When Shawn Fanning created Napster, not only did he provide innovations in technology…he changed the way music is marketed throughout the world. With the invention of Napster doors have been opened, and heads have been turned as P2Ps are being used more and more world wide, for many different things. This simple program was so successful that once word got around the music industry got scared. "Why would people pay for music if they get it Free?" asks Metallica's drummer, Lars Ulrich. Napster had become a threat, a big threat, this small 1.6 mega-byte download, had up-ended technology as we know it and in the process started a legal battle with an outcome that could change the setup of a huge industry. The 40 billion dollar Music industry brought forth a case on Napster with the determination to reinforce copyright laws and protect their income.
Shawn's program took current ideas and twisted them together to assemble a new technology never used in this way before. It would be efficient, simple, and easy to use. With this new production, Shawn knew the hours and sometimes days of searching for music on the internet were no longer going to hamper his time or that of anyone else. Looking for input from his friends he found no support, only doubt, but Shawn did find the support and assistance he needed through chat rooms. Shawn's peer's in these chat rooms helped him design the program and work out it's bugs. Shawn had taken a few computer programming classes and he knew the basics of the program Unix the server language. What he didn't know he taught himself from a Windows programming book he had purchased from Amazon.com. Now without school Shawn had nothing to hinder his time, he could concentrate on one thing, programming. The program was designed to be downloaded onto the users computer from an initial sever. Once installed the program contacted the server with a request for a song, given by user. The request was then processed and the requisite's computer was connected directly with another user's computer that had song where a transfer was completed without the worry of legal barricades, or so he thought.
Now 19, Shawn Fanning, otherwise known as "Napster", to his buddies because of his "nappy" hair, was just another 18 year old college freshmen. As a student of Northeastern University, he lived in a dorm, ran from homework and dorm food, hung out with his friends. In high school he was your average kid. Not a computer geek, he didn't live for the internet, and in fact he was an excellent athlete. Not only was he good at basketball, tennis, and he was the shortstop for a state winning team baseball team. So how did this average kid cause such a huge uproar?
It all started one afternoon while drinking a couple of brews and hanging out with his friends. Shawn was listening to their complaints about how annoying it was trying to find a internet site where music could be downloaded from and how often the sites that where found got shutdown due to numerous problems. Then suddenly it hit him, like one of those stupid cartoons where the character has a light turn on in his head, Shawn had an idea. An idea for a program that would allow the direct transfer of the music mp3 file from one person's computer to another without those lousy central servers to slow down the process. What he didn't know was that his small hacker program would be so successful, so widely used, so dangerous to the media economy, and that it might even change the technology of information transfer for the whole world.
Upon proposing the idea to his friends Fanning only received mocking statements saying he was crazy, and claiming that the program would only be a big waste of time. Almost no one thought it was possible, "it's a selfish world and nobody wants to share" remarked one of his peers. But that didn't phase Fanning, he was determined to write his program. "I cut off the outside world." Shawn said. When Shawn left school to finish his programs his parents gave him hell. Smothering him with the usual lecture about how without school, he would amount to nothing. Shawn was still unfazed.
Shawn figured that by combing the idea of AOL Instant Messenger, a search engine like Yahoo, and the process that Windows uses to transfer files over a network, that he could create a tool for finding and obtaining MP3 music files quickly and efficiently. Shawn was no computer genius, he taught himself much of the code used, what he didn't know he learned from reading his books and from the responses he received in Internet Relay Chat rooms (IRCs). Shawn spent months working almost non-stop, pausing only for a few hours of sleep and maybe an occasional snack.
His program was designed for use as a Windows application that allows the user to log on to a network of other computers in order to "share" MP3 formatted files in "real time." In 1987 German engineering firm Fraunhofer IIS developed an efficient was of compressing CD quality sound files. This new MP3, short for ISOMPEG Audio Layer-3, became the digital-music standard for computer music files. This development allowed tracks to be pulled directly off a CD and converted into MP3s on a computer. As time went on MP3s fell into the hands of internet users who now had an efficient size file to pass on the internet. Even though this new format was of usable size, there wasn't an efficient way to actually acquire the MP3s from other computer users. Then Napster changed everything. Napster v2.0 BETA 7 is the current program in use by over 32 million people all around the world and it expands daily by an estimated 1 million users.
