“The Napster Precedent”: Putting Sugar in Democracy’s Gas Tank?

[Editor’s Note:  The views expressed here are solely those of Ross Kaplan, and do not represent Edina Realty, Berkshire Hathaway (“Berkshire”), or any other entity referenced. Edina Realty is a subsidiary of Berkshire.]

Napster — the copyright infringing, file-sharing, early Internet darling of the ’90’s — may have deserved to die.  See, “copyright infringement.”

However, exactly how it died is instructive for western Democracies combating “fake news,” Russian collusion, and other existential threats.

Namely, Napster didn’t fall prey to legal sanctions, although those clearly exacted a (financial) toll.

Rather, it succumbed to sabotage.

Strategy #1

For those too young to recall, the music industry correctly viewed Napster as an existential threat, and first tried to take it down through legal process.

Specifically, it got Congress to pass especially onerous civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement, then sicced its lawyers on unsuspecting Grandmas in Peoria illegally availing themselves of the service.

It didn’t work.

Not only did that strategy create a public relations backlash — bankrupting Grandma made the industry look like a bully — it was ineffective:  there were always another 10 — or 1,000 — Napster users out there to prosecute.

Call it digital “whack a mole.”

Second Time the Charm

At some point, the music industry clearly regrouped, and hit upon a vastly more effective strategy.

Namely, use Napster’s open architecture against it.

Specifically, upload millions of corrupt MP3 files to the system, rendering it useless (users who opened the corrupt files searching for a usable one were treated to a blast of static).

Think of it as putting digital sugar in Napster’s gas tank (note: it’s still not clear exactly who did it).

Walls & Borders

Fast forward to the 2016 election — and the looming midterms.

I know (too well) what President Trump is doing to keep out illegal aliens.

What’s less clear to me is what he’s doing to safeguard the integrity of our democracy — specifically, both the levers of government (“hard targets”) as well as the social and electronic media (“soft targets”) that enable an open system to function.

My 3-part suggestion to President Trump:  1) acknowledge (vs. deny) the issue; 2) instruct the federal government to assist the 50 Secretaries of State in their efforts to harden voting systems, ballot boxes, and the like in time for November; and 3) direct Congress to update the laws governing American’s privacy, while regulating the information Facebook and other social media can sell and disseminate to others.

There’ll be plenty of time to build a border wall once those steps are taken . . .

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8230700 https://ift.tt/2m3vPJX
via IFTTT