The latter half of the twentieth century has seen a dramatic decline in the price of reproduction technologies much to the displeasure of the copyright industry. The technological progression has been virtually unstoppable: the photocopier to the cassette recorder, the video tape recorder to the newly developed recordable CD. The spread of the Internet over the past 10 years has resulted in the new development of the abrupt decline in the price of distribution technologies. The Internet has permitted worldwide distribution at a rather insignificant cost. As the beneficiaries of the statutory copyright monopoly, the copyright industries have a strong interest in neutralizing the biting effect of these technologies on their monopoly over reproduction and distribution. It would seem that there exists two conceptions of the copyright laws. The first being the actual written interpretation of our current copyright law as defined by the courts and which is understood by industries that depend on the copyright monopoly and who have had a important role in its drafting. Secondly, there is the interpretation of the copyright law as understood and defined by consumers. This interpretation seems to be the unwritten adaptation of the copyright law, which is applied in the non-commercial/not for sale or profit/fair use world of consumers when trading homemade tapes or Cds, photocopying books or interesting articles to pass along (in attending University, I have noticed that this practice of copying required text books has become widespread among students) or simply posting articles on bulletin boards or office doors. These two conceptions of the copyright law have collided in full force with the current Napster case, not to mention all the numerous clone sites that have sprung up which could at a moments notice, swiftly replace Napster. The digital information wants to be free. If in the name of technology, digital information is granted...