With only a few easy steps the user has access to hundreds of artist from new age rock bands like Rage Against the Machine to Old Blue Eyes himself, Frank Sinatra. First the program must be downloaded from Napster's homepage. Once the program is installed, the user must complete setup process in which he/she specifies a location or directory on their own computer to download Mp3 files to and a directory for other users of Napster to draw Mp3 files from. In addition the user must submit a screen name of their choice, so that other users will be able to identify them.
When the setup process is complete, the program then with only a click of the mouse, instantly connects the user (depending of the speed of their internet access) to an information community. Once logged on, the user again uses the mouse to open a "search" menu much like Yahoo or Alta Vista. In the menu box the name of a desired artist and/or title of a song is entered using the keyboard followed with the press of the enter key, the server checks its database for any other Napster users who might have the entered file. If the server finds a match, a list of file names appear on the user's screen. Next the user selects which name to download the file from depending on their preference of speed. Then the Napster server connect the personal computer of the user that wants the file directly to the personal computer of the user that has it and thus allowing a direct transfer of files. This direct connection between computers is the basis for peer-to-peer technology in which users' computers are connected directly to one another in order to "share" data or files.
The Napster Server, serves merely to provide location information for the Napster program to use in order to connect one user to another's computer. This idea of connecting of personal computers directly to other computers is the foundation for peer-to-peer technology. Peer-to-Peer (p2p) programs allow personal computers to connect directly to one another in order to share specified files or information. Shawn Fanning was on of the first to produce a program using peer-to-peer technology in order provide an efficient way to transfer Mp3 music files. Since the invention of Napster, many companies and programmers have used his idea to create many other software programs that transfer all kinds of information. Since last year 1999 when Napster was released, hundreds of similar programs have followed with abilities ranging from mp3s transfers to the "sharing" of whole computer hardrives.
Aimster, Gnutella, Macster, Freenet, and Mactella are only a few of the many programs that have emerged from the Napster idea. Of these new programs Gnutella is peer-2-peer software that allows the user to connect directly to other users without using a server. Gnutella, like Napster is downloaded and installed on a personal computer. When run, the Gnutella software sends a message to a computer already logged on to the network of Gnutella users, and then the computer that has received the message, sends a message to seven other computers letting them know that the first computer is connected. Those computers in turn send a message to more computers and so on. When a request for a particular file is made it is sent through the network using that same method. Once the request reaches a computer that has the desired file, Gnutella software connects the two computers directly and the file is then transferred and downloaded.
Napster the program started off in a small server supplying a connection to just a few informed users. After only a few weeks the Napster community grew so fast that the small server just wasn't enough anymore. Shawn Fanning and his uncle raised money from Angel Investors and others in order to release an early beta version of the Napster software onto the internet. In September 1999, Napster, Inc. obtained office space in California. In the fall of 1999, Download.com featured the Napster software in its "Download Spotlight". With the Napster name now advertised, it seemed that growth had become unstoppable. The company had to enlarge buying several more servers all for the use of the Napster community. Once established as an actual company, though not an actual business because it wasn't making a profit, Napster, Inc. took off and the music industry got ticked off. One year after the release of the program, what started off as a simple hacker application has become a vicious court battle. Napster is currently being sued by several companies accusing the incorporation of "contributing to the infringement of copyright". Even with this disclaimer at the bottom of Napster's homepage, which serves to remind the users of the Napster Program of the rules, the music industry just isn't letting the company off the hook:
Napster, Inc. makes no representations or warranties regarding MP3 files possessed by Napster users. Thousands of MP3 files have been authorized for distribution over the Internet by copyright owners; however, Napster users should understand that MP3 files may have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. Neither the MP3 file format nor the Napster software indicates whether a particular MP3 file has been authorized for copying or distribution. Copying or distributing unauthorized MP3 files may violate United States and/or foreign copyright laws. Compliance with copyright law remains your responsibility.Napster has been brought to court charged by its adversaries with "contributing to and facilitating other people's infringement." Napster must present a case convincing the court that the trading of music by consumers is not illegal as long as it is not for sold commercial use. Knowing this case would not go over easily, the company decided they needed some real help.
