The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

JIM LEHRER: Good evening. I'm Jim Lehrer. On the NewsHour tonight: Ray Suarez examines the court decision against Napster, the Internet music exchange; Betty Ann Bowser previews the protesting in the planning for Republican convention in Philadelphia; Elizabeth Farnsworth talks to a group of Denver voters about the importance of the political conventions; Terence Smith conducts a foreign correspondence about Russia; and Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky reads a poem about the power of peace. It all follows our summary of the news this Thursday.

NEWS SUMMARY

JIM LEHRER: The House voted today to cut taxes on Social Security benefits. The Republican bill passed 256 to 159. It would tax 50% of benefits instead of the current 85%. The tax level was raised in '93 to reduce the federal budget deficit. Republicans said surpluses allow for rolling back the tax. Democrats said it would take money out of the Medicare Trust Fund.

REP. PETE STARK, (R) California: It's another huge tax cut to a very few wealthy people and another attempt to destroy Medicare as we know it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

REP. J. D. HAYWORTH, (R) Arizona: What we want to do is make sure that the seniors who are single and earning $34,000 a year and married couples who are earning $44,000 a year have their Social Security taxes reduced.

JIM LEHRER: The plan would cost about $100 billion over ten years. President Clinton has threatened to veto it. The on-line music-sharing service Napster faced a court order today to shut down. It will have to stop letting people download songs for free, as of midnight, Friday night. A federal judge in San Francisco issued the order Wednesday, pending a trial. The Recording Industry Association of America has sued Napster for copyright infringement. We'll have more on this story right after the News Summary. On the Concorde crash, investigators decoded the two black box recorders from the supersonic jet. They confirmed it had trouble with two of its four engines as it took off Tuesday near Paris; it crashed in flames. The disaster killed 113 people, most of them German tourists. They were officially mourned today. We have a report from Associated Press Television News. Philippa Meagher of Associated Press Television News.

PHILIPPA MEAGHER: France and Germany have been united in their grief. On Thursday afternoon, a memorial service was held in Paris, attended by officials from both countries. Many of those attending had lost loved ones in the accident. Members of the emergency services who attended the crash were also honored for their dedication. And at the same time, in airports across France, a minute's silence was held. At Charles de Gaulle Airport, from where the Concorde took off on Tuesday, travelers stood ashen faced, while staff at the Air France desks bowed their heads, remembering colleagues and friends so violently taken from them. Meanwhile, floral tributes have been arriving at the Medical Institute in Paris where the bodies of many of the victims have been taken for examination. Relatives of the dead have also been coming to identify the bodies and pay their respects.

JIM LEHRER: At the crash scene today, workers removed the last of the bodies and began using

cranes to remove the wreckage. Back in this country, Marine Corps investigators said pilot mistakes caused an Osprey tilt rotor aircraft to crash last April. Their report was released at the Pentagon. It said the pilot descended too quickly causing the plane to stall and then nose-dived into the Arizona Desert. All 19 Marines aboard were killed. In the presidential race today, George W. Bush's new running mate, Dick Cheney, went on the morning TV talk shows to defend his record in Congress. Democrats said it showed he's too conservative. Cheney called the criticism typical distortion. On the Democratic side Vice President Gore and his family began a vacation that is scheduled to last through next week's Republican convention. They'll spend the time at their home in Carthage Tennessee and at the North Carolina shore. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the court decision against Napster, the music exchange; protesting in Philadelphia; the importance of the conventions; and a foreign correspondence; and a poem about peace.

FOCUS - STOP THE MUSIC - NAPSTER

JIM LEHRER: Spencer Michels begins our coverage of the Napster decision.

SPENCER MICHELS: In college dorms and homes around the country, music fans have been using their computers to download music for free from the Internet. The songs are converted from CD's into computer files called mp3s, which can be sent over the Internet, and then played, either on a computer or on a portable player similar to a walkman. The most celebrated program-- with 20 million users-- is called Napster, and it allows one computer user to pluck music files from another computer, with no loss in quality.

GREG KUNIT, Student: What Napster did was made things so easy that, literally, all we'd have to do is just type in the name of a song, and up would come a list of where we could download it from. Just double click, and it would start downloading. It was that simple.

