U.S. judge pulls plug on Napster By Sue Zeidler SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Handing the record industry a major win in the battle over copyrights and the Internet, a federal judge Wednesday effectively shut down Napster Inc., saying the wildly popular song-swapping service looked like a simple cover for music piracy. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, issuing a preliminary injunction requested by the Recording Industry of Association of America (RIAA), said millions of Napster users were engaged in ``wholesale'' copyright infringement by trading their favorite songs over the Internet. ``The question is, you have designed a system enabling infringing and piracy. Can you stand back and say 'we didn't know that'?'' Patel said before ordering Napster to cease trade in music covered by RIAA-member copyrights by midnight on Friday Patel's order prompted an immediate rush by music-hungry Napster users to the company Web site seeking to download songs before the Friday deadline. ``I've never seen so many people on it like this,'' said Cary Miller, a TV executive and Napster user who signed on to the service after news of Patel's ruling came out. ``About three-quarters of a million songs are being listed on this one server alone and they have multiple servers. And it's only going to get worse before the injunction,'' he said. RECORD COMPANIES REJOICE As the feverish downloading gained pace at the Napster site, recording industry lawyers reveled in the victory for their giant corporate clients, which had targeted Napster as a high-tech haven for piracy and copyright infringement. But it is far from the last word in a case which has pitted new technology against old laws and sparked concern among everyone from heavy metal rockers Metallica to America's most powerful corporate directors. ``This once again establishes that the rules of the road are the same online as they are offline, and sends a strong message to others that they cannot build a business based on others' copyrighted work without permission,'' said Cary Sherman, a lawyer representing the RIAA. Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said his legal team -- which includes top gun lawyer David Boies, best known as the lead attorney for the Justice Department in the Microsoft case -- would work around the clock ahead of the Friday deadline, and planned to file an appeal of Patel's decision as early as Thursday morning. ``The judge issued an order which basically would have the effect of shutting down Napster,'' Barry said in a Webcast to the service's users Wednesday. ``The judge's ruling essentially is that one-to-one, non-commercial file-sharing violates the law,'' Barry said. ''We'll fight this in a variety of ways, to keep the Napster community going and strong.'' SWAPPING SONGS ONLINE Napster works by letting fans swap songs free of charge by trading MP3 files, a compression format that turns music on compact discs into small computer files that can be easily sent back and forth over the Internet. It has become one of the most prominent of a number of new, Internet-based services that are challenging old concepts of copyrighted material and consumer sales. Napster says its users are not violating copyrights because they are sharing music for noncommercial or ``fair'' use, citing the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992. But the RIAA, which represents companies such Seagram Co. Ltd.'s Universal Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music and Time Warner's Warner Music Group and EMI, contends that no court has ever held that wholesale copying and distribution of copyrighted works could be considered ``fair use.'' Patel, in her ruling, appeared to agree, saying it was hard to envision applying the ``fair use'' principle to a worldwide service of some 20 million users like Napster. ``Computers are not within the meaning of the statute,'' Patel said, adding that since Napster came up with the file-sharing software, it was up to the company to figure out a way to make it compliant with copyright law. ``They created the monster,'' Patel said. NEXT STEP A FULL TRIAL? Both sides now must gird for the next step in the battle, a full trial over the future of music and copyright law. Many industry analysts expect the legal pressure to boost efforts on both sides to come to some sort of compromise which will extend copyright protection to music which is distributed over the Internet -- although, for the moment, the recording industry was satisfied that it had the upper hand. ``This is an important win for artists, too, because whether they distribute their music through big labels, small independent labels, or on their own, the Court has made clear that they have the right to protect their works,'' Sherman said in a statement. ``Whether they choose to do so is up to them. But the choice is theirs to make.''
- Home
- Submit News
- Bands
- Streams
- Best New Music
- Interviews
- Tours
- Reviews
- New Releases
- Contact Us
- Login
By now most of you have heard that on Friday at midnight, Napster will be shutdown, pending the results of the trial. This will come as a tremendous hit to the MP3 community (Click more, for full story). However someones already picking up the slack. Scour.net. With whom you may recall the Scour Media Agent. Has released a new program similar to that of Napster, The Scour Exchange. This application allows you to not only share MP3's, but also Video, images, & more. I've yet to try the program yet, however I shortly will. Please visit their website for more information. SX.SCOUR>COM.