In June of 2000 Napster, Inc. called on David Boies to act as their attorney. Boies is a 59-year-old native of rural Illinois, he spent 30 years as a lawyer at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, until leaving the firm four years ago to set up his own New York-based shop, Boies, Schiller & Flexner. Working as an attorney for many large companies including IBM, AOL, and CBS, Boies gained much prestige, but when he became the prosecutor for the Department of Justice in the successful suit against Microsoft he made his biggest mark. Several weeks after Napster's plea for help, Boies found himself in the San Francisco courtroom of US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, defending Napster against the attempt by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to shut down the service with a preliminary injunction. Boies credentials were of no help and he lost the argument, but then quickly persuaded the 9th Circuit US Court of Appeals to stay the court order until a hearing could be held. The hearing, which will probably take place sometime early this fall, will only address the RIAA's injunction. The big real battle that will decide Napster's fate is still yet to come.
Napster is being sued by the world's five largest record labels -- Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Brothers music group, Sony Music Entertainment, Seagram Co."s Universal Music Group, Bertelsmann AG's music unit, BMG, and EMI Group Plc. All are claiming Napster participates in massive copyright infringement by brokering connections among users of its peer-to-peer network who swap copyrighted tunes in MP3 format. Of the many music artists against Napster, several have stepped forward requesting that Napster ban all users of its community that are trading their music files. Metallica and later, Dr Dre both submitted lists to Napster, Inc. of Napster users trading their music instructing that Napster ban those users from the community immediately. Napster did as they requested and banned the users a short time later.
Of the several cases brought forth against Napster, the suit with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) holds the biggest threat, if they win Napster could be liable for $100,000 damages for each infringement, in other words, Napster would have to pay $100,000 to the company for every user of the program who has traded MP3s. Boies claims, "There are a few basic issues, and the recording industry has to win on each of them in order to win. If Napster wins on any one issue Napster prevails." Since the law states one is innocent till proven guilty, Napster's accusers must prove that Napster's users are engaged in copyright infringement, if found innocent of the charge, the case is closed. Since Napster itself is not being accused of directly infringing on copyright and only contributing to infringement, without actual infringement of its users on copyright, there cannot be contribution.
Boies is building his defense on the notion that Napster is not contributing to infringement because, "First this kind of noncommercial consumer copying is recognized as fair use under common-law theories and doctrines, and under the Supreme Court's criteria. And second, with respect to audio recordings - that is, music - the Audio Home Recording Act directly says that noncommercial copying by consumers is lawful. The 9th Circuit, in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, in 1999, read that statute as permitting all - and all is the word of the opinion - all noncommercial consumer copying as lawful." Claims Boies. In other words, this is not illegal copying because in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, Congress state that it is legal to make recordings of copyrighted music and lend them out to other persons, provided the recordings are not used for commercial purposes.
Boies is not the only one working to free Napster, several musicians have actually stepped forward in Napster's favor. The Smashing Pumpkins, Hole, The Offspring, Cypress Hill and Limp Bizkit are just a few bands supporting Napster's services. Not only have musicians stepped forward in defense for Napster, but also so have many software companies along with a coalition of law professors. The software companies including the Digital Media Association (DiMA), the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) are asking that the courts carefully examine the case in order to prevent the harming of the future potential for peer-2-peer technology. "We want to make sure that when the appellate court looks at this, they look at more that just Napster". Claims Jon Potter the DiMA's executive director who worries that "the July ruling granting a temporary injunction against Napster cut too broad a path through such virgin territory as online distribution of music and video." Though most of the software companies are taking a neutral position with Napster itself, the CEA has fully stated with whom it's support rest. They like the coalition of law professors are arguing in Napster' s favor. "If Universal had won the Sony Betamax case and made the VCR an illegal product where would we be today?" asked Gary Shapiro, president and chief executive officer of the CEA.