SPENCER MICHELS: But yesterday a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order, directing Napster not to facilitate or permit infringement of copyrighted material. That will halt the trading by music fans on the Napster web site, effective at midnight tomorrow. The company-- which has been at the center of a major controversy-- intends to appeal the order, and is asking for a stay of the injunction. A full trial is scheduled for later this year. The judge sided with the recording industry, which claims that swapping music files was in direct violation of copyright laws it has fought to strengthen. Hillary Rosen is president of the Recording Industry Association of America.

HILLARY ROSEN: This isn't, you know, just a sweet young guy who's looking for some fun in his college dorm room. They are building a business by facilitating the stealing of artists' music. (Metallica music)

SPENCER MICHELS: Some artists like the heavy metal band Metallica agree. They want the royalties from their recordings. But other less well known groups-- like Hieroglyphics-- have embraced the Internet, and want their music in cyberspace. Tajai Massey is organizer of the group.

TAJAI MASSEY: To me, it just basically is access, and access to markets that we'd never be able to touch. I mean, now we have offers to do shows in South Africa.

SPENCER MICHELS: Even if Napster shuts down, many computer users and music fans say they will have no problem finding other programs to get free music. There's Audio Galaxy, Scour.Net. Cutemx, and one called gnutella. It's not a company, but a technology that exists on the Net, with no way to shut it all down. Gene Kan and Spencer Kimball work on gnutella.

GENE KAN, Gnutella: The fact that this technology is out there means that they either adapt, or they die.

SPENCER KIMBALL, Gnutella: It really is the wave of the future. You know, you want a song, it just instantly happens. You don't go to the store any more; you don't have to shell out as much money where you buy a whole album that has tracks you don't like in it.

GENE KAN: Everybody is going to be using mp3'S. CD's are on their way out.

SPENCER MICHELS: As the debate over Napster moves into court, many of those on both sides are calling for a technological solution, some way for artists and recording companies to collect a fee on downloaded music. So far, record stores report only minimal sales losses, and only in areas near college campuses. As the court was making its ruling, attorneys reported that Napster's web site was flooded with music fans downloading 14,000 songs a minute.

JIM LEHRER: Ray Suarez takes it from there.

RAY SUAREZ: Joining me now to discuss the Napster decision: Cary Sherman, general counsel for the Recording Industry Association of America, and Jonathan Schiller, partner with Boies, Schiller and Flexner, a Washington law firm representing Napster.

Well, Jonathan Schiller, you've got until what -- midnight tomorrow night. What is Napster doing between now and then?

JONATHAN SCHILLER, Napster Lawyer: Well, we asked the court of appeals for the 9th Circuit today at noon to use its emergency powers to stay the injunction and give the court of appeals a chance to look at what Judge Patel ruled. Judge Patel had a fundamental misunderstanding of the Napster technology, and there is absolutely no way that Napster can comply with her order without shutting down, blocking all access to the directory that its users now have. That would deny more than 20 million Americans the use of this service, and we are unable to comply with the order because the plaintiffs have refused to identify the copyrighted songs they wish us to block. When they've given us notice in the past of songs, as they did with respect to Metallica,Napster acted and blocked those users. But in order to know what songs are on the Napster directory, one has to get notice and then go and search. The court misunderstood the technology in the sense of believing that Napster itself put songs on the directory. That's not how the technology works. The users of Napster have their mp3 files identified on the directory. And they come on as mp3 files. It would be up to someone to search those files to see what the songs are in order to determine whether they are copyrighted or not or whether they are copyrighted but authorized. For that reason, we asked the judge to narrow her injunction to songs that have been identified to us. She declined to do that. We've asked the plaintiffs to identify the songs and they've refused to do that. That has put us in an impossible position and one that we believe is contrary to the audio Home Recording Act passed by Congress which permits non-commercial sharing, and the by Supreme Court's decision in the landmark Sony case which permits non-commercial home use. It's peer-to-peer, Napster users in their homes sharing these songs, which is what is going on. I think the judge fundamentally misunderstood that and believed Napster was identifying and selecting songs knowing full well they were copyrighted and not authorized. That's simply not the case. On a preliminary basis without an evidentiary hearing it was impossible to establish that to the court's satisfaction.

RAY SUAREZ: Cary Sherman, first off, can your members help Jonathan Schiller understand what it is what you want him to block and also maybe you can talk a little bit about the arguments that your side brought forward that you believe carried the day in court.

