolness doesn't justify Napster's existence, but it illustrates the ever popular line, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." Napster's idea of sharing music and its popularity has put the company in an advantageous position with the recording moguls, an advantage that goes far beyond the legal battle. It has now become a matter of avoiding a harsher reality for the music industry.
|
The reality is that the idea of sharing free music on the Internet is already out in the open. Several other net-based services similar to Napster, such as Gnutella, have sprung up like wildfire since Napster first came into existence. These new services allow the same accessibility in downloading music for their users, but without a central server. While the recording businesses can track down Napster's violations and bring its lawyers to court, they wouldn't be able to do the same to these other net-based services.
If Napster is shut down, millions of its users will go flocking to services like Gnutella to satisfy their musical curiosities. The only difference will be that this time, judges and musicians will no longer have anyone to blame, and the problem will probably worsen when there is no way to keep tabs on a central server or business to track down copyright violations.
Napster has little room to wiggle around in light of the new ruling. It can either restrict its users to downloading non-copyrighted music - the kind that no one ever listens to - or it can start charging its users for the music. A Napster that charges its users is no longer Napster, and people realize this. It may be the demonic kitty's new side-kick, but the in-your-face hero of free music will no longer exist.
There is another option for Napster, and it could be such a detriment to the music industry that it would make any $1 billion deal seem like a God-send. Napster could take its business offshore to a place where copyright laws don't exist. Several articles have cited sources that say the company is exploring the idea of relocating to the Canary Islands. If Napster does indeed decide to "go Canary," it would be able to run its business without any fear of restrictions.
For the recording industry, keeping Napster alive as an ally is more beneficial than destroying it as an enemy. When users realize the many alternatives to Napster when the company is gone, copyright violations will be virtually impossible to detect on these systems that don't use a central server and don't operate as a business.
The companies may win the small battles, but in the end, the war will always be won by ingenious Napster look-alikes. Recording companies should take the money, make friends with Napster, and prevent these other services from taking hold of the music industry like Napster has done. Napster has the potential to be a powerful friend in terms of promoting music and keeping the downloading phenomenon from going underground.
It would also to be wise to do so now, while the demonic kitty is still in a good mood.
(Faraz Rana's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at frana@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 3 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 5 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
