Liberty / Equality / Property / Participation / Surveys / Notre Dame Web Group / Teaching Tool  Contact Us / Other Groups / Public Private Home / Definitions

Introduction
	According to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, copyright protection, far from being inconsistent with the rights of free speech and freedom of information, is the very engine of free expression. Over two hundred years ago, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other champions of American democracy, considered copyright protection and the ownership of intellectual property so essential and complimentary to freedom of speech that they included a mandate for it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. While varying definitions of democracy exist, the issue of property protection remains a key element in describing such a society.  For some, democracy is comprised of the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.  Thus, in a democracy, individuals have the right to demand protection and respect of their own products from others.  Yet, consider the controversy over the use of software file-sharing clients, such as Napster and Kazaa, in order to download music and movies.  Without adequate copyright protections and enforcement, the fruits of human creativity are severely diminished. Uncompensated creators are not afforded the time, the resources, or other incentives to create. The Framers recognized that innovation and creativity was instrumental to our country’s economic health when they empowered Congress, in the Constitution, to protect copyrighted property.
Historical Precedence
	The breakdown of the copyright system in post-Soviet Russia , a nation with a rich history of creative accomplishment, can teach us all a lesson. Just as the structures of totalitarianism were being removed from the lives of Russian creators, the traditions of copyright protection of property and enforcement of such laws were abandoned. The result has been the near ceasing of output of creative works and other properties in that culture. Most senior members of Congress are pressuring the Justice Department to invoke a little-known law: the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act. Under the NET Act, signed by President Clinton in 1997, it is a federal crime for a person to share copies of copyrighted products such as software, movies or music with friends and family members if the value of the work exceeds $1,000. Violations are punishable by one year in prison, or if the value tops $2,500, not more than five years in prison.
Copyright Infringement and Napster
	Napster consists of simply a website, a few employees, and about a hundred or so powerful computers known as servers. By connecting to these computers with special software, Napster members can search one another's hard drives for music files, downloading free of charge any songs they discover.  The opportunity to share music quickly and without charge has been greeted with more enthusiasm by listeners than by the music industry.  Some argue this is due to the fact that record companies/artists are angry over the millions lost through such a site.  This is only partly true.  Though some may complain of the price mark-up on regular CDs, the music is still the product of the artists and record companies.  By listening to it and bypassing them in order to make your own CD, it can be argued that you are essentially stealing their property, as no payment is being rendered for it and they are receiving no financial exchange for their product.  It would be one thing if the artist put their music on the web themselves for people to download.  Yet, Napster and programs of the like are stealing another’s property (their music) without permission, which accordingly equals copyright infringement.   Copyright infringement occurs when a person copies another’s copyrighted items without permission, which is exactly the case with Napster.  By its own admission, Napster is responsible for making millions of MP3 files widely available to users around the world. As alleged by the RIAA in its complaint, the overwhelming majority of those recordings are pirated. Napster claims that it is trying to promote unknown artists, but its own website advertised that, with Napster, "you can forget wading through page after page of unknown artists" and "you'll never come up empty handed when searching for your favorite artist again!" Thus, Napster provides its users with all the facilities and means to engage in copyright infringement.  It is not democratic, given the definition cited above, for Napster to provide copyrighted materials without permission from the artist and/or record companies who own the rights to their property.
Conclusion
	At no other time in history has it been more important for the public to recognize the value of copyright protection of property than in the Information Age. The threat of piracy, which is simply the use of someone else's creative work without permission or compensation, has grown dramatically with the Internet. The Net offers almost anyone with access a computer and a modem the ability to engage in the unauthorized, mass distribution of any type of creative work, thus essentially stealing one’s property without just compensation or authorization. With the simple push of a button, one can easily destroy the global monetary value of an author’s property, thereby making copyright protection possibly even more important in the virtual world than in the physical one.
Links
	http://www.riaa.org/index.cfm Website for the Recording Industry Association of America, the leading force in bringing legal suits against internet piracy http://www.nmpa.org/ Homepage for the National Music Publishers’ Association, which calls for the protection of music copyrights in an age of rapid technological changes. http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/hollings.cbdtpa.release.032102.html Statement by Senator Ernest F. Hollings on the introduction of “The Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Act of 2002,” which aimed to secure copyrighted content on the internet. http://news.com.com/2100-1023-949533.html?tag=politech A news article by Declan McCullagh on the NET Act and its effects on individuals who swap music or movies on the internet