CARY SHERMAN, Recording Industry Association of America: First of all I think Judge Patel understood precisely how Napster works. In fact she went up on Napster and used it, so she was quite well aware of how it functions and she was also quite well aware that purpose of Napster was to facilitate the exchange of pirated files. Internal documents from Napster made clear from the beginning that they knew what they were doing, that they were going to be arranging for users to exchange pirated files and therefore they had to give them anonymity, so they could do it with impunity. She basically concluded that you created this monster. You fix it. They've known now -- we filed this lawsuit in December. They've known for a long time that the reckoning day was coming. They could have done something to find out what songs to be taking down. There are many, many guides, which indicate the particular copyrighted songs that are owned by the plaintiffs. They've chosen to ignore the problem and hope it would go away. What's really interesting here is that the judge basically found that they are engaging in massive contributory copyright infringement for all copyrighted songs that haven't been authorized. The order applies to the particular songs that are owned by the plaintiffs. What they're saying now is we only want to take down the particular songs owned by the plaintiffs and we'll continue infringing the copyrights on anybody else's until they sue us. It's a very strange argument to be making to the court of appeals.

RAY SUAREZ: Now, in the past - I'm sorry, go ahead.

CARY SHERMAN: As for the Audio Home Recording Act the court rejected that argument as species and belied by the language of the statute itself. She specifically addressed the Sony Betamax case -- said it had no application. I mean, this court rendered a very, very careful and reasoned decision. She went through every argument that was made by both sides and all of Napster's arguments were rejected completely. We're very confident that this decision will be upheld on appeal.

RAY SUAREZ: Well, let me ask you a little bit more about the Audio Home Recording Act because there have been several cases where new technologies have come along that have used, as the sort of software they distribute, creative output. There was a problem in the early days of radio with using recorded music, and both of you have mentioned the case that the motion picture industry brought against Sony because you could now tape movies and television programs. In the end, both those industries ended up embracing those new technologies. Will your industry eventually end up finding a way to live with computer p to p -- person-to-person sharing of recorded material?

CARY SHERMAN: Our companies are embracing Internet technologies very strongly. They are engaging in all sorts of investments, technology partnerships, putting their music on line with all sorts of new and innovative business models. They're offering downloads for pay. They're offering subscription services. They're offering downloads to kiosks. They're offering compilation custom-made CD's, they're offering special kinds of web casting and inter-active web casting. The number of business models that are developing this marketplace are extraordinary. It's quite different to simply allow another business who doesn't own any of the copyrights, who never asked for a license for any of the copyrights to build a multi-billion dollar business on the backs of copyrighted works it doesn't own. It's just not fair. And the court found that. When this case started, there were a couple of hundred thousand Napster users. That was last December. There are now 20 million because they're able to get this music for free -- the most popular sought-after sound recordings in the world available for free. The court found that it was just unconscionable to allow that to continue any longer.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me let Jonathan Schiller respond.

JONATHAN SCHILLER: Thank you, Ray. The case that you referred to in the 9th Circuit, which is where we filed our petition today, held and said quite clearly that the recording act that Congress passed protects all non-commercial copying by consumers of analog and digital music. That's exactly what Napster users do. They copy that music from one another's hard drives. Therefore under that Act and also under the Sony decision, which permits such fair use, non-commercial use by consumers, there is no infringement of those copyrights. Cary is making an assumption that is contrary to the 9th Circuit law, which we're now asking the 9th Circuit to consider in the context of Judge Patel's unprecedented ruling. She did rule against us on a number of issues but those were decisions of first impression. They are contrary to decisions in her court by other judges and we say by the 9th Circuit. In terms of what Cary's organization is preparing, they are preparing a commercial alternative to Napster. They're behind. And they want to eliminate what Napster's created so that they can take advantage of what Napster has established as a viable market for this kind of Internet sharing. It is not copyright infringement as we hope the court of appeals will agree. And if our users those 20 million Americans who are sharing home to home the records that they have on their computers through mp3 files, then we can't be contributing to infringement and we're not.

RAY SUAREZ: You used the phrase fair use a couple of times, Jonathan Schiller and so has Cary Sherman. Is there a difference in law between me going home with a CD, and then making a copy so I can play that in my cassette player somewhere in the house or going home with a rented movie and making copies of it for all my friends or for everyone in the neighborhood -- are there different levels of use?

JONATHAN SCHILLER: That's a fair question. The court struggled with that yesterday. The answer quite clearly in the law Congress passed is no. There's no limitation on who you share it with, one on one, whether it's with seven people in your neighborhood or seventy people in your neighborhood, and there's no limitation on how many people a Napster user shares it with. Now the judge assumed.

