|
USC Speaks About Napster
The University of Southern California, after being sued by Metallica, released a statement giving insight into their decision NOT to block Napster.
Unlike Yale and Indiana, who gave in to the legal pressure stemming from a possible lawsuit, USC decided to press on and continue to allow their students access to the popular MP3 file sharing application. "Just as some students may make uses of information found in books in the University library that would not be endorsed by the University, so too may they make choices of sites to visit and images and other content to download that USC would not approve," said Carol M. Mauch, a USC attorney.
Mauch went on to explain that seeing as the university is unable to monitor all aspects of a students activities, USC has decided to permit the access to Napster on the University's network through designated computers "only for demonstrable legal purposes." While this policy is not a final one, it will remain in effect until there is legal clarity surrounding the usage of Napster, and similiar applications. The new policy was adopted after careful assessment of the legal issues involved in the lawsuit. "There are some applications available at the Napster site which are clearly legal, such as the chat rooms focused on various styles of music. Through our new policy, we will continue to permit access to such speech-related activities."
When USC first learned of the lawsuit, late last week, they were shocked. Metallica, and the other plaintiffs, never attempted to contact anyone at the university in order to rectify the situation prior to filing a lawsuit, nor even to advise that one was imminent. The charges of racketeering under the federal RICO act were equally surprising to the university, who never conspired with Napster in a manner as depicted in the lawsuit, much less violating any laws. USC belives that while acting in the capacity of an Internet Service Provider they are shielded from litigation of this nature, as protected by the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and therefore would have no liability in the pending litigation.
So, the question now is this: did Metallica do this as a publicity stunt in order to attempt to shine a light on their otherwise fading career?
User Comments
(These do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of this site)
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 7:45 AM
It's time that musicians and artists move into the new century. I suggest we boycott any artist, musician, recording company or label that does not support MP3 and digital technology!! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 9:11 AM
Ahmen to the question at the article. Much like Metallica, this lawsuit is a joke. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 9:11 AM
Ahmen to the question at the bottum of the article. Much like Metallica, this lawsuit is a joke. |
|
spyed
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 2:20 PM
Who knows... maybe they think they're actually being wronged or something.
The thing is.. bands like metallica don't know what this napster thing really does, and from their managers and labels all they hear is "IT'S EVIL" all day long... they could jus be acting out of ignorance...
`Spyed |
|
Chad
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 2:54 PM
The bands could just as easily tried to ink a deal with Napster instead of suing them, much like what Limp Bizkit has been reported as doing.
Get some money out of a popular thing while pleasing fans.. why not.. I would ink a deal instead of suing.
I think Metallica and company should have looked into it a bit more =/
`Chad |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 24, 2000 @ 7:03 PM
DO NOT BUY METALLICA! If they want to play tough, then we, as the electronic community, must react accordingly. WE CAN NOT allow these beasts to dictate the new form of media. WE are the generation who will dictate the future of the Internet. I would even find it amusing (but I do not condone, lest I be implicated in a Metallica lawsuit) that all Metallica albums should be posted in "leech" folders. I doubt anyone will DL it though. 2nd rate band with 2nd rate managers. DO NOT BUY METALLICA!
~revolution |
|
spyed
|
Date: April 25, 2000 @ 1:24 AM
Well that's all fine and dandy but the real question is, do you think metallica would even win the suit?
I mean when it all comes down to it, I don't think Napster is doing anything wrong.
Let them bitch. "Suing" and "winning" are two different things.
`Spyed |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 12:22 AM
this has got to be the dumbest thing i've read in a long time, isn't that kinda low? how low can they go? would be a good question to ask. they are not going to be able to stop people from listening or making mp3's for that matter, i agree, boycotting these groups are the best way to go, sueing fans for listening to their music? gez, what's next? boycotting would only work if every fan got together and started protesting but, that would only give them more publicity, which, i think, is what this is all about, did they ever stop to think that maybe their new music sucks and that's why they are loosing sales and not because of people trading music? your music stays on your harddrive after trading, at least with napster. it is not stored on napster's servers. it is stored in your playlist on your pc. anyways, that's JMHO. |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 12:25 AM
more power to USC! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 12:32 AM
by they: i mean: metallica and dre, not USC! :-) |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 10:02 AM
Metallica just needs to get a life. Napster cannot be held responsible. Technically they don't have or store any mp3s so sueing them for that is just plain retarted. Napster is just a nexus where everyone with mp3s can browse other users' lists. So this whole issue of sueing can just be shot down by the above argument.
MP3s rule!!!!! |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 12:53 PM
"DO NOT BUY METALLICA!" said Anon.
You're preaching to the converted here, man...
Drego5 |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 5:51 PM
USC is full of shit! I am a student at USC, and used to have access to Napster... until last Friday, when those spinless bastards at ISD (our network managers) blocked access. They say that we still have limited access, but that's a lie! Nobody that I've talked to has received access. I asked ISD for permission, but have not received a reply. We, the students of USC, need to organize and protest this crap. Napster is the only thing that has ever been banned from our network... not a site about sex, violence, or hate, but art... the next revolution in music. Fear will destroy them (USC, Mettallica, Dr. Dre, the RIAA, and all dem playa hatin bitches!) |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 26, 2000 @ 8:47 PM
its a masterful plot by the evil leaderguy lars ulrich, hes a foreigner you know...i dont really give a shit about all this but i think metallica is evil and should be hung by their scrotum if they think they can stop us let em try. i wouldnt be so pissed about all this if it were a newer band that hasnt made millions of dollars that needs to actually sell a few records..but metallica the pig fuckers they should grow back their hair and return to their roots and kick those guys in the symphonies ass' and bash their violins over their heads and thats all i have to say about that |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 28, 2000 @ 5:49 AM
Napster rules, so what if you get music it off it, if napster doesn't then gnutella or somethnig else will. Gnutella has been made to be unwipable
they made it entriely so these lawsuits would not beable to touch them, napster may need hardware and so sueable, it's still pointless |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: April 28, 2000 @ 1:50 PM
Napster is not responsible for the use and distribution of MP3's by Metallica or any artist, the users thereof are responsible... and I'm sad to sy...for the companies.... they are not going to stop us.... |
|
Anonymous
|
Date: May 25, 2000 @ 1:01 AM
|
|
|
Navigation
