Ask the students what they would think if they were to write
a song, perform it in a coffeehouse, and later hear it on
the radio being performed by a big star who had copied the
music? Is this like stealing? Why?
Pass out and read copies of “The
Loud Noise Over ‘Free’ Music,” The Ledger, Fall 2000. Ask
the students how they think the case should have been resolved. (Keep
in mind that Napster was basically prohibited from carrying
material that copyright holders objected to having Napster
carry.)
Have the class make a list of the pros and cons of stopping
Napster and similar file-sharing systems. (As the students
will know, Napster has been replaced by a range of other MP3
file-sharing mechanisms. The music industry has chosen
several other means to enforce copyrights, including approaching
colleges and suing offending individuals and non-cooperating
institutions.) Ask the students who will be able
to produce new music if people cannot make money (a living)
doing it.
Go to these copyright web sites and examine several copyright
infringement cases:
http://www.benedict.com/Audio/Audio.aspx and
http://www.benedict.com/Visual/Visual.aspx
Ask students if they can think of situations in the past
where a new technology was developed that had the potential
to infringe on copyrights. (The most obvious examples
are the photocopier, the VCR, and audiocassette recorders.)
Distribute the article "How
Mr. Rogers Saved the VCR." Tell the students
that Congress passed a law requiring that every time you buy
a VCR or DVD player, a small percentage of the price goes
into a royalty fund. As a result, as long as you record
materials individually (not serially), and you do it for home
entertainment (not for profit), you do not infringe. Does
this point to a possible solution with MP3 file sharing? (Maybe,
maybe not.)