RAY SUAREZ: Let me go to Cary Sherman at that point. I imagine he doesn't agree.

CARY SHERMAN: It just defies logic to think that a fair use doctrine which is what... It's supposed to be what's fair. A court is supposed to look at the facts of the situation and decide what is fair use under the circumstances. Is this going to have an adverse impact on the market for the works? Are they copying the whole work? Are they doing it for commercial purposes? Under every one of those tests, Napster loses. You don't have to be a copyright lawyer to figure out that it is not fair for somebody just because he buys a CD to be able to take the music on that CD and make it available to millions of anonymous strangers all over the world and to think that they rely on the Sony Betamax case which involved personal copying of a broadcast on to a tape so you can watch it later because that's a fair use, the notion that you could take a CD and publish it worldwide? It defies logic to consider that a fair use.

RAY SUAREZ: Go ahead.

JONATHAN SCHILLER: There's one terribly important fact that is disputed, and that is whether Napster and other Internet companies that facilitate sharing are increasing sales of Cary's clients. In fact, we say they are. We put in a study in evidence to show that. Today in the New York Times there was a decision of the Jupiter Communications Study which says 45% of Internet users who sample music as Napster users do, they sample it and then they go out and buy it are inclined to buy music. That's an enormous percentage. Judge Patel paid no attention to that and refused to conduct the kind of hearing that would permit her to look at that evidence and consider it. Instead, she relied on a discredited study of college students that the Jupiter Communications report said is not reliable. So there are a lot of facts to be thought through and resolved. We ask that they be resolved in a trial which can be held promptly and protect Napster and its users at the same time.

RAY SUAREZ: Cary Sherman, go ahead.

CARY SHERMAN: Thank you. The problem with waiting for a trial is that by year end Napster claims that it will have not just 20 million users but 75 million users downloading billions of songs; waiting just increases the harm. That's why the judge decided that it would be unconscionable not to act at this point. The court really did consider all the issues that Jonathan just referred to about promotion and so on and so forth. But she concluded that, number one, the study was unreliable but even if it did have some promotional value, that was for the copyright owner to decide. It's the creators who get to decide how to promote their works, not Napster to come to us and say you don't know what's good for you, we do; we're going to promote your works and we're going to make billions of dollars in the process. That isn't what the copyright law is all about. That's what the judge found.

RAY SUAREZ: If Napster will stay on you'll have to hear from the circuit court tomorrow.

JONATHAN SCHILLER: Yes, we are. We're hopeful that they'll review our papers, perhaps give us a telephonic hearing and issue a stay to permit them to look in detail at what we say, what Cary's clients say and what the court held.

RAY SUAREZ: Jonathan Schiller, Cary Sherman, thank you both very much.

JONATHAN SCHILLER: Thank you, ray.

CARY SHERMAN: Thank you.

FOCUS - TAKING TO THE STREETS

JIM LEHRER: Now a look at the upcoming Republican convention in Philadelphia. First, a look at the planning for protests. Betty Ann Bowser reports.

MAN: The people on this side are going to be irate motorists who have gotten caught in the traffic because there is so much going on in the streets and stuff like that, and you folks are the activists.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Just a few miles from the site of next week's Republican political theater, protagonists in another drama are busy practicing their parts. It's theater that will likely be played out on the streets.

MAN: Everywhere I look there's protesters, protesters, protesters. What's wrong with this city?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Thousands of demonstrators are coming to Philadelphia from all over the country representing hundreds of different causes and agendas. George Lakey has been training demonstrators since the 1960's.

GEORGE LAKEY, Protest Organizer: It's a chance at a time when the Republicans are a pre-planned, pre-packaged deal is probably designed to show there is no dissent about how things are going on in our country. The reality is there are a lot of us who see problems in our society and that we're taking some responsibility to address those.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Although they have many different and sometimes competing messages, most of the protesters say the one thing they share in common is a desire not to incite violence. But because some of them have openly said they plan to disrupt convention activities, they know they need to be prepared for anything. So this week many of the demonstrators are taking a crash course in how to handle themselves on the street in a protest situation with police.

WOMAN: Even if you're planning on wearing a gas mask, goggles, something like that, if something happens with that, in Seattle the police would pull gas masks up and spray underneath the gas masks.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The training sessions come only a few weeks after this incident was broadcast all over the country. The video shows Philadelphia police subduing an alleged car thief. Lakey is concerned the same thing could happen to his demonstrators during the Republican national convention next week.

