Andrea Schmidt, the executive at Bertlesmann, (one of the world biggest media conglomerates and a plaintiff) went to the zoo one day and as odd as this may sound, "during a critical point in their eight-week-long secret negotiations" about the current lawsuit that Napster was involved in. They were looking at the exhibit with Lily the polar bear, all of a sudden, "to their horror, Lily shot out a paw and savagely crushed the bird. The metaphors presented themselves immediately. "I don't want Napster to end up like that pigeon," Barry recalls saying" (Stone, 2000, 1). Napster is taking this lawsuit very seriously and is throwing everything in its arsenal to stop the destruction of itself. They are presenting statistics that strengthen their power, for example "in the past year, the recording industry has posted a ten percent increase in album sales" (Earp, 2001, 2). They claim that there is an increase in CD sales despite the fact that Napster still exists. Napster is not hurting the music industry, in fact they believe it is helping them, so why bother shutting the program down. Shutting down Napster is the crime that will be committed; Napster is not the one committing the crime. The current lawsuit that is still pending between Napster and the RIAA is should not be considered in the argument that Napster should be protected by the First Amendment; the lawsuit is irrelevant to my argument. I believe that Napster should be protected under the First Amendment. Napster is a virtual public forum. In this forum people assemble together, they talk about music, read about music, and most importantly they trade music. This idea brings up the point that Napster and its users have the right to assemble, and have the freedom of speech to talk about music. If the courts send down a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, the court is essentially contradicting a right that has been instilled in this country ever since it was formed. It will be contra...
