Internet Music Issues

Last year, we had the strange site of Lars Ulrich of Metallica going to Congress to take part in the hearings on music downloads over the internet with particular concern given to Napster. The end of July brought a federal judge ruling against the website where a person can download songs (including those copyrighted) free of charge, including an injunction (stayed until September by the court of appeals) to shutdown the site. Nonetheless, other comparable websites are still in operation (without providing a [easy] central target for lawsuits), including Opennap, Gnutella and FreeNet. Napster provided various defenses, which can be examined via their website and the other links provided here, but my purposes here is to provide my take on the matter. This is an updated version of an earlier essay, and I will provide further updates (news links) as the situation changes.

The internet has the potential to provide a major revolution in music technology and practices given its ability to supply cheap and quickly accessed downloads. This is seen by the growth of the use of MP3s, a type of audio download that allows users to listen to music online, usually with the permission of the owners of the copyright of the particular sounds involved. The problem with Napster and Napster-like sites is that it allows users to download copyrighted material free of charge, even without the consent of the copyright owners. It is the high prices of CDs that is perhaps the most popular argument (if not the most sucessful legally) in support of Napster. The fact that a person still has to pay around $20 (if one includes tax) for CDs, even after all these years, even given the fact they are so cheap to produce. Furthermore, why should we have to buy overpriced CDs when so often only a few songs are worth listening to, while other (copyrighted) works are not sold much at all because of profit motives? If computers, VCRs, and other recent technology can seriously drop in price as the years go by, why not compact discs?

There is mixed views on how much (if at all) music sales have dropped in recent years (and if Napster and other similar sites help or hurt them), but excessive prices must be considered as much as music television, legal uses music downloads, and improvements in home music technology (such as easy and efficient dubbing of CDs). Furthermore, the profits tend to go more to the major music firms not the artists, leading some musicians such as Courtney Love to argue the firms are as much as (if not more) of a threat than Napster. Some even suggest free music downloads would help less lucky and savvy but equally talented musicians even the scales. It also is to be noted that not only does music downloads help promote music, but often merchandising and concerts provide the real profits in the industry. Finally music downloads not only promotes up and coming bands, but older music that never caught on or is unknown by current music fans. Much of this music is owned by major record companies, who have little incentive to make it available reasonably on a mass scale.

Free music might be seen as a protest to obscene prices, but it does violate the rights of copyright holders, and (to some unclear degree) hurts the artists via reduced profits. Artists care about their art, but they still need money, though (as noted) the net loss from music downloads is unclear given its promotion value, the fact many still by the CDs, and the still small class of users (for which some studies show cd sales has dropped) of free downloads. This is why Metallica and some other musicians are vehemently against the service, much to the disgust of many of their fans. Metallica is a rather ironical foe in that in their early years they supportedthe swapping of their music via more primitive Napster-like technology, better known as the time-old practice of dubbing tapes (and now CDs). This practice, when expanded from home use (even without making a profit), is still illegal (if implicitly allowed), but Napster takes its to a whole new level.

Nonetheless, it seems to me at least somewhat unfair to allow people to dub music and tape movies on tv and cable (and trade it to family and friends, who usually fast forward past commercials used to pay for much of the content), but sue when the same thing is down with music downloads. After all, there is currently a large illegal market for videotapes (and video games), but people still use VCRs and so on, while movie studios and video game producers make large profits. Movie studios realized video tapes were here to stay and found a new market (thus the video store), and the movie business changed accordingly. Napster-like downloads are here to stay as well, and if they were smart, music producers will realize the fact and capitalize on it. Given the alternatives available, the lawsuit against Napster really is a poor business move. The ultimate result will probably be some agreement to provide cheap (not free, though like black market videos, some will be out there) music downloads; surely, their time has come.*

Not only is some compromise a smart business move, it should be put into place because a ban on Napster-like websites infringes on the legitimate uses of the service. There are many garage and other unprofessional bands out there that would want to have their music traded over the net. It also is a way to send other types of audio files, including educational type materials. Though it might be hard to believe, fifteen or so years ago, video recording also was seen as a copyright infringement, but the lawsuit was struck down (by the Supreme Court) because of legitimate uses of the technology, as well as the fact that many of the owners of the material taped would not mind. Though music downloads are not quite the same as taping television programs, Napster-like programs are comparable enough that a ban would be a serious infringement on free speech rights. Some effort must be made to protect copyrights without infringing on legitimate use of such a beneficial technology.

Napster was started by a nineteen year old, showing its origins as a growth of both the wonders of the internet and the dreams of young relatively poor music fans. It serves as a type of protest against overpriced compact discs, and as with many protests, many understand that it can not become a regular long term practice. Nonetheless, also like most protests, the practice will continue, especially if the underlining problems are not addressed. Furthermore, as with other outlawed practices, many for all intents and purposes legitimate ends are harmed in the process of prohibition. Therefore, not only should Napster-like software be allowed for those who consent for their material to be traded, it should also be used as a way to provide cheap music for promotion and other purposes. Also, those who sell CDs and other music delivery systems must provide embedded CDs and other extras to encourage sales, especially if they keep on selling them at ridiculous prices. As buyers become more technically adept and selective in their purchases, Napster in the end serves as a warning for the need of change, while being useful in many other ways in its own right.

* A good comparison here is radio, which was sued for supplying free music, leading to a quid pro quo where radio stations paid licensing fees to play music, which in turn promoted the music for the companies. Napster might have a case for saying that a service heavily used by individuals is not quite comparable to a radio station, but the ultimate profit managament issue remains. Furthermore, if radio is any judge, the fees will not cause much trouble at all for the listeners, while forcing CD prices down considerably, as computers gain in popularity.

Credits: I am no expert in this subject and the technology of internet music is not an area of which I'm as informed as I might be. Nonetheless, I support the free trade of internet music on libertarian grounds and suggest you go to the links supplied to get the music and learn some more about the legal issues involved.