One of the most talked about technological ventures of today is that of the Napster peer-to-peer technology. It has revolutionized the internet industry in that it single-handedly brought awareness of the capabilities of peer-to-peer file-swapping technologies to the most people in America and soon the world. To understand the full impacts of this technological advancement, it will be expanded upon how it came to be ranging from who the founder is to where it is today, the nature of it's peer-to-peer aspects with regards to its task of swapping mp3s, the legal trouble surrounding its copyright infringement, just who the victims are and finally the sociological implications of the technology and the impacts resulting.
* * * * * *
In the same way that the monarchs represent the era of feudalism and the intertwining wreath that of the Roman Empire, the essence of the modern era can be beheld in the symbol of the PC (the computer). Once simply a technical tool that aided in calculations and expedited the compiling of research, the PC has since attained another function of serving as a tool for communications. With the advent of the internet, and the subsequent communicational enhancement of instant messaging services and internet-based companies like �Yahoo!!� and �AOL,� PC�s all over the world can communicate instantaneously with one another. This has added to the mixing of cultures, the worldwide advancement of man in terms of technologies and ideologies, as well as the globalization of society. As we realize what we�ve accomplished and surge ahead, with a focused intent on trying to decipher our blurry future not yet realized, the internet has been described as the modern frontier deserving of adequate exploration. Questions present themselves about the nature of regulations, with regard to this frontier and technology. One specific case, one of precedence and foundational importance, regards that of Napster technology. Shawn Fanning, an eighteen year old from Hull, Massachusetts, created the programming for PC�s in order to give the modern day internet user considerable access to a volume of music files held on other PC�s utilizing the same technology. Instead of going through a central file server, the technology utilizes the concept of peer-to-peer technology to swap files directly between PC�s.
What exactly is peer-to-peer technology and how does it affect the average citizen? Basically, peer-to-peer technology is client-based Internet software. The main premise behind it is that it facilitates an internet user�s access to desired materials. In Napster�s case, the program allows computer users to swap music files with one another directly, without going through a centralized file server or middleman. Even if Napster is not here to stay, it is quite clear that peer-to-peer file sharing is. There are new, even more intractable sharing systems that allow files to be traded directly from PC to PC, without going through a single website like Napster�s. P2P technologies have some very useful and revolutionary applications such as swapping dense technical files through a local-area network to replacing corporate servers with P2P systems for business applications. For example, the CEO and co-founder of Kalepa Networks, Miko Matsumura, plans to link P2P networks into a sort of alternative Internet. He says that the old days were all about centralization and control, almost Soviet-style. He further illustrates that in this new topology, everyone will bring their own resources to the pool, and the new network will be built on top of the old network in such ways comparable to the different layers that comprised Rome (Greenfeld 2000: 3). Examples of such technologies similar to Napster include �Gnutella� and �Freenet� technologies. The crucial difference between these is that Napster runs through a central server and can thus be shut down more easily than the other two. With no central server, both Gnutella and Freenet operate and expand ONLY through the PC�s running their particular programs. It is impractical to assume the obliteration of these even remotely possible because one would need to shut down each individual computer supporting and carrying the each individual program throughout the world.
Napster uses peer-to-peer priming for the purpose of acquiring mp3 technology. Short for Isompeg Audio Layer-3, mp3�s were developed by a German engineering firm in 1987 (Greenfeld 2000: 2). This technology made it possible to take songs from a CD and �rip� or convert them into mp3 files, usually in violation of copyright. Essentially, this technology exists as a way of compressing CD-quality sound files. It is efficient because one can download or encode exactly what he/she wants with no need to obtain an entire CD of unwanted material. All the files are in digital format and small enough to be transported across the internet. With regard to versatility, because the mp3�s format is so small, one can easily transport files to a portable player or rather copy converted (.wav) files to a CD. The MPEG process compresses a sound sequence into a very small file, while retaining its original quality. How? It does this by being very selective and eliminating certain sound frequencies that can't be heard by the human ear. The format compresses the file to approximately 1/12 the size of the original file, making it quicker to download or share with a friend (Borland 2000: 1). Today, efficient coding techniques are a must for cost-effective processing of digital audio and video data by computers. Data reduction of moving pictures and sound is a key technology for any application with limited transmission or storage capacity. In the recent years, a lot of progress has been achieved. While several proprietary formats for audio and video coding still exist, the ISO/IEC standardization body has released an international standard ("MPEG") for powerful audio and video coding tools. Without data reduction, digital audio signals typically consist of 16 bit samples recorded at a sampling rate more than twice the actual audio bandwidth. For example, 44.1 kHz for CD�s. Essentially one ends up with more than 1400 kilobytes to represent just one second of stereo music in CD quality (Borland 2000: 1). By using MPEG audio coding, one can shrink down the original sound data from a CD by a factor of 12, without losing sound quality. Factors of 24 maintain a sound quality that is even more significantly better than what you get by just reducing the sampling rate and the resolution of your samples. Basically, this is realized by "perceptual coding" techniques addressing the perception of sound waves by the human ear. To conclude Mp3�s, they represent the intermediate technological advancement leading up to such peer-to-peer technologies as Napster, with regard to its Mp3-specific file-swapping purpose.
