Napster CEO wants to settle fight 'privately'
Music-sharing service faces prolonged battle
|
But Napster CEO and president Hank Barry said Sunday he's hoping that can be avoided.
"This is the kind of case that should be settled privately," Barry told Daily Variety. "And settled in a way that compensates recordings artists and songwriters, while retaining the Napster community. I've been holding out that olive branch ever since I took this job. Unfortunately, the RIAA only seems interested in killing our technology and using that as a precedent against other services."
Asked what form such a compensation system might take, considering Napster has no revenues at this point, Barry said, "We believe Napster provides access to and stimulates exposure of music that leads to increased record sales. So one possible model might be radio, using blanket licenses and/or mechanicals controlled through the Harry Fox Agency.
"Our own business plan could be either subscription-based, advertising-based or a combination of the two. Several surveys show that people are willing to pay for the convenience that the Napster service provides."
No plans to leave
Barry dismissed talk of Napster moving its operations outside of U.S. jurisdiction as well as its current legal battle providing free publicity for rival Internet services such as Gnutella. "Those other services are far less efficient or convenient as Napster," he said.
He also downplayed reports of increased Napster traffic in the wake of the possible ban. "It's one thing to look at traffic to the Web site; it's another to look at actual system use. Sure, we've seen spikes related to publicity, but we've seen more steady growth in usage."
So, providing it's ruled legal, is file-sharing -- like rock 'n' roll -- here to stay? "I think Napster makes good on the promise of the Internet in that it allows musicians to connect with their fans. I also think Napster is a great application that will drive broadband adaptation."
Friday's ruling keeps the embattled Internet company fully operational through the appeals process, with Napster having until Aug. 18 to file its opening brief. Its adversaries -- including the Recording Industry Assn. of America (RIAA) and the National Music Publishers Assn. (NMPA) -- have until Sept. 8 to respond to that brief; Napster has until Sept. 12 to reply.
While RIAA prexy/CEO Hilary Rosen remains confident of eventual victory, Howard Weitzman (an attorney-turned-CEO of secure digital rights firm Massive Media) was less sanguine. "It's outrageous, unfortunate, and a sad comment on our judiciary when clear violations of intellectual property and copyright law are allowed to go unchecked. These are the kinds of decisions that erode our faith and trust in the judicial system."
Case for high court?
It's quite conceivable that the judicial process could wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which conceivably could kick the issue back to Congress, asking for a legislative solution that would entail amending the existing copyright laws.
But as recent D.C. hearings on the subject of music and the Internet indicate, Congress is reluctant to revise the Digital Millennium Copyright Act every time a new technology appears to upset the copyright holders' applecart.
In the meantime, the RIAA and NMPA could appeal the 9th Circuit's decision by asking for an "en banc" hearing, wherein the entire panel of appelate court judges are asked to examine and rule upon the lower court's injunction. They also could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the matter.
