|
Property Con
|
Liberty /
Equality / Property
/ Participation / Surveys /
Notre Dame Web Group
/ Teaching
Tool
Contact Us /
Other Groups /
Public Private Home
/ Definitions |
|
Introduction
|
|
Property rights have been seen as
essential to democracy by many scholars.
The copyright laws which fall under this notion, however, have been
argued to be unjustified. In
fact many use this sort of defense for the right of Napster’s existence.
Many
argue that copyright laws serve as a beneficial protector of creativity
and wealth of authors, this however does not account for the other side
which suffers at the hands of redistributed property.
Also the question arises whether creative works of art are actually
“tangible” pieces of property at all. |
| The Case of Napster |
|
Napster,
a peer-to-peer file-sharing system, enjoyed tremendous
popularity when it was still in use.
One of the many common arguments
in its defense was the high cost of CDs in comparison the free Napster
music.
Many believe the prices charged by the music industry to be
outrageous and see the Napster battle as the little guy’s right to
free information vs. huge corporate interests trying to rip them off.
The RIAA (recording industry of A
me
rica)
charges around $16-20 for a CD that costs about 50 cents to make and
only gives about $2 of the purchase price back to the artist. At
the same time evidence suggests that file-sharing has actually led to a
boost in record sales.
In
addition to the above argument,
many feel that the copyright laws
me
ant
to protect music cannot compete with peer-to-peer file-sharing programs.
Napster was simply shut down because it was the most popular
offender at the time
.
MP3 music-sharing, despite Napster’s court losses, has
continued and doesn’t seem to be lessening.
Many people have turned to the countless other music-sharing
programs such as kazaa and imesh.
|
| What About Community Rights? |
|
So
me
suggest that the private property culture currently present in today’s
society has led to a deterioration of community rights and
responsibilities. This leads
to a degradation of the environment
and a greedy populace unconcerned with future generations.
In other words it’s another example of the “Tragedy of the
Commons.” People
have become
overly concerned with who owns what and “me” and “mine” that the idea of community and “ours” and the
value of sharing has diminished. |
Conclusion
|
|
Now is the time to realize that copyright protection laws are unable
to prevent the free file-sharing of the Internet. The medium is one
that focuses on community values and only works when information can be
freely accessed and utilized by everyone. The overemphasis of
property ownership in America has reached a threatening level that could
hurt the very nature of our democratic principles of participation and
shared experience if it is not contained. |
|
Links
|
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/kinsella2.html
 | A legal defense of Napster as well as
an argument against copyright protection laws.
|
http://www.atpm.com/7.01/barline.shtml
| A web page explaining the markup of CDs and their
distribution to artists |
http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-01/03-11-01/a11op037.htm
| Another defense of Napster highlighting many personal
responses. |
http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_458151
|
An article suggesting that record sales have increased since the
advent of Napster. |
http://www.giantleap.org/envision/private.htm
| Articles pointing at various fallbacks of a private
property culture |
|