The experiences of Napster and MP3 have certainly sparked a round of legal jousting that may continue for years. Some fear that a few of the recent rulings may stifle information sharing out of fear of copyright infringement, or may give larger companies the time and advantages needed to prepare for future changes in legislation. Heard it all before All the recent hubbub centers on the use of new technologies - primarily the MP3 application, which allows people to convert music from CDs to a digital format. Web-browser services, such as Napster, provide a way for individuals to search for and share these digital files from each other's computers. Attorneys for the Recording Industry Association of America claim that Napster is used primarily for illegal purposes and that Diamond Multimedia's MP3 Player undermines the legal distribution of music, since it plays both legal and illegal files.
Some digital music is considered public domain and can be copied legally.
Napster and friends are hoping that a legal precedent was set when Sony was taken to the Supreme Court years ago for producing a machine which facilitated widespread copyright infringement of videotapes. The Court ruled that the VCR has legal uses as well as the potential for illegal use, for which the company should not be held accountable. Some don't find the two cases parallel. During Napster's initial public relations efforts, the company claimed that research studies showed users were reporting that they used the service to sample songs from CDs before buying them. However, Napster strategy documents revealed in court, told a different story.