GEORGE LAKEY: The wild card here is the behavior of the police, because if police jump on you over, and over, and over, there's a point where anybody can crack, and we can't be sure the police will really behave in a way that supports dissent and nonviolent protest.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: That kind of rhetoric infuriates Police Commissioner John Timoney. He insists there will be no more incidents of excessive force and he says he wants to ensure riots won't break out the way they did last November in Seattle when thousands of demonstrators descended on the city to protest the meeting of the World Trade Organization. Timoney says there were some law enforcement lessons learned in Seattle.

JOHN TIMONEY, Police Commissioner, Philadelphia: The protests seemed much more organized. They all had cell phones and portable radios -- much better communication than the crowds you would have dealt with in the late 60's, 70's and early 80's. And as a result they had greater mobility. It was a bit of a cat and mouse game with the authorities in Seattle.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Timoney wants no cat and mouse games next week in Philadelphia. That's why for months the commissioner has pulled his cops off the streets, away from desk jobs, and sent them back to the police academy to hear from the likes of 23-year veteran Lieutenant Stephen Smyth.

LIEUTENANT STEPHEN SMYTH, Philadelphia Police Department: They have a guaranteed First Amendment right to protest. Our job is to let them protest, but also let the convention go on as planned. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Part of that freedom of speech is the ability to verbally harass police officers. You have to take verbal harassment. We are paid to take verbal abuse.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Smyth went undercover as a protester during the demonstrations in Washington, DC last April, during the meetings of the International Monetary Fund. He wanted to learn the tactics of the demonstrators.

LIEUTENANT STEPHEN SMYTH: This is not what we're looking for. We don't want this for any reason. Some of the protesters have already been trained as soon as they see that, they fall down and start screaming and yelling whether you hit them or not. There's no reason to ever put this above your head. Everybody got that?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But even with massive training on how to handle a street demonstration and how to behave in one, much tension and distrust has developed between demonstrators and the city of Philadelphia. Last week, officials temporarily shut down a studio where people were making puppets and banners for the protests. The city cited building code violations. Activists said it was part of a campaign of intimidation.

ACTIVIST: And you're available when?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: For months Philadelphia activist Cheri Honkala tried to get a permit for her Kensington Welfare Rights Organization to hold a march through downtown to the GOP convention hall.

CHERI HONKALA, Welfare Advocate: As a formerly homeless mother and the director of a poor people's organization, we feel a moral responsibility with 15,000 reporters in town that we need to ensure that the issue of homelessness in America is talked about.

GALEN TYLER, Welfare Activist: This is where the homeless people, they come and they congregate at night.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Over the next week Honkala's forces will be taking reporters on so- called "reality tours" of bad neighborhoods in Philadelphia, to show them what the Republican delegates will not see. Galen Tyler is an organizer in Honkala's welfare activist group.

GALEN TYLER: We want to give them the reality of how people are actually living here in Philadelphia. It's not the Liberty Bell. It's people collecting scrap metal just to supplement their daily income.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: After weeks of talks with city officials, Honkala's request for a permit to march was denied, largely on the recommendation of Commissioner Timoney.

JOHN TIMONEY: The whole idea that they were going to march down Broad Street, try to disrupt the convention, I don't think so -- because we're trying to run a city. There's a convention going on. There are public safety issues. Emergency vehicles have to cut through Center City. And I think reasonable people know that. Those who are hell bent on disrupting the convention could care less.

CHERI HONKALA: We have a much highergoals than disrupting anything. We want people to begin to discuss this issue, to admit the fact that there's no need for homelessness in America.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: So Bonkala and her followers say they will march through downtown to the convention hall next Monday without a permit.

CHERI HONKALA: Most likely there will be arrests. But we think arrests and standing up for one's rights are as American as you can possibly get; that whether it was back in the days of the civil rights movement, the nonviolent civil disobedience that Gandhi was involved. Believe me, things are very desperate in this country for poor people, and this march is very important. We have to march.

WORKER: Unity 2000.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Only two organizations have been granted permits to march, and both groups had to take the city to court to get permission to hold the scheduled gatherings.

MAN: Do you want to look at this?

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Michael Morrell heads the largest group, called "Unity 2000." It represents a broad array of interests from gay and lesbian rights to labor issues.

