In his Jan.7th column, (Evening Telegram: Great Big Swindle), Brian Jones expresses outrage at the notion that a university professor could publicly defend the actions of Napster by nominating its founder as person of the year. I can appreciate Jones' reaction since those unfamiliar with the issues may simply view Fanning as an Internet pirate. However, Shawn Fanning is not a pirate nor does he or Napster's software license agreement condone copyright violation. Instead, he is a creative and diligent 19 year old who has perfected a type of file sharing which has the potential to revolutionize the future of personal computing and the Internet. With no programming experience, he worked with remarkable determination to devise a way for individuals to share music files over the Internet. Fanning spent several months writing the code that would become the file-sharing protocol Napster.

This new protocol, which is now referred to generically as peer-to-peer sharing or P2P, operates very differently from what we are accustomed to with the Internet. When we use a typical search engine or directory service such as Yahoo or Alta Vista, we track down information stored on a central computer or server. With Napster, we download directly from another person's computer over the Internet. With an estimated 40 million members of Napster worldwide, the file-sharing protocol provides its users with access to a massive database of music files. The future of P2P computing holds remarkable potential. In fact, the Human Genome Project has already made contact with Napster to begin looking at how information might be shared. The protocol may also have great potential for business, as well as for research and personal computing. Today, as a result of Fanning's work, companies like Intel are looking at how they can continue to develop and use this new technology.

Another issue which Jones addresses is copyright. He may well be correct in stating that "the tenets of copyright are quite straightforward". When it comes to physical property, copyright law is relatively uncomplicated. However, in relation to digitized intellectual property, copyright is so extremely complex that it is increasingly referred to as the "digital dilemma". What makes the problem even more thorny is that copyright law and practices vary worldwide and the Internet operates globally. The Napster suit serves as an important test case which will, ultimately, and hopefully, help us to come to terms with and understand the complex copyright issues at stake. What is also interesting in this case is that Napster is not actually accused of violating copyright per se since it does not store any music on its servers. It is accused of tributary infringement or of facilitating infringement of copyright. In the same vein, Universal Studios and Disney filed suit against Sony because their VCRs could be used to make copies of movies. The suit dragged on for 8 years and, in 1984, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of Sony. Today, VCRs, blank tapes and CDs as well as photocopiers are considered legal because the law distinguishes between legitimate or illegitimate uses of technology. Napster's argument is that its software has significant non-infringing uses which protect it under the fair use provisions of copyright law. These legitimate uses include, but are not limited to, the marketing of unsigned musicians, the determination of user preferences, and the provision of music samples. These uses are in addition to the fact that Napster was recently acquired by Bertlesmann of Germany and will soon be charging membership fees, and, in exchange, providing payment to artists. A further complication with this issue results from the provisions of the Audio Recording Act. According to this act, the buyers of CDs or cassettes have the right to, not only make a copy for their own personal use, but also to make copies for friends as long as they are not selling the copies or receiving any other type of compensation. Napster fans argue that sharing music is perfectly legal since the law does not specify who the friends must be or how many of them can receive a copy. In any case, the entire issue of copyright is presently being redefined with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Early predictions are that the Internet will move us increasingly away from the concept of products and more towards the notion of services and therefore away from copyright and towards licensing for access to service.

The final issue I would like to address relates to Jones' reference to the artists Great Big Sea. I don't know what their opinion on the Napster issue might be but I do know that the artistic community worldwide is very divided over the issue. This year, at Canadian Music Week, a gathering of musicians and producers etc., the keynote presentation was given by Ice-T, a rapper, and actor. In his speech, Ice-T argued that the recording industry is trying to "psych out" the artists. He cautioned Canadian musicians to ignore the "hype about internet piracy" and encouraged them to "get online and get global through the web". Interestingly enough, technologies like Napster may eventually prove themselves to be of great benefit to Newfoundland musicians looking for access to global markets.

Mr. Jones, you have certainly opened up a messy can of worms. And I am glad you have done so because you have provided me with an excuse to discuss some of the issues in relation to the Napster case. I encourage you and your readers to go online and learn more about what is at stake here. I believe we are witnessing history in the making, as well as a revolution in computing and in music distribution. The music industry will never be the same. Consumers and artists alike will hopefully benefit. And all of this will be largely thanks to Shawn Fanning.

Elizabeth Murphy, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor,
Memorial University