By silicon.com, 10 July 2003 15:22
COMMENT Napster was breaking the law. MP3.com was breaking the law. Kazaa is breaking the law. So why do they get all the positive press while the companies trying to bring them to justice are cast as the 'bad guys'? Today silicon.com reported that MP3.com is teetering on the brink of collapse - but we don't expect any tears to be shed for its parent company Vivendi Universal. It was Universal who ran MP3.com into the ground with hefty claims for compensation back in 2000 - subsequently making the crippled firm an attractive takeover prospect - and then taking it over. Earlier this week, silicon.com joined in with the widespread criticism of software pirates but are they any more in the wrong that the Napsters of this world? Music is copyrighted in the same way as software yet when people breach the rules governing the former we tend to accept it, rejoice in it almost. After all Napster was the best thing to happen to the web. Wasn't it? Perhaps because music is such a traditional part of our lives we struggle to believe it is owned by major multinationals, whereas software is inextricably linked with big business, always has been, always will be. Web users mourned when Napster vanished, barely even noticing they had been in the wrong using it. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) was cast as the villain and it will never shake off that image. And the irony is, the harder it tries to do 'right' the more it is condemned for its meddling. Similarly MP3.com was an admired service soured by big business. If it does disappear altogether it will be remembered as the failing of Vivendi - the sins of Universal's court case coming back to haunt it. Justice of sorts you might say. But should it really be that way? Let us know what you think. Email editorial@silicon.com and tell us why it should be that music piracy has been championed the way it has.
In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.
Log in or create your silicon.com account below