Napster versus Metallica
Summary of the Story between Napster and Metallica:
JANUARY, 1999,Shawn Fanning (17 year-old) drops out of Northeastern University after the first semester of his freshman year to finish writing the software for Napster. Napster provides the software and a directory of what music is available on members’ computers. Napster members, for example, freely exchange music over the Web in digital form. Napster does not house or store the music itself, an arrangement the company feels shields it from copyright infringement. A “fair use” loophole allows some small-scale copying of material and exchange, for instance, between friends, when there is no commercial impact or intent.
Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich couldn’t believe it when he saw his band’s track “I Disappear” pop up on Napster. For one thing, the song, for this summer’s Mission: Impossible 2 soundtrack, had yet to be released. For another, it wasn’t even finished. Ulrich, a noted studio perfectionist, was enraged. “We just felt that it was time for some artist to stand up and stomp their foot on the ground and go, ‘Wait a fucking minute — the line has just been crossed,’” says Ulrich. So on April 14th, Metallica became the first band to sue Napster. Rock band Metallica sues Napster for copyright infringement and three schools–Yale University, University of Southern California, and Indiana University. The suit alleges that Napster has violated three different areas of the law: copyright infringements, unlawful use of digital audio interface device, and the Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670
Van Slambrouck, P. (2000, July 13). Clash of Net freedom vs. property. (Cover story). Christian Science Monitor, p. 1. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_33/b3694003.htm
Thigpen, D., & Eliscu, J. (2000). Metallica Slams Napster. Rolling Stone, (841), 21. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.
My opinion on the issue: I think Metallica has every right to defend their art-property from being stolen but instead of going after Napster in public, Metalica should have pursued the issue as a professional establishment. We, as a society, have to encourage new ideas and creativity. The best way to encourage new ideas and creativity would be giving owner ship to the creator(s). That is exactly what intellectual property rights does. So in general Metallica was just defending their property rights from being stolen.
Intellectual Property means to me: Physical or non physical product that is end result of intellectual thinking and/ or experimenting process.
When I was studying in Engineering Graphics Program one of my class projects required team work for reverse engineering on a control unit that belonged to a video game console. When my teammate contacted to the manufacturer of the unit for more information, he got a warning; saying that, all the intellectual property rights of the control unit has been reserved by the manufacturer and it is illegal to make a copy of it.
I agree with you when you said that “Metallica has every right to defend their art-property from being stolen”. Even though it might seem easy to many people to just download things for free here and there, the truth of the matter is that it is stealing. I think that it all comes down to the morals of the individuals who come across these type of opportunities and weather they choose to take advantage of getting something for free or they choose to do what is right and prefer to buy a legit copy.
To bring light on the subject matter is a great step to uncover serious issue with intellectual property.