|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : The
Internet & Computerization
MP3.com face up to $250m penalty for music copyright infringements
By Mike Ingram
12 September 2000
Use
this version to print
US District Judge Jed S Rakoff ruled last week that MP3.com
had wilfully violated the copyrights of music companies. The ruling
will cost MP3.com a penalty of around $25,000 per CD. Depending
on the number of CDs the court decides are subject to the fine,
MP3.com will be forced to pay between $118 to $250 million.
Should MP3.com lose a planned appeal, the ruling will mean
financial bankruptcy. The company's shares dropped 27 percent
to $5.77, despite the Nasdaq Stock Market halting trading of the
stock just prior to the decision for two and a half hours.
The judgement against MP3.com follows the temporary injunction
against Napster in July, demanding that the company prevent the
downloading of copyrighted music. The injunction was suspended
pending technical enquiries after Napster claimed it was not possible
to deny access to some recordings without shutting down its operations
altogether. Unlike MP3.com, the music made available by Napster
does not reside on its own servers but on users local hard disks.
Napster simply provides the software that allows users to share
their music.
The similarity in the two cases lays in the fact that both
assert the relevance of copyright laws to the new medium of the
Internet. Stating that it was necessary to send a message to the
Internet community to prevent future copyright infringements,
Judge Rakoff said, "They need to understand that the law's
domain knows no such limits."
This was welcomed by Howard King, the lawyer acting for recording
artists Dr Dre and Mettalica in suits against Napster. "You've
had now two federal court judges on two coasts say, This
is not a close issue. What's all the fuss about?'" King said.
While Napster provided a means for users to share music on
each other's hard disks, MP3.com took a different approach. Converting
thousands of CDs to the digital MP3 format and uploading them
to their servers, the company set up a type of digital locker
service through which it gave users access to CDs they already
owned.
Napster and MP3.com followed very different business models.
Both are part of a wave of emerging companies seeking to utilise
the superior network provided by the Internet for the distribution
of popular music. For this reason both Napster and MP3.com have
felt the wrath of the recording industry giants, who are desperate
to defend their traditional control over distribution.
Widespread hostility to such control and a belief that music
should be freely available through the Internet has led to what
are essentially business conflicts becoming the focus for ideological
conflicts that go to the heart of the Internet as a mass medium.
People claiming to support Napster have even gone so far as to
engage in Internet vandalism, hacking into various web sites and
defacing pages with pro-Napster slogans.
While Napster's selling point was its informal and mass character,
MP3 paid more attention to copyright issues from the beginning
and have thus been able to secure agreements with four out of
the five major labels who took action against them. Time Warner's
Warner Music, Sony, EMI and Bertelsmann's BMG have all reached
settlements that guarantee them royalty payments from music made
available through MP3.com.
Some industry observers believe that Seagram's Universal has
only held off from making a similar agreement in order to secure
more favourable terms than its rivals. It is just as possible,
however, that Universal really do want to see MP3.com put out
of business. The company has an estimated $25 million tied up
in MP3.com competitor Farmclub and is a partner of Musicbank,
which offers a service similar to Mp3.com.
See Also:
Pro-Napster protesters vandalise
web sites
[17 August 2000]
Temporary injunction granted
against Napster
[28 July 2000]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |