As you read this, thousands of people, most of them young, are logging on to the Internet in order to hastily download music. They sit hunched over, frantically typing in song titles and cursing the ‘net as they are kicked offline. One of the world’s most controversial programs, the Napster music file-sharing service, is in serious trouble.
The service, created by a college student as a means of sharing files with his friends, came under fire last year when musicians started objecting to having their music “stolen.”
You know you’ve made it in the world of controversy when Lars Ulrich and Metallica sue you and appear in the Supreme Court.
On Monday, the service took one below the belt when a court ruled that it will probably be shut down.
A pre-trial injunction was issued in July by the District Court of Northern California and was stayed in August by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Monday, that stay was sent back to the District Court for modification. The judge said the injunction “expected too much of Napster.”
Musicians argue that their material is being stolen, that there is an infringement of copyright, etc.
While I can see the musicians’ side of the arguments, I really have to disagree with Mr. Ulrich and his cronies.
Napster is a free service. By downloading the program, one can have access to millions of songs at no cost.
If I want a copy of the latest Dave Matthews Band song, I have to wait until the CD comes out. Suppose, though, that I didn’t want to actually purchase the whole CD just to hear the one song. Why pay $18 to hear one song?
Since hardly any musical acts release songs on singles any more, I would have to tape it off the radio or purchase the CD or make a copy of the song from a friend, which is no different from Napster, in my opinion.
Have you been to a music store lately? Why should I have to shell out $18 (if I’m lucky) to hear songs by my favorite bands? Or maybe even my not-so-favorite bands that just happen to have a good song?
Shutting down Napster will seriously hurt my pocketbook.
Yes, it is true, I do use Napster. I do burn my own CDs on my CD-R drive. But I do not download full CDs, unless they are out of print, like Better Than Ezra’s original album, “Surprise.”
I use Napster to preview bands. For example, when Nickelback came along, I really liked their first single. I downloaded it and two other songs. When I liked the other songs, I bought the album and deleted the MP3s.
If more people used Napster properly, then maybe artists wouldn’t have such a problem with it.
However, if artists are so upset about people downloading their latest song, maybe they should put it out on a single, like they did back in the day. They would — gasp! — make extra money.
Or better yet, the industry should lower CD prices. If CDs were cheaper, more people would buy them, therefore once again, making more money.
For Napster’s part, setting a monthly price for the service really isn’t so bad an idea, so long as the price is cheap.
And if the price is as high as, say, $25, then people could just cancel their costly Internet services and get a free web service and put up the money for Napster.
Killing Napster just would not be fair. Let it live!
