free reign, this in effect will render the copyright law as dead. Copyright law simply cannot keep pace with technological revolutions being brought about by the Internet. The Internet is inherently so beneficial to the indiscriminant reproduction and distribution of information, and so hostile to all attempts to control either, that all efforts to enforce or police copyrights on the Internet are almost doubtfully doomed for failure. How do these new technologies effect the efficient allocation of resources in our society? According to the Coase Theorem, "When one activity interferes with another, the law must decide whether one party has the right to interfere or whether the other party has the right to be free from interference. Efficiency requires allocating the right to the party who values it the most. When the parties follow the law non-cooperatively, legal allocation of rights matters to efficiency. When the parties bargain successfully, the legal allocation of rights does not matter the legal allocation of rights does not matter to efficiency. Given successful bargaining, the use of resources is efficient, regardless of the legal rule". (1) Allocating the right to technology which would seem is the side that values it the most judging by the overwhelming response from the public, would have some serious side effects (i.e. drop in sales, rendering copyright as a dead issue, record companies losing considerable control) but to what extent these side effects can be measured is yet to be seen. Although there have been research studies on both sides - one indicating that loss of sales has incurred and the other that sales have increased due to napsters presence - the absence of sound independent statistical research has yet to surface. People who claim that Napster creates net lost sales for artists are merely voicing a religious conviction about music copying and vice versa. I believe that this case has shown just one ill...