The founder, Shawn Fanning, and those regulating the technology, are now battling a lawsuit filed against them by the band �Metallica,� the Recording Industry Association of America, and rap artist Dr. Dre, related to piracy and copyright violations. The legal issues behind this highly controversial topic include the piracy of intellectual property, and the fear resulting from the drama with respect to other media type owners such as newspapers, film, etc. The contention of the lawsuit is that Napster is not guilty of violating copyright itself but of contributing to and facilitating other people�s infringement of copyright, otherwise known as �tributary copyright infringement.� Because Napster is just too successful for its own good, more and more citizens would be affected by the aspects of this case. With no centralized plugs to pull and no company officers to sue with regard to the other P2P technologies such as �Gnutella� and �Freenet,� Napster exists as the main P2P technology that can be judged legal or illegal by an established court of law. This very fact is why the very world sits poised, awaiting the outcome of the lawsuit against Napster. Mainly because the court�s ruling on this issue will affect ALL peer-to-peer technologies in some form or fashion, some in more detrimental ways than others. There are moral and ethical concerns as well. Some feel that the very nature of this technology is symbolic of the ongoing development of man and the fostering of a more globalized and more productive society. Imagine a court of law, because of some �silly� interpretation of the prevailing code, ruling against such advancement of man! Such hindrances can not be tolerated says some, in any form or fashion! The concerns of these appeal to such doctrines as generated by philosophers, such as the transcending Thoreau, who upheld the needs of the individual above that of society. They argue the opposite of his premise, however, that the society must transcend above the individual. These issues, facts, and concerns are a reflection of the edge of a very steep cliff that today�s society has fixed itself upon. The question yet to be answered is will we prevail, and build that bridge that carries us well into the technological revolution, or will we push ourselves to an abrupt end?
Napster founders and affiliates are now involved in lawsuits from such artists as Dr. Dre, the band Metallica, and the Recording Industry Association of America. These artists allege that Napster has facilitated copyright infringement of their intellectual property, their music. In the early part of May 2000, Metallica brought a list of more than 317,000 Napster usernames to the company, alleging that each of those individuals had illegally made the band's songs available for copying online. This act was part of the band's lawsuit against Napster. After examining the list of usernames, Napster banned the names from its service but told its members that if they thought they had been misidentified, they had a right to appeal the ban under federal law. Napster says more than 30,000 members have taken the company up on that offer, swearing under penalty of perjury that they have been misidentified by Metallica's online search. The company now will present those names to Metallica, which will have 10 days to sue the 30,000 members on an individual basis. This type of action clearly shows the level of tension involved with the Napster case and the highly polarized nature of the trial. No one knows who the REAL victim is! The band who loses financial capital from fans accessing it online, the individual who would lose an amazing amount of expedited access to information from Napster and other P2P technologies, or the society whose advancement is hindered by the very nature of this capitalistic-spawned battle. If those making allegations against Napster decide against taking action, the names will be reinstated back onto Napster. Even if Metallica doesn't take action against the individuals, however, it can use the information in its legal attempt to shut down Napster itself. "Metallica didn't make 17,000 mistakes," King said, adding that Napster has encouraged its members to abuse the copyright law. "What Napster has done is create 17,000 liars (John Borland 2000: 1)." According to Patricia Jacobus, a CNET-News writer, �A new copyright law designed to protect the works of songwriters, artists and movie directors is being tested in a case that pits the powerful recording industry against a wildly popular but controversial music start-up.� The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed two years ago, was considered an important legislative battle for the entertainment industry. Yet, some fear that it may already be out of date. In the past, courts have almost always left it up to the copyright holder to enforce compliance, steering clear of clamping down on new technology. In a landmark 1984 case, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block sales of VCRs. Ironically today, the purchase of movie videotapes by consumers is one of the main sources of revenue for the film industry. In general, this Act limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet. In the face of these arguments, it is quite clear to everyone that our global society is positioned at a fork in the road with regard to its future. It should not go unmentioned that if the courts rule against P2P technology Napster, then a roadblock would have been positioned in the middle of that golden road we refer to as �progress.�
Like the �Roe vs. Wade� abortion case setting the precedence and acting as a paradigm for other similar abortion-related court decisions, and also like that of �Brown vs. Board of Education,� the Napster case is a precedent court case with regard to P2P technologies and to some degree Internet regulation. As of now, the most unregulated technological advancement of our modern era is the Internet. It�s highly unregulated nature is more and more threatened with EVERY law passed in its regard. This in itself serves to impede the progress that can be made from absolute freedom with high regard for individualism and expression. The only problem is that laws are ESSENTIAL to maintain order, and the Internet can not be allowed to perpetuate a chaotic atmosphere. Because society does not benefit from such an anarchical existence, then it stands that a medium must be found with as limited regulation as possible. Regulation is only the end result. The road to it is paved by such court decisions as this very precedental Napster case. Since all P2P technologies function to swap files from PC to PC, then it stands to reason that the nature of most could be deemed copyright infringement, and WOULD be since no middleman profits. As the world fears the nature of the courts� decision, it is comforted by the hardcore fact that P2P technology is just too difficult to destroy. Since, most other P2P services are between individual PC�s all over the world, then it is impractical and borderline impossible to shut down all P2P technologies. Like a blitzkrieg, this type of innovative technology will thrive and revolutionize the world as we know it and the Internet as we use it. With the fate of the world in the hands of the courts, the only question left to ask is how long will we impede our advancement with such greed-perpetuated court battles?
