Napster More Badder?

In light of the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals recent decision to rule against Napster, ComputerWorld columnist Peter Wolchak stated in his 23 February 2001 column that

It seems contra-intuitive in the extreme to argue that Napster has no responsibility for what other people do with its service, and I have to say that I want to retain control over fruits of my labour. While I'm sure people aren't lining up to misappropriate this column it's nice to know that I have legal recourse if someone is so undiscerning enough to steal my work.

It seems to me that there is a difference between stealing a column, which would almost have to be presenting the writer's words as one's own, and copying MP3 files via the Napster servers. The theft of ideas is a crime: it is plagiarism. Different crime. Different punishment.

Napster was judged guilty of allowing people to illegally trade copyrighted material, and not attempting to stop the trade. I see the Appeals Court's point. I don't entirely agree with it. Wolchak's comment sounds ignorant because it appears to confuse plagiarism with the copyright violations for which Napster has been judged guilty. Napster may be making money with its service. But Napster, as far as I know, hasn't said they own the material. They're earning money for a service that is radio for the people and by the people.

The playlists are as varied as the listeners. Not decided by metrics, office politics, record company lobbying, or top 40 dreck. The real issue is that the record companies didn't come up with this marketing model first, or sloughed it off when one like it was proposed to them.

I don't for a minute believe that Napster has caused "substantial harm" to the record companies. If that were so, then they wouldn't have been so quick to sneer at Napster's $1 billion licensing offer, citing that $200 million per year was, essentially chump change

If I hang one of Wolchak's columns on my fridge door, does that make me guilty of theft of intellectual property? If I photocopy Wolchak's work and fax copies to my co-workers, have I violated fair use? What if his words incited me to develop an idea for which I profit? Am I then guilty of copyright infringement?

But if, by sharing Wolchak's commentary with my friends and co-workers, ComputerWorld suddenly has a spurt of new subscriptions, do I earn a commission? And if Wolchak earns a raise as a reward for the popularity of his column, does he owe me? Have I not provided a similar service for ComputerWorld and Peter Wolchak as Napster does for recording artists and record companies?