MICHAEL MORRELL, Protest Organizer: It required a federal court order to abide by the Constitution and the First Amendment to allow us our First Amendment rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. We've also met with resistance by having the police surveilling our meetings, infiltrating our meetings. In many, many ways the city has found ways to intimidate us and try to keep our attendance down.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Commissioner Timoney says, yes, his police have conducted surveillance of demonstrators, but he denies his officers have infiltrated the groups. He says intelligence gathering is essential to determine how large various protests will be, and how to best respond.

JOHN TIMONEY: For example, if you went on the Internet, and there's this group, "John Timoney and the Irish Brigade will be there to demonstrate." And I ask around, what's the story with Timoney? And they say he's a one-man army with five people. Now Timoney may say he's going to be there with 10,000 Irishmen to protest the Brits. If you were to take that at face value, you'd be deploying 500 cops to handle Timoney and his 10,000 Irishmen, when, in fact, Timoney would show up with five Irishmen.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: Morrell is also sharply critical of the penned in areas that the city has designated as approved protest areas -- across the street, but out of site of the convention center.

MICHAEL MORRELL: They're calling it "the First Amendment zone," or the "free speech zone," which says everything. If that's the zone where the First Amendment applies in Philadelphia, that means de facto that in the rest of the city, the First Amendment doesn't apply, and we think that's outrageous, so we've encouraged groups not to participate in that.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: But Timoney says all of the measures that have been taken are to insure one thing: Public safety.

JOHN TIMONEY: We've gone out of our way with the training, extra training, to make sure that in no way could we be viewed as provocateurs, that we started it. So God forbid something goes wrong, it won't be as a result of the Philadelphia police department having run amok.

BETTY ANN BOWSER: The first test of that could come on Saturday when a healthcare rally is scheduled.

SPOKESMAN: One more platoon will last now.

JIM LEHRER: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight: The importance of the conventions; a foreign correspondence; and a poem about peace.

FOCUS - VIEW FROM DENVER

JIM LEHRER: Now, do the Presidential nominating conventions matter as much as they used to? Elizabeth Farnsworth posed that question to the group of voters in Denver, the same one she has talked to before here on the NewsHour.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Welcome, everybody. It's good to see you again. Ada Diaz-Kirby, are the conventions important to you?

ADA DIAZ KIRBY, Republican: Oh, absolutely. You really get a lot more depth in the issues. And all I have seen about the issues are very superficial right now -- the headlines, the sound bites, who's for this and who's for that, and I guess that what I'm looking for is to get more information about the issues that I really care about, and to understand what the candidates think about those issues in reality and then you also get a better sense about the personality of the individuals. I mean, I know who Cheney is, I know who George Bush is, but I really haven't seen them at any length in action, and I'm anxious to see them.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dennis Coughlin, do you agree? Are you going to watch?

DENNIS COUGHLIN, Republican: I will watch, but the conventions are not that important to me. I think that the issues and the people have been decided. I think it will be anticlimactic for me, so no, it's not a big deal to me.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Sarah Bay, do you think they're important? This is your first election, first Presidential election.

SARAH BAY, Independent: Yeah, yeah, being my first election, it's really hard to, right now, at least relate to the candidates because I really don't... I haven't seen previous conventions before, so I really don't know how to relate. I have seen bits and pieces of the conventions previous to this one, and I really don't think that they're very important nowadays. I see them more as a high school pep rally for the specific group of people, the Republicans or the Democrats, rather than really touching the issues, or really having any debate on them because they all seem to agree with whoever is running.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Well, let me ask you this: Would it... could it make a difference? Could you learn from the convention something that would change your mind about your candidate, or have you made up your mind?

SARAH BAY: I really haven't made up my mind. I don't see... I'm very independent as far as not siding with either of the candidates, and I don't know. I don't think it really will change my mind. I know basically what they... they stand for and I don't think that a pep rally is really going to change my mind.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Uh-huh. Brent Neiser, how about you?

BRENT NEISER: Well, I think it's important because it's a great way to test the... It shows is a party optimistic about the future or are they going to engage in maybe scare tactics to sort of scare their way into the White House. And I think that's a choice and that's really... they're really going to test that on the American people. So you see an ensemble of performances. I think a few years ago there was a family values type convention the Republicans put on and that had a definite theme and it turned some people off because it was just kind of one- sided. So I think that's a good place to do it, plus, I think you could showcase maybe potential cabinet members as well now that the decision's pretty much locked up.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Chris Goodwin, what do you think?

