MP3 AND NAPSTER CONTROVERSIES
August
2002
MP3
is a system for digitally encoding music so that it may be played back on a
personal computer. The primary benefits
of MP3 are that it compresses digital audio information to a file size small
enough that it may be sent over the Internet, and the sound quality is at the
compact disc level. Although the MP3
may be used for any information, it tends to be used for music primarily and
specifically sound recordings. The MP3
itself has both infringing and noninfringing uses. An example of a legal use is when one purchases a music CD and
then encodes it onto an MP3 file so that the work may be enjoyed via a computer
instead of a CD player. On the other
hand, posting on the Internet MP3 files that contain sound recordings without
permission of the copyright holder appears to be infringement. Record companies are concerned about the
spread of MP3s because it is a direct threat to their distribution of sound recordings. Not only can one listen to MP3 files on the
computer, but there are also separate MP3 players available.
Napster
is a very successful company that makes software which combines chat features
and a music player. It has attracted
over nine million users since last fall.
The software permits users to share their MP3 collections with each
other and facilitates locating MP3 files on the Internet. Napster does not host files on its servers
but it does provide access to music files on others’ computers. There are three major components to
Napster: (1) a chat program so that
users can talk with each other about their favorite music genre’s, (2) an audio
player to play MP3 files right from inside Napster in the event users do not
have an external player, and (3) a tracking program that allows users to
organize and keep track of their favorite MP3 libraries for later
browsing. A user who wants to locate a
song using Napster can enter the name of the artist on the MusicShare search
page and then download the song from the list of files generated by the
software. There has been litigation
over both the MP3 and Napster technologies.
In Recording Industry of America v. Diamond
Multimedia,[1] the court was asked to
enjoin the manufacture of the Rio portable music player, a device about the size
of an audio cassette with headphones that permits the user to download MP3
files and listen to them. The Rio can store about an hour of recorded music or
16 hours of spoken material. The RIAA claimed that the device was an infringing
digital audio recording device and as such it violated the Copyright Act. According to the court, the RIAA represents
six or so record companies and the artists on their labels they control
approximately 90% of the distribution of recorded music in the United
States. The RIAA’s concern is music
piracy. Even though digital files used by the Rio, its sole output is analog
audio signal sent to the user via the headphones. No recordings can be duplicated using the Rio device.
The
court held that although the Rio utilized digital audio files, it was not a
digital audio device and therefore was not covered under the Digital Audio Home
Recording Act of 1992 which places
restrictions only on specific types of recording devices.
Arguing
that the conversion of music recordings to MP3 files was not copyright
infringement but was instead a transformative use, the defendant in UMG Recordings v. MP3.com[2] claimed that its free
service that offered recorded music for downloading over the Internet was not
copyright infringement. MP3.com alleged
that its service was the functional equivalent of storing its subscribers’
CDs. The court, however, disagreed
holding that in actuality, the defendant was replaying for the subscribers
converted versions of recordings it copied without authorization from the
copyright holder. MP3.com asserted fair
use as a defense claiming that it was a “transformative space shift” which
allowed subscribers to enjoy the sound recordings without having to take the
actual CDs with them. The court found
that the unauthorized copies were simply being retransmitted in another medium
which was not a transformative use.
Defendant also argued unsuccessfully that this activity actually had a
positive impact on the producer’s market since a subscriber was denied access
if they had not already purchased the CD.
At
present there are several suits involving Napster. In A&M Records v.
Napster,[3] several recording companies
sued Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement since it
provided free online access to copyrighted music recordings. Napster defended claiming that its
activities were protected under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because it
acted as an online service provider.
Napster claimed that it was merely a passive conduit for the exchange of
MP3 files and that it specifically prohibits piracy in its service agreement
with users, The court noted that there appears to be little or no enforcement
of this requirement, however. Denying
Napster’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that Napster was not a
passive conduit and that it turned a blind eye to the real names and addresses
of users so that any user whose service is terminated may simply reapply under
another name.
More recently the heavy
metal band, Metallica, and the rap artist, Dr. Dre, have sued claiming that
Napster violates the copyright law.
Over a three day period, more than 335,000 Napster users were identified
by an outside consulting firm hired by Metallica which resulted in 116,500
copies of their works being posted. The
names of nearly 318,000 users were presented to Napster, and Napster blocked
these users’ access to its software. By
May 16 more than 30,000 of these users had submitted sworn statements that they
had been falsely identified and should be reinstated. Several universities were also identified as infringers because
of the number of MP3 files hosted on their servers. Yale, Indiana University and the University of Southern California
were dropped from the suit when the institutions banned practically all uses of
the MP3 music-file-sharing software on its servers.
The
rapster, Dr. Dre presented a similar list of names to Napster, but he has requested that his songs be banned
from Napster not that individual users be banned. However, this may not be technologically possible according to
Napster officials.
Unless Metallica or Dr. Dre sue individual users who challenged being blocked, they will be reinstated to Napster. Small record producers are not necessarily troubled by Napster and other technology which permits them to bypass the major record labels. Further, some artists are distributing their works directly over the web. For example, Chuck D (Carlton Douglas Ridenhour), leader of Public Enemy, hails the development of Napster and related software. Many unknown and lesser know artists are using this medium to become known. The controversy promises to continue.