U.S. judge pulls plug on Napster By Sue Zeidler SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Handing the record industry a major win in the battle over copyrights and the Internet, a federal judge Wednesday effectively shut down Napster Inc., saying the wildly popular song-swapping service looked like a simple cover for music piracy. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel, issuing a preliminary injunction requested by the Recording Industry of Association of America (RIAA), said millions of Napster users were engaged in ``wholesale'' copyright infringement by trading their favorite songs over the Internet. ``The question is, you have designed a system enabling infringing and piracy. Can you stand back and say 'we didn't know that'?'' Patel said before ordering Napster to cease trade in music covered by RIAA-member copyrights by midnight on Friday Patel's order prompted an immediate rush by music-hungry Napster users to the company Web site seeking to download songs before the Friday deadline. ``I've never seen so many people on it like this,'' said Cary Miller, a TV executive and Napster user who signed on to the service after news of Patel's ruling came out. ``About three-quarters of a million songs are being listed on this one server alone and they have multiple servers. And it's only going to get worse before the injunction,'' he said. RECORD COMPANIES REJOICE As the feverish downloading gained pace at the Napster site, recording industry lawyers reveled in the victory for their giant corporate clients, which had targeted Napster as a high-tech haven for piracy and copyright infringement. But it is far from the last word in a case which has pitted new technology against old laws and sparked concern among everyone from heavy metal rockers Metallica to America's most powerful corporate directors. ``This once again establishes that the rules of the road are the same online as they are offline, and sends a strong message to others that they cannot build a business based on others' copyrighted work without permission,'' said Cary Sherman, a lawyer representing the RIAA. Napster Chief Executive Hank Barry said his legal team -- which includes top gun lawyer David Boies, best known as the lead attorney for the Justice Department in the Microsoft case -- would work around the clock ahead of the Friday deadline, and planned to file an appeal of Patel's decision as early as Thursday morning. ``The judge issued an order which basically would have the effect of shutting down Napster,'' Barry said in a Webcast to the service's users Wednesday. ``The judge's ruling essentially is that one-to-one, non-commercial file-sharing violates the law,'' Barry said. ''We'll fight this in a variety of ways, to keep the Napster community going and strong.'' SWAPPING SONGS ONLINE Napster works by letting fans swap songs free of charge by trading MP3 files, a compression format that turns music on compact discs into small computer files that can be easily sent back and forth over the Internet. It has become one of the most prominent of a number of new, Internet-based services that are challenging old concepts of copyrighted material and consumer sales. Napster says its users are not violating copyrights because they are sharing music for noncommercial or ``fair'' use, citing the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992. But the RIAA, which represents companies such Seagram Co. Ltd.'s Universal Music, Bertelsmann AG's BMG, Sony Corp.'s Sony Music and Time Warner's Warner Music Group and EMI, contends that no court has ever held that wholesale copying and distribution of copyrighted works could be considered ``fair use.'' Patel, in her ruling, appeared to agree, saying it was hard to envision applying the ``fair use'' principle to a worldwide service of some 20 million users like Napster. ``Computers are not within the meaning of the statute,'' Patel said, adding that since Napster came up with the file-sharing software, it was up to the company to figure out a way to make it compliant with copyright law. ``They created the monster,'' Patel said. NEXT STEP A FULL TRIAL? Both sides now must gird for the next step in the battle, a full trial over the future of music and copyright law. Many industry analysts expect the legal pressure to boost efforts on both sides to come to some sort of compromise which will extend copyright protection to music which is distributed over the Internet -- although, for the moment, the recording industry was satisfied that it had the upper hand. ``This is an important win for artists, too, because whether they distribute their music through big labels, small independent labels, or on their own, the Court has made clear that they have the right to protect their works,'' Sherman said in a statement. ``Whether they choose to do so is up to them. But the choice is theirs to make.'' Please login or register to post comments.What are the benefits of having a Punknews.org account?
jason (July 27, 2000)
this shit is fucking stupid. napster actually helps bands sell records. most people or more likely to buy a record after sampling it on napster than they would without even hearing it. it especially helps new and less heard of bands. metallica are nothing but millionare greedy bastards that care nothing for their fans. someones gotta make some anti-metallica shirts with "i support napster" on them. YOU HEAR THAT AUBIN, YOU WANT TO SELL T-SHIRTS? MAKE "FUCK METALLICA" SHIRTS.
Punkass99 (July 27, 2000)
Ok, first of all...various studies concluded that Napster HELPS record sales more than it hinders them. Therefore it technically should make everyone happy. I say fuck the music industry and fuck those who think Napster is all that bad
Nathan (July 27, 2000)
I agree with you on part of this. First off, Napster did fuck a lot of bands. However, I think having mp3 search engines like scour.com and audiofind.com is very convinient. The unfortunate thing about the whole mp3 deal is, that people don't use it honorably. What I do is, I download a song, and if I like it, I go buy the record. If I don't like it, I've saved myself 12 bucks. To me that's fine. What is totally wrong is the people that don't buy albums ever. They download their asses of with their cable modems. Some people have more punk albums on their computer than I have on cd. That's fucked up. It's one thing if you use it to sample, but when you abuse it and fuck the scene, you're being an asshole. The punk community keeps things lower priced. For example, at Fastmusic, you can get the new NOFX album for 12 bucks and no shipping. That's cheap. If you go to an indie store, it's around 12-14 dollars. If you go to a corporate chain, it's around 16-18 dollars. That's too much. But internet distros and indie stores keep things fair. They don't rip you off. That's why all of us fans should be expected not to rip the scene off. If you like the mp3 you download, buy the album. The bands in this scene don't do it for millions, don't do it for fame, and don't do it for material things. They do it because they like playing punk/emo/ska, and they like making us happy. All I'm saying is, they don't need to, or want to be number one on Billboard, but they need to eat and wear clothes. It's their job. I support that. If we don't buy their albums, how are they supposed to get the money to keep putting them out? Or to tour? See my point? If you really support the scene, don't rip it off. Buy the albums if you like the song(s) you downloaded. If you can afford a computer to download, you can afford a 12 dollar punk rock album.
VitaminMe (August 2, 2000)
You cannot kill the goose that laid the golden egg. If all we do is burn shit and burn shit after a while there's not going to be much to burn. Sure, big labels with lots of media attention and money will be able to survive, but the small punk labels will go under. People need to understand that, like in the previous comment, this is their job. So if you're going to get some music off of Napster, do it, and then listen to it. Hell, even get more, but if you're really into it, go out and buy the album. Like stated above, it is pleanty cheap on the internet. Now, as for these MTV bands, all I have for you is three words: Pirate, Pirate, Pirate! Actually, I have a new way of speading music. When you put things onto your Napster library, label them with shit like Blink or Nsync. That's my opinion. |
Previous
Exclusive StreamsSponsored EventsNewest Reviews
Punknews.org TeamManaging EditorAdam WhiteContributing EditorsBryne Yancey Kira Wisniewski Brittany Strummer Andrew Waterfield Armando Olivas John Flynn Chris Moran John GentileCopy EditorAmelia ClinePodcast ProducerNariman ShariatPublisherAubin PaulISSN 1710-5366© Copyright 1999-2013 Punknews.orgTerms of Use Privacy Policy Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us About Punknews.org Other Places to Go |









it seems like im the only one that has realized what kind of danger is involved while using Napster and other similar applications. Unlike some bands out there, most bands (which include many, many punk, ska, and harcore) make money through records, shows, and mechandise. downloading the music, burning them onto cd's, and not paying a dime for it really fucks with the band. these bands need our support, while you listen to them for free. this is their job. their source of income. not some fucking teenie-bopper band with a bunch of queers skipping up and down. they dont need the money. And I've been hearing the phrase "If Napster goes down, I'll never buy a cd again." a lot lately. You know what? FUCK YOU! you dont care about the music, you just care about saving money. this goes beyond saving money. you dont give a flying fuck about punk, or the music, or the attitude. In closing, if you wanna suppost punk, ska, and hardcore, buy their shit FROM THEM DIRECT. if not, fuck off.