Looking back Chris’ account was probably a little biased due to the fact that the Napster trial affects him on a personal level, but at the time we had all gone into the dinner with set opinions and were not paying attention to details. He referenced the Digital Millennium Copyright Act arguing that Napster “falls under the law’s safe harbor because its services are similar to Web browsers or other applications offered on the Web, such as File Transfer Protocol (FTP) software.” Lisa spoke up and made the point that trading actually helps the music industry by exposing a large group of people to music they wouldn’t hear otherwise and by “promoting artists who’ve not yet been signed by a record label.” I had to agree with Lisa; CD’s are expensive, but using music sites I have been able to listen to artists for free. This has allowed me to fall in love with my latest little indie band, Stillwater. And, since I liked them so much, I ordered the CD. Chris explained that my experience with Napster was part of the reason that the company was started up in the first place. Their goal was to make any genre of music “accessible and affordable.” The theory behind this was that if people liked the band enough, they would want to support it by buying the CD. I added that I know many people, myself included, that have bought a CD just to have the liner notes. Mainly what I loved about Napster was that you could find a plethora of obscure live recordings of artists performing a cover of one of their favorite artist’s songs.

Chris then began to explain that Napster needs to “obtain a ‘compulsory license’ similar to the one that allows radio stations to broadcast copyrighted songs and cable companies to transmit copyrighted television shows.” He stated that “Without such a license, it would be virtually impossible for independent Internet companies to survive.” During his explanation Lisa was leaning back in her chair listening and nodding in agreement. He pointed out that Congress has enacted compulsory licenses in the past to encourage the development not only of radio, but also of cable and satellite television. Under a compulsory license, an Internet company such as Napster would “agree to pay a fee set by Congress or the Library of Congress's Copyright Office.” That fee would be put into a royalty pool that would then make payments to individual copyright holders.

Patricia looked like she was going to die if she heard much more of this. Finally she jumped into the conversation saying something about needing to have restrictions so there is not complete anarchy. She stated that “compulsory licenses are a horrible idea to start with because it puts the government in the position of setting fees that otherwise might be the subject of negotiation between two companies; Government price fixing never works." I told her that for such a supporter of the law she sure was sounding as if she didn’t trust our government system very much. At which point she began really overreacting, saying things like: “If Napster continues, they’re going to lose control of everything they have distributed digitally.” Honestly seeming to believe that Napster was “aiding the theft of copyrighted works by letting people trade music for free.” She acted as if the music industry will curl up and die if music trading continues. Lisa then spoke, bringing up the point that "lawsuits should not be used to destroy a viable and useful independent Internet distribution system." She spoke about freedom of speech arguing that “swapping files is free speech, and if Napster is shut down the ruling would violate the First Amendment because it could constrain people from sharing information.”