Napster brouhaha shows socialist potential of new technologies

On 16 July a federal judge ordered Napster Inc. to shut down or 
prevent users from sharing copyrighted music. Napster is a 
computer program which allows users to swap small digital files 
containing music. Users have access to 100,000's of songs on other 
users' hard drives.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which 
represents music marketers and manufacturers, claims that Napster 
gives users the ability to steal their property, namely 
copyrighted songs. Bands like Metallica say that Napster takes 
bread from their mouths by cutting into records sales. Some 
demagogues have gone so far as to refer to Napster song-sharing as 
"the communism of thieves."

Napster argues that song sharing is not done for commercial 
purposes and therefore is not copyright infringement. Napster also 
waves around studies showing that Napster users actually buy more 
albums, concert tickets, and band paraphernalia.

This is clearly an intra-bourgeois squabble, and we take the 
arguments of both sides with a grain of salt. RIAA is tied to old 
modes of distribution and marketing, Napster to new. It may not be 
true that Napster users buy more tapes and CDs, but likely they 
buy more computer products and services like CD burners and DSL 
lines. Either way, one faction or other of the bourgeoisie makes a 
profit.

That said, we do take a side in this battle. The technology 
Napster represents -- quick, cheap, and potentially universal 
dissemination of information -- is not just about music. It's also 
about access to science, news, and politics, software 
distribution, etc. Napster-like Internet technologies are 
immensely useful to us ITAL now END in our struggle to build 
public opinion for socialist revolution. Thousands of people 
currently get MIM materials over the internet -- that number 
should skyrocket. That's why we often side with civil libertarians 
on questions of Internet regulation. We want to keep the Internet 
open and accessible for political organizing and debate.

The social potential of these internet technologies can only 
really be unleashed under socialism. Imperialism will certainly 
not be able to bridge the "digital divide" (the fact that only a 
tiny minority of people in the oppressed nations have access to 
the Internet). And where imperialism seeks to censor and control 
the content on the Internet, for political and encomic reasons, 
socialism would preserve and promote the Internet as an arena for 
discussion and debate. Under socialism, MIM would not order the 
government to censor the Internet, except on questions of the 
dictatorship of the proletariat -- defined as organized force to 
protect the non-negotiable interests of the people for food, 
clothing, shelter, medicine, and a pollution-free and militarism-
free environment. This is one reason we think the public will 
enjoy greater "free speech" rights under socialism than they do 
under U.$. imperialism.(1)

In theoretical terms, the conflict between RIAA and Napster 
reflects the contradiction between the relations of production and 
productive forces. Here, the relations of production are outmoded, 
19th century ideas about intellectual property and the usual "make 
all the money you can" capitalist ethic. The productive forces are 
the Internet and other information technologies. As Marx 
discovered, the productive forces are primary. Relations of 
production which contradict the productive forces have to be 
broken and changed to agree with them. That's the point of 
socialist revolution: Replace capitalist production relations with 
socialist ones. This project is especially pressing given that 
21st century capitalism threatens to end the humyn species in a 
nuclear war or environmental catastrophe. 

The argument that Napster deprives artists of their livelihood by 
giving away their work for free is a smoke-screen. The so-called 
artists who will see a drop in sales are mainly those who have 
already "made it," have signed with major labels for production 
and distribution, have name recognition, etc. These folks have 
already made millions just in concert revenues and merchandising; 
Napster isn't exactly sending them to the poor house.

Anyway, this argument could be easily addressed under socialism: 
Artists and other intellectuals like scientists would receive a 
wage from the state, like most other workers. They would not be 
forced to peddle their wares to the highest bidder -- something 
which currently undercuts their integrity. At the same time, if 
they create something really useful to the masses, they might get 
a one-time payment or an extra stipend, but they would not be able 
to hoard their discovery for profit or have sole control over it. 
So, for example, if an Amerikan scientist discovered a cheap and 
effective treatment for AIDS, African doctors could use it without 
having to pay extra for the alleged right to use the Amerikan's 
intellectual property.



Note:

1. See "'Free speech' under the dictatorship of the proletariat," 
a 1999 Party Congress resolution. 
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/wim/cong/freespeech.html