In such cases as the Napster trial, one typically goes about the process of identifying the victim(s) involved. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not always he who makes the allegations in such trials. With the Napster case, the musicians and the Recording Industry Association of America itself have made allegations against the Napster company. So, are they the victims? One would think so. They are the ones who produce the intellectual goods, and their efforts reward them with monetary compensation that allows them to maintain their lofty lifestyles. With the advent of this �dreaded� Napster technology, these artists are losing financial capital and their very lifestyles are threatened because of their potential monetary losses. It is OBVIOUS that such a company as Napster should be cut, stopped, obliterated off the face of the earth, because it is threatening to the very nature of competition and capitalism, right? Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive officer of the CEA, made it clear where his organization stands on the issue during a speech in Washington last month: "If Universal had won the Sony Betamax case and made the VCR an illegal product where would we be today?" he asked "If Hollywood had succeeded in barring video rentals, would consumers, or even Hollywood, be better off?" Shapiro acknowledged that Napster and other peer-to-peer file sharing technologies, such as Gnutella, "are scary and seem to threaten the exclusive rights and control of copyright owners." But he added: "Is shutting down these sites, or restricting how devices are built the answer? Should Napster be shut down? Should recording products be stymied? Is this a case of the medicine being more harmful then the disease (Steven Bonisteel 2000: 2)?"
Such repetitious expression of doubt questions the validity of the fears regarding the �terribly detrimental� nature of Napster and other P2P technologies on today�s already existing technologies. If the musician and his company aren�t entirely the victims, or at least their claims are half-hype, then who else is there? What of the individual? As we progress well into the informational revolution, where does he/she stand? With the amazing amount of information that Napster and other P2P�s make available and have the potential to make available to the individual, it stands to reason that the individual will lose ALL such access. Such possibilities made available to the individual include the fact that one could store his music library in a digital music server that�s part of his stereo system, in a more general purpose home server, in a home PC acting as a server, or on the Internet. He�d be able to copy, or move, music from the �library� to whichever device he desired to play it on (Michael Slater 2000: 1). Oh the autonomy that individual would lose. With freedom stripped away, the individual�s naked contours show the repulsive nature of man�s on fragility. This is a democracy! The majority should rule, and independence asserts that the individual should thrive. Society can not allow greedy musicians to perpetuate a now obsolete utilization of available technologies! �Been there- Done that� syndrome is in effect, and those who oppose will suffer the consequences of obsolescent habits. But what of society? Does it play a part in this seemingly dysfunctional puzzle? The parts of the puzzle fit, only after they�ve been amended with a pair of scissors. When one considers society, or rather looks at the overall picture, what is seen? Is it hindered, apathetic to the supposed changes, or can a label even be assessed to this present scenario with respect to the larger social context that shapes us?
The musicians and the individual are not all who appear victimized. One must not only look at the parts but the whole as well. The aggregate picture being comprised of the society of course. From the sociological perspective, it is evident that the entire society is also negatively affected from the before-mentioned pending court decision regarding Napster. Since the aggregate or the macro is affected by the micro-level, consequently the hindrance of the advancement of the individual results in the same harsh conditions imposed on the larger social context. This, thus, results in the impeding of the advance not only of �men� but of �man.� Because we would venture as far as stripping the individual of the autonomy and freedom yielded by natural scientific advancements, then the society is affected in much the same way since it is only a composite of individuals. Referring back to such innovative technology as the VCR and the words of one Gary Shapiro, �Where would we be today?� The actions of men affect the actions of other men, and it is significant, essential that men in authoritative positions curtail the ramifications of theirs as much as possible. What is the sociological perspective? What issues with regard to hindrances exist? How can such a thing as P2P technologies affect ALL of man? To get beyond the rhetoric, the sociological perspective must be considered?
