/dqweek/media/agency_attachments/JNb31gQnqJvAm0jqPxaV.png)
Follow UsThe music industry now finds itself on the 'receiving' end of the legal conflagration that it ignited with Napster. Supporting Napster's requests, Federal District Court judge Marilyn Patel has ordered the five records companies who essentially sued Napster out of business, to "prove they own thousands of music copyrights. And to prove these copyrights were not used to monopolize and stifle the distribution of digital music."
She went on to say, "Napster's misguided attempts to build a business using illegally obtained music paled in comparison to
what could be massive misuse and heavy-handed tactics by the recording industry." Judge Patel drew an interesting comparison between the two sides of this battle royal, pointing out that when she ordered Napster to stop violating the alleged copyright infringement, Napster immediately complied.
On the other hand, The record labels' allegedly inequitable conduct is currently ongoing and the extent of the prospective harm is massive. If Napster is correct, plaintiffs are attempting the near monopolization of the digital distribution market. The resulting injury affects both Napster and the public interest.
Indeed, she goes on to accuse the record labels of collectively using their (assumed) copyrights to sue the digital competition out of existence as they worked on their own MusicNet and PressPlay online services, during which they, "necessarily (met) and (discussed) pricing and licensing, raising the specter of possible antitrust violations."
The 'A word
A federal judge's use of the 'A' word must rise more than a few frightening songs in the hearts of the music execs, since the Justice Department opened just such an investigation in October. So this turn of events is pretty stunning, considering that if the record companies do not legally own the copyrights (a complex issue that turns on individual phrases in various laws-such as the definition of 'works-for-hire-then they can not keep Napster down. In addition, an antitrust investigation could change the entire course of their industry.
I suspect that Judge Patel's ruling is music to the ears of the many fans who feel that the music industry has been acting like the proverbial 800 pound gorilla, ignoring what the digital marketplace has been so clearly saying that they want (easy, on-demand access to the specific songs they desire, at a fair price, along with the ability to copy them onto other media for their own use under the fair use provision of the copyright law-just as they have always been able to do with records, cassette tapes, and other media.)
It is clear to me that intellectual property must be protected; that gets us more and higher-quality songs to enjoy. Nevertheless, there is no telling what the result of this turnaround will be. Indeed, I would not be too surprised to see a rapid turnaround in the settlement talks with Napster. On the other hand, I can also imagine that Napster might suddenly be far less interested in settling.
This should be a most interesting tale to follow!
So when will it happen?
It is a fascinating exploration of where today's hyper-exponential growth of technology may take us. However, as we all know, as fascinating as the technologies themselves may be, it is how individuals and businesses use these technologies. These make any given technology a winner, or relegate it to the back shelf until someone does come up with a way to apply it to a problem. So in response to our previous look into the technological future, reader Rolf Dobelli has put together a similar projection to explore the changes in how business, making use of these technological advances, is likely to change.
For a few examples:
| 2004 | First global consumer boycott (consumers linked via Internet boycott brands on a global scale) |
| 2006 | The first individuals go public (IPO) |
| 2007 | Advertising industry collapses-Most advertising in electronic media filtered out by intelligent agents; most private shopping done by bots based on product standards, price and ratings |
| 2010 | Fund management software combining AI investment selection and automated electronic trade execution is cheaply available; decline of brokerage and mutual fund industries |
| 2020 | Synthetic person becomes major role model for global youth |
| 2030 | US Supreme Court rules that brain scan of employee remains property of employee but can be used by employer even after employee has left the company. |
Jeffrey R. Harrow, Principal of The Harrow Group, brings the Harrow Technology Report to you.
www.TheHarrowGroup.com. Jeffrey R Harrow maintains that all reasonable care and skill have been used in the compilation of this publication. However, he shall not be under any liability for loss or damage (including consequential loss) whatsoever or howsoever arising as a result of the use of this publication by the reader, his servants, agents or any third party.