CHAPTER 22 | HIP-HOP, THE DIGITAL REVOLUTION, AND REMIX CULTURE 547
Napster users did not pay for the music they downloaded, but for that mat-
ter neither did they receive payment for the music they owned and allowed oth-
ers to copy. The utility was arguably a sort of collective digital lending library in
which each user was both lender and borrower. Fair use has always embraced
the lending of books, CDs, and so on—indeed, public libraries institutionalize that
concept. Just as libraries did not put bookstores out of business, Napster’s sup-
porters argued, p2p networks do not stop people from buying CDs. Likewise, they
argued, since the advent of the cassette recorder in the 1970s music lovers have
compiled “mix tapes” of favorite songs for friends and family, and p2p networks
are merely an extension of that practice. But their argument stretches that aspect
of fair use to the breaking point, unless a user has 25 million friends and family
members. Some observers, such as Chuck D of Public Enemy, likened Napster to
radio, for decades a medium where listeners could hear music “for free” without
putting record companies out of business. An important difference, however, is
that musicians earn royalties from radio play but not from fi le sharing.
Unsurprisingly, the record companies did not see Napster in such a benevolent
light, and neither did some musicians with major label contracts. In 2000
Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement, and shortly afterward Dr. Dre
did the same. Though both cases were settled out of court, a successful lawsuit
fi led by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIA A), the music indus-
try’s lobbying organization, shut Napster down in 2001. But the death of Napster
was not the death of p2p networks, and since that time music fans have migrated
from one relatively short-lived p2p to another.
In retrospect, this was clearly a moment when the music industry needed to
reimagine its business model. Since its inception in the 1800s, the popular music
industry has been predicated on the commodifi cation of music into material
objects that can be marketed and sold: fi rst sheet music, then piano rolls, then
phonograph records from the Edison cylinder to the CD. But since the 1990s
recorded music in the form of digital audio fi les can be downloaded to personal
computers, MP3 players, and other devices, without the purchase of any physical
object. Although legal pay-per-download sites such as iTunes emerged imme-
diately after the closure of Napster, the use of digital rights management locks
(the legacy of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) makes legally downloaded
fi les cumbersome to use. Moreover, a generation of music lovers has grown up
in a post-Napster world and, rightly or not, considers recorded music something
that should be freely downloadable. The result is an economic climate in which
the music industry, slow to respond to technological and cultural change, is in a
state of crisis.DIY REBORN: REMIXES AND MASH-UPS
Napster marked a new development in America’s music culture, a shift from a
“broadcast” or one-to-many model, in which corporations create music and dis-
tribute it to the public, to a many-to-many model, in which individuals can take an
active role in the making and dissemination of music. The ease and affordability
of fi le sharing has allowed the Internet to become a medium for exchanging not
only music produced by the major labels but also music created by users them-
selves. A host of websites, from MySpace and SoundCloud to last.fm and YouTube,
have allowed musicians without record company contracts to upload their own
music with the hope of attracting a following. These musicians make little or noiTunesNapsterNapster’s shutdown172028_22_531-558_r3_sd.indd 547 23/01/13 11:20 AM