David Spitz and Starling D. Hunter
In the five years since its inception, some interpretations of the software
program known as “Napster” have been inscribed into laws, business
plans, and purchasing decisions while others have been pushed to the fringes.
This paper examines how and why certain assumptions about Napster have gained
greater currency while others have not. Our analytical approach involves an
examination of discourse about Napster in several arenas – legal, economic,
social, and cultural- and is informed by a conceptualization of Napster as an
ongoing encounter between, rather than the accomplishment of, inventor(s), institution(s),
and interest(s). And while we recognize the value of empirical examinations
of Napster’s impact on firms and markets, as well as the proscriptive
advice which it supports, we opt here for providing a contextualized understanding
of the technology that complements rather than substitutes for empirical analyses
of it.