In the Sony Betamax case which began in 1976, Universal City Studios and Walt Disney filed suit against Sony Corporation, the manufacturer of the Betamax Videocassette Recorder. Universal charged contributory copyright infringement against Sony, basing their argument on the accusation that the home taping of copyrighted television shows and movies for later viewing (time-shifting) violated Universal and Disney's copyright in those properties. After a longer than 15 year battle the courts finally decided in Sony's favor; stating that it was legal for consumers to use tools (the Sony's Betamax Vcr., etc.) to copy movies or television shows for future use provided that the copies were used non-commercially. In a memo of June 17, 1993, drawing from the home Recording act of 1992, Justice Byron White of the Supreme Court said that he was "not at all convinced that Congress intended each home recorder of copyrighted works to be an infringer, whether he records sound or video." Shapiro, presenting the case as a precedence, spoke up for Napster claiming, "If Hollywood had succeeded in barring video rentals, would consumers, or even Hollywood, be better off?" Judge Patel on the other hand disagreed with Shapiro and deemed the Betamax case irrelevant. Shapiro stated that he does see the threat of peer-to-peer programs as "scary", but he still questions the consequences of shutting down companies like Napster; asking, "Is this a case of the medicine being more harmful then the disease?"
Napster seems doomed with the suits it faces, but there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Thomas Middelhoff, 47, chairman of Bertelsmann, the world's third largest media conglomerate, recently made a deal with Napster's founder Shawn Fanning. Under this agreement, Napster will develop a business model that will hopefully allow record companies and performers to be paid for their music. Bertelsmann has opened a $50 million line of credit in order to help fund the new program. The Germans agreed that once the new model is in place, Bertelsmann's subsidiary, BMG Entertainment, will make its music catalog available and drop out of the copyright-infringement lawsuit that Napster has been fighting for almost ten months. Even before the deal was announced, Middelhoff began working the phones to persuade his counterparts at Time Warner, Sony, Universal and EMI to do the same. If Napster can make legal agreements with those other companies, it may be able to bring its legal problems to an end.
The president of Napster, Hank Barry, stressed the new service will have a membership-based, as opposed to a subscription-based, model. "In a subscription, you pay money, you get something," he says. "In a membership model, you belong to a community, you participate in that community." He also said he expected the new service to price at $4.95 a month. No one knows whether this agreement will lead to the end of the legal suits or be the beginning of many more. Not only that, but will Napster's users continue to use the service if they have to pay for it?
The Napster case brings to mind many questions. Depending on the outcome of this case; copyright laws could be changed and members of society may continue to enjoy the works of artists without them seeing the fruits of their hard work. After time, full movies could be available to anyone, anywhere, free. It seems that in this internet world, whatever becomes a possibility due to new technology will become a working production. A production who's the actual purpose, whether it be for the use of benevolence towards the masses or simply a virus that inflicts hardship on the weary, one dark question keeps surfacing in our thoughts, troubling our conscience. "Is it ok do something simply because it is possible?" Or is there a place where we must take responsibility, draw the line and weigh the consequences for our actions. Weighing them not on the fear of getting caught, but the question… "Is this ethically right or is this just an easy way to steal?"