The pace of social change that has occurred since 1990 is, in many ways, without precedent in world history. The maps of Europe and much of Asia have been transformed virtually overnight. Once poor countries in Asia now pose economic challenges to the United States and Europe. Poverty and homelessness increased in America, at the same time that glass and steel skyscrapers transformed the formerly impoverished Asian cities of Hong Kong and Singapore into two of the most modern metropolitan areas in the world today (Applebaum, Chambliss 1997: 43). The pace of social change today is tied to the processes of globalization. As the processes if globalization have intensified, sociologists and other social scientists have increasingly turned their attention to conducting research that is global in scope. Sometimes such research simply compares the social processes that occur in different countries in order to clarify which features are common to all countries and which are unique to particular ones. Such comparative-historical studies are among the oldest form of sociological research (Applebaum, Chambliss 1997: 10). Globalization is the key factor in understanding the �how�s� and �why�s� of Napster in affecting the world. The internet is simply a technological tool that spawned a more globalized society. The technological revolution itself exists because of it, and with respect to Napster and other P2P�s, can be expanded into another entire dimension. Imagine the prospects of �global data,� data from around the world being made available in all forms of media, instaneously to those desiring it. It would change the very nature of society. The pace to which we operate, the intellectual skills, business demands, thus, economic structure, government, etc. All this stems from the concerns that Napster and other P2Ps have given rise to.
The question before us now, is should laws that hinder the advancement of man even be allowed to exist? Once such laws achieve an obsolete status such as this, should they not be terminated? What would be the consequences of such action? The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land. It is only subject to interpretation, but can never be changed. If any aspect of the supreme law of the land was ever changed because of supposed obsoleteness, then that would leave up to dubious reasoning the entire Constitution itself. It has been cited by historians and Constitutional gurus that it would be most catastrophic if this were ever to occur. There would be no prevailing code for the land, of unquestionable quality. Not to predict the end of the world, but the end of ours. Democracy would fold, anarchy would result. A scary picture, but not a reasonable. Judiciaries will never question the Constitution or allow it to be questioned. Once interpreted, the interpretation is the only thing that can change. This is actually what the courts are now considering in the Napster trial. Remember the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and how the interpretation of the law considering copyright laws and new technology is now being faced with obsolescence. This is a very recent Act and already the interpretation behind it of the Constitution is being considered obsolete in the face of the use of such new technology as Napster.
In conclusion, it is not right to threaten the technology that society produces, nor is it right to let the technology threaten the very society that cultures it. In this day and age, America is a postindustrial society, a society based on knowledge, information, rather than the provision of goods in factories (Applebaum, Chambliss 1997: 100). This does not mean that factories are no longer important in postindustrial societies; it simply emphasizes the importance of human inventiveness and ingenuity in producing goods and providing services. With such a postindustrial society, it is argued that the human mind is increasingly becoming the key to the creation of wealth and prosperity, aided by the information storage and computational abilities of the microchip. The sociological perspective predicts that there most certainly will be a much more central role for education and training, as well s vastly increased consumerism based on an accelerated rate of change in consumer products (Applebaum, Chambliss 1997: 101). One of the most interesting predictions of this social science actually pertains Napster and other P2P�s. It recognizes the fact the mobility of production and the necessity for people to relocate frequently, it is anticipated that businesses will become more decentralized, as electronic communications makes it possible to perform virtually any activity from any location on earth, including one�s home. Summarizing this perspective, the activities of the post-industry are primarily processing, control, and information. It is a social way of life that is, increasingly, a �game between persons� (Applebaum, Chambliss 1997: 102). More important, there is a new principle of innovation, especially of knowledge and its relation to technology�In a postindustrial society there is an expansion of new kinds of service. Such services include human services: education, health, social work; and social services: analysis and planning, design, programming, and others along this line or reasoning. The important factor, as the perspective stresses, is that the expansion of a postindustrial sector of a society requires the expansion of higher education and the education of many more in the population in abstract, conceptual, technological, and alphanumeric skills.
It stands to reason, that with this paper not ignoring, among other things, a worst-case scenario for Napster, the true effects of the trial can not be known until the court decision itself is rendered. The saddest part of this particular subject is the very large number of people who use the technology yet know not what it is comprised of. All they know is that the court decision could take away a technological innovation that most facilitated the most instantaneous access to music Mp3 files with the simple touch of a button. Let us unify. To look beyond the cloud of envy, greed, individualism, and go that ultimate distance where epiphanies shatter the very nature of the beings that realize them. To recognize the fact that we are not to necessarily be concerned with self-perpetuation, but the perpetuation of society itself; and the most fulfilling realization will come when we as people seek and find that medium that allows for the harmonious coexistence of the people and the technologies they forge.