This is in response to Clarence Page’s Oct. 4 column regarding Napster. I fully agree that it is in the best interest of all parties involved to work out a deal.
Although the similarities between Napster and the VCR debate of the 1980s are striking, the differences are just as striking. VCRs are not connected to a worldwide network to “share” recorded works. Every generation of copied material from a VCR suffers reduced quality. VCRs have copyright protection features, which reduce the quality of copied commercial works to the point that they are nearly useless.
Napster has none of these restrictions. Once a song is converted to MP3, its quality remains the same whether the first generation or the 100th.
While Napster claims that it is merely providing a tool to assist users in sharing their files, it has created a distributed database of copyrighted material. It has, in creating this “tool,” taken it upon itself to assume that all holders of copyrighted materials want their material shared with all users of Napster. The fact that the victims of the crime are rich musicians and large record companies does not justify it.
Napster and tools like it are examples of the huge potential of the Internet. But as with all new technologies, there is potential for abuse. Napster as it is set up now is an example of that abuse.