Napster makes obtaining songs and making your own CDs extremely easy and tempting, something anyone with minimal computer skills can do. Programs of this nature make it extremely difficult for the government regulate and enforce copyright laws. Without copyright what would become of this country? The world is not some happy place where everyone works together. This is reality and whether we like it or not no one wants to work for free. If copyright is not enforced who will pay the artists for their works? If artists are not paid for their creations, what will become of the content of future creations will they still be worthy of praise or even our own enjoyment? In this age of fast moving, quick changing technology are we forgetting our social and cultural values. We see Napster as this new ground breaking technology, but is it not just another form of stealing that is so easy almost everyone is able to rationalize and justify this temptation.
The internet has opened the world to extremely wonderful opportunities. People with access can send a letter to a family member over seas instantly and receive a response as quickly as the person receiving the letter is able to type the words on their own keyboard. This world of endless possibilities, and bottomless barrels of information is becoming more and more facisnating. Almost like electricity it is soon to be considered a man made necessity. It's a great resource for information, but like anything in this world, this "tool" must be used with great care and responsibility.
At the same time the net is being used as a productive tool it is also becoming a seductive, almost archaic place where actions in society that are normally considered taboo become accepted. Take pornographic material for instance. When was the last time you where driving down the highway and you noticed a billboard with a nude person on it? Billboards do not have nude people on them. For one, there would be a great increase in automobile accidents and two it is not socially acceptable for pornographic material to be displayed publicly. Yet on the internet pornographic material is posted everywhere for young people to access rather easily. Yes, this is considered "free speech and freedom of expression". "Free Speech and freedom of expression" is the heart of America and without a doubt… it should be exercised. These are the values and reasons why this country was established. But just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. George Washington could have become king of this country but refused the offer saying, "it was not the right, we should have a president with limited control for a limited time." He turned down the power and wealth of a country just because he valued our freedom. Would you be able to turn down kingship just because a small voice in the back of your head says that it is not right? Society everyday is becoming more liberal in its actions. If we cannot enforce our own control over our own actions and abide by simple rules like copyright laws, how will we ever be able to handle the enormous responsibility and temptations of genetic engineering, a technology that man is only beginning to understand its capabilities.
Obviously, in know way does Napster promote violence or pornographic material or even intentionally promote theft, but is it not illegal to steal a CD from a store? Is Napster's "sharing" not the same thing only on a larger scale? That question can only legally be answered with the court's decision, but even with this decision it is unlikely that the illegal sharing of files will be stopped or even can be. We can only hope that the decision, whatever it may be, contributes in some way to the reinforcement of values. We as citizens of this great country, built on pride, patriotism and opportunity must check ourselves, our own values and make decisions that we would be proud to stand behind.
Web Sites & Magizines
Kroger, Frank. "Napster, Gnutella, Freenet, Centrata, SETI: Internet Revolution?"
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=101010&id_list=&cookied=T.
Gnutella. 2000 http://gnutella.wego.com/.
Heilemann, John "David Boies: The Wired Interview" Wire.com
(October 2000): [Internet]. 15 October 2000.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.10/boies.html
Chebium, Raju. "Napster, DVD cases raise copyright questions in digital age" CNN.com (August 2000): [Internet]. 7 August 2000.
http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/07/copyright.overview/
Greenfeld, Karl Taro. "Meet the Napster." Time Oct. 2000: 60-66.
Hare C. Lee and Michael Learmonth. "Beware the spawn of Napster!" 2 May 2000
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/02/napster.spawn.idg/index.html
Cohen, Adam. "A Crisis of Content." Time Oct. 2000: 68-73
Connor, Judy. "Peer to Peer" Bizjournals 31 July 2000. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2000/07/31/smallb1.html.
Bonstein, Steven. "Tech Companies, Law Prof Weigh in On Napster Appeal" Biz Report (October 2000): [Internet]. 29 August 2000.
http://www.bizreport.com/daily/2000/08/20000829-1.htm
Starrett, Robert A. "Copying Music to CD: The Right, the Wrong, and the Law" (February 1998): [Internet]. 15 October 2000.
http://www.cdpage.com/Audio_Compact_Disc/rightwrong.html
Centrata. 2000