Film theft in the UK - Future of Copyright

64
enable them to jump into any business model
that emerged out of the Internet environment.
Added to this was a desire to maintain the
value of existing physical distribution, which it
was feared electronic distribution would
cannibalise, as well as preventing technology
companies such as Microsoft, Apple or Sony
from becoming gatekeepers to music
distribution.
What this sit-back approach failed to
acknowledge was that a growing base of
young music fans wanted music online, quickly
and cheaply, regardless of business
considerations. As the majors dawdled, the
business model that emerged was Napster.
Napster was a first generation P2P music
sharing service – one that has given birth to the
new generations of filesharing services such as
Kazaa and eDonkey. The controversial Napster
site listed thousands of unlicensed tracks from
popular artists, which consumers could
download and share with its user-friendly
software. In December 1999, the company was
sued for copyright infringement by the
Recording Industry Association of America (the
RIAA).
Armed with a study 66 indicating that one-third
of Napster users access the file-sharing
software to get songs for free, the RIAA and
the National Music Publishers' Association 67
asked in June 2000 for a preliminary injunction
forcing Napster to remove from its directories
the songs that are allegedly violating their
members' copyright. In a surprise decision, U.S.
District Court Judge Marilyn Patel granted the
RIAA's request for a preliminary injunction on
26 July 2000. The judge ordered Napster to
come up with a software programme to
remove the infringing material. In her decision,
Judge Patel shot down Napster's defence that
the software is being used for non-infringing
purposes such as promoting new artists. She
also determined that Napster cannot claim fair
use under the Audio Home Recording Act and
dismissed the company's claim that its
technology is protected under the Sony
Betamax case ruling, which found that the
courts could not hinder technological
advancements.
The ruling was described by the music industry
as an important step in the development of a
legitimate international online music market.
However, in the context of the Napster
litigation, the majors were accused of
preventing the emergence of new services by
refusing to license their repertoire. If anything,
the Napster case shed light on a huge gulf in
understanding between the majors and their
young customers. In a survey of 1,170 US teens
and young adults, aged 12 to 22, carried out
by Forrester Research in June 2003, it was
found that there was general contempt across
the board for the high cost of CDs and the
perceived greed of music executives and
artists. 68
It was only after the Napster case that the
music industry really began investing in its own
alternatives – such as Sony/Universal’s
‘Pressplay’, Listen.com, and AOL MusicNet.
However, by then, the lack of a serious
legitimate alternative had already rationalised
(if not legitimised) illegal P2P filesharing in the
eyes of downloaders. Moreover, the opensource
nature of the MP3 has meant that
putting technical limits on the technology has
proved very difficult.