Napster, justice and justice; what is not right
People are sometimes strange, especially when it comes to innovations. Often things change so quickly that most of humanity has not had time to prepare for them. Similarly with a recent example. New became old and obsolete was renewed because of this, but before this happened old became newer again so that renewed became obsolete again.
I’m talking about Napster. A few years ago, Shawn Fanning set up a program that allowed the exchange of MP3 files with other users. It became a huge success and more and more people started to download the latest music for free from all over the world. Just over a year ago, Napster became so popular that even television programs were devoted to the phenomenon. In the meantime, the novelty had worn off a bit, and it was understood by the record executives that it was not a temporary hype. The file-sharing system had finally settled in and no one seemed to be able to stop it.
Obviously, this couldn’t stay that way. Napster was sued by advocacy group RIAA with the aim of causing a total shutdown. Expansion of outdated legislation in the field of digital copyright infringement was also examined. The ‘final’ ban handed down by the Supreme Court seemed to be the end of Napster.
Still, the end of the illegal music exchange is far from in sight, and probably never will be. Subterfuges of Napster’s smart lawyers resulted in a stay of execution. Non-combustible files, allowances and filters were promised and it seems that the filter proposal is succeeding. Weeks after the death sentence, the servers are still up and running. And further: even if Napster were to be banned (which I don’t really see happening yet), the music exchange has not come to an end yet. New technologies such as peer-to-peer ensure that the already gray hairs of the copyright protectors fall completely off their heads. With this technique, central servers are no longer used, but all computers together are in principle the server. The downside to this is that the search is a bit slower than the napster protocol, but for the RIAA it presents completely different problems. The lack of a common culprit ensures that there is absolutely nothing to do against it.
That is not good in my opinion. The possibility of something so illegal being tolerated should simply not exist. The fact that it took so long for a (malfunctioning) filter to appear on Napster shows that the case law is strange and not geared to reality. I also understand that, for example, the knife cannot be banned because wrong things can also be done with it, but the case of Napster is slightly different. It is generally known that copyrights are violated by almost everyone who uses Napster. The same goes for competitors such as iMesh and Bearshare (Gnutella).
A solution? The vast majority of people would not like to see this happen in connection with the RIAA’s vision of Napster, but logical reasoning should make it happen anyway. Artists and record companies work hard to get their money’s worth, and in fact copying these types of files is just theft.
The legislation therefore needs to be amended. Completely. Fast. Worldwide. We have to get rid of the legal culture in which everything has to be proven through fancy exaggerated arguments. I think this music case is somewhat comparable to the old example of the burglar who was beaten down. A man did this after he saw someone walking through the house with a knife in his hand. However, the burglar had not yet committed any threatening acts, so that not he but the man was made punishable. Burglar fee, man imprisonment.
The agreement? Jurisdiction should be a little less static, and not justify things that are really wrong by some empty rule in the law book. In my opinion, the judiciary is in favor of protecting citizens against themselves and each other, but this is not always the case in the current way. Changes are difficult, but not impossible in my opinion.