In following the whole Napster debate, one argument has got me thinking. I’ve heard people claim that Napster’s intent was only to allow valid, non-copywritten material, or material that has been allowed by the copywrite holders. They say that Napster cannot be held responsible for what others actually do with the service.
Of course, we all know that this isn’t what happens. While I haven’t seen the actual data, it’s common knowledge that the vast majority of files traded are copywritten material. This is the argument that Napster opponents often use; regardless of Napster’s official intent, it’s almost always used for illegal purposes.
So, my question is this: how is this different than other things that are sold for “legitimate and legal” purposes, but are almost never actually used as such. The example that springs to mind is bongs. Bongs, or water pipes, are always sold with the claim that they are for “tobacco use only” but we would all be very naive to think that this is really what goes on. I know that I’ve never used a 3 chamber water pipe to smoke tobacco.
Is there a hole in my logic? Also, anyone have another example that correlates more closely to the Napster situation?
I don’t think so. Napster is a tool that some (most, I’ll concede) use for what is considered illegal activity. I think the bong is a good parallel. Those are sold with tobacco to get around it. I use the dual cassette recorder when I discuss Napster. If Napster can be shut down then why can’t manufacturers of dual cassette recorders be shut down? People use that to infringe on copyrighted material.
I don’t intend to start a whole copyright debate, but isn’t it okay to duplicate something if it’s only for your personal and private use, i.e. you’re not selling it?
It is legal to copy materials for your own use. The point that Oblong was making, if I understood correctly, was that dual cassette decks could be used to violate these laws.
Applying this logic to Napster, Napster could be used for legal or illegal purposes. But, is this Napster’s problem? There are tons of products and services that could be used for reasons other than the what the provider has intended. Dual cassette decks, CD recorders, bongs, escort services, whatever…
As far as Napster goes, it is the sheer quantity of music that is traded. That amount of trading could be very detrimental to the music industry. Rather than a few poorly recorded tapes being passed around a junior high. The Industry and the musicians are missing out on all the royalties that come from tape/CD sales.
IIRC, Napster isn’t facing any criminal charges, they’re being sued under copyright/trademark laws. The Big Six want a civil injunction against Napster’s method of operation (plus some dough?). Drugs, unfortunately, are a criminal matter. The rules of evidence are much more stringent.
Perhaps a better analogy would be the gun lawsuits that rest on the notion that gun manufacturers are civilly responsible for the actions of the criminals who use them. Guns have a legitimate, legal use (self defense, hunting, etc), and so does Napster (sharing public domain mp3s)… oh shit, wait a minute, my analogies just circled back and bit themselves in the ass… nevermind, I hope you get my point.
Anyway, having a bong in plain view in your car when you get pulled over is (supposedly) enough probable cause for you to get searched. Having a CDR labeled “Napster” probably wouldn’t be.
>>As far as Napster goes, it is the sheer quantity of music that is traded. That amount of trading could be very detrimental to the music industry. Rather than a few poorly recorded tapes being passed around a junior high. The Industry and the musicians are missing out on all the royalties that come from tape/CD sales.
Understood. But, the point I’m making is different. Napster (the company) does not directly distribute copyrighted material. It allows others to trade copyrighted material. Well, technically, my ISP allows me to trade this material. The Internet itself allows me to trade this material.
Going back to the bong analogy, the manufacturer or retailer of bongs do not sell drugs. They sell bongs. These bongs allow me to use my drugs. Could I use drugs without a bong? Sure. Could I trade copyrighted material without Napster? Sure
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cegan523 *
**>>Understood. But, the point I’m making is different. Napster (the company) does not directly distribute copyrighted material. It allows others to trade copyrighted material. Well, technically, my ISP allows me to trade this material. The Internet itself allows me to trade this material.
*That’s like saying that a madam can run a whore house just as long as she doesn’t participate in the illegal activity (prostitution). Although in this case, she would have to do it as a free managment service.
>>That’s like saying that a madam can run a whore house just as long as she doesn’t participate in the illegal activity (prostitution). Although in this case, she would have to do it as a free managment service.
Not really. It’s more like saying that you can’t hold a hotel responsible for prostitution happening there. (Even if they charge by the hour and have vibrating beds.)
Though, when it comes down to it, I don’t think that being a madam (or a prostitute, for that matter) should be illegal either. But that’s a whole other topic.
Ummm… no… pimping ain’t easy, and it ain’t legal, period. Napster isn’t actually doing anything illegal; they’re unwittingly facilitating illegal activity, where I know exactly what I’m doing when I send my girls out… uh, forget I said that. My guess would be that Napster is protected under the same rulings that protect ISPs from criminal liablity for the illegal use of their servers by customers. Napster’s criminal liability is even more airtight, as they don’t actually store any of the illegal material on their own computers. It would be like prosecuting Microsoft for the guy who types out his plans to kill the president on MS Word.
Again, the Napster case is a civil one, much like the tobacco and gun suits. The plaintiffs in each case (the govt and the record companies) realize that they could never, in a million years, meet the standard of proof for a criminal case. Remember the OJ trials? Anyway, the Governement could very easily go after bong manufacturers on civil grounds, not criminal grounds. That they haven’t is actually kinda suprising. Then they’d have to go after spoon and syringe makers, then the US Treasury & the Federal Reserve Banks for supplying all of those C bills that I use to hornk my lines, not to mention the Zig Zag company.
I still have a feeling everybody is discussing the Napster deal as if it were a criminal case, which, to the best of my knowledge it’s not.