CHRIS GOODWIN, Independent: I think they're pretty much meaningless exercises. The candidates have been decided. I'm a lot more interested in what's going to be going on outside of the conventions. The demonstrations that are going to be taking place, and the shadow conventions and how those people are going to interject some talk on some real issues like healthcare reform and the widening gap between the rich and the poor, and issues like that.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So, in your case, part of the reason you're not interested is that you don't think the issues that are most important will be covered?

CHRIS GOODWIN: Yeah, I doubt it very much, or they'll be covered in a very superficial way. They're basically coronations for the two candidates. That's all.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Dr. Morris Clark, do you agree that the important issues might not be covered in the conventions?

MORRIS CLARK, Democrat: I really don't agree with that. I think that certain themes will be honed and refined and articulated during the convention and will allow the viewer to help form their opinion.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Will you watch the conventions, and if so, how much would you expect to watch?

MORRIS CLARK: I will watch every part that I can, that my work schedule allows me to, because I think it's important, I think it's part of the American process and I think the convention and the election this year, is extremely important.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And tell me why. Is there a lot at stake this year?

MORRIS CLARK:I think there's a lot at stake. I think the two candidates obviously are very well contrasted and I think what they represent truly will have an impact for years to come.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you agree with that, Dee Cisneros?

DEE CISNEROS, Democrat: Well, I feel that conventions are good. I think that's the place to energize and galvanize the people and all the speeches and people get excited and then they want to go out and... and get the vote out.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: What do you think, Eric Duran? Will you watch?

ERIC DURAN, Democrat: I'll definitely watch the convention. I think it's an important time in party politics, really to gauge the candidates. First, it gives them an opportunity, you know, 45 minutes on prime time, or maybe even an hour to spell out where they stand and what they stand for, and sometimes that's the first time people get to see the candidates and hear their stump speech. The second thing is it puts a lot of pressure on the candidates. This is, like, the most pressure-filled situation that they'll ever have in their life and we all get to see how they respond to that under pressure and I think that's a really important gauge in Presidential politics in terms of a crisis, and so I think it's really important.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: You're shaking your head, Dennis.

DENNIS COUGHLIN: Yeah, I think the Presidential debates are much more important than the convention. I think the convention is very much staged and the Presidential debates, I think, you'll get a much better feel of the candidates, their positions and the issues. And so I think that that's a much more important forum than the convention.

LINDA STAHNKE, Republican: You know, I think a couple of things that we've not brought up are important. One is for our young people to see what is going on as a part of the process, to expose them to this whole rigmarole of how we choose candidates. It's a part of our system, and I think that's really important. And also it's a part of how grassroots people get involved. This is where platforms are chosen, whether they're followed by candidates or not, and it's around those platforms that grassroots activists, or grassroots neophytes are drawn in. So I think that they're important for that reason.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mark Poe, this is your second Presidential election. Are the conventions important to you?

MARK POE, Democrat: To me, personally, they aren't that important. I've already made up my mind as far as the candidate who I intend to vote for, and I think... going back to something that Eric said, I think that the conventions are more important as far as intra-party politics than they are to the average voter who is sitting at home watching them, waiting to make up their mind. More important than the conventions to the average voter, I think, is Dennis' point about the debates. I think having the two candidates stand together in the same room debating each other about the issues is much more informative.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Do you think a lot is at stake this time, Linda Houston?

LINDA HOUSTON, Republican: I think we're looking for some feeling about character and experience and where people are coming from for our new Presidential candidate and I think they're very important. I think it still matters who our President is. It still matters who our Vice President is. And I agree that it is an inter- party structure, sort of, and I think it is a pep rally and I think it's a very important pep rally. I think we need to get people interested in it. It's the same kind of pep rally that we have in high school. What does it do? It brings school spirit. And this brings the spirit for each party, and I think it's extremely important. And I think it's extremely important to see how they work together, because you're not voting just for one person. You're voting for a package.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Yes, Sarah.

SARAH BAY: Well, I don't... I don't see it as necessarily a positive high school pep rally. I see it as more "vote for us and this is why." But not really... Instead of really covering what should be covered, it's more, as somebody earlier said, a superficial tab on what's going on in America so that they can say, "yeah, look, I'm looking at this issue but really it's more of a superficial basis than it is."

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So from your own life, do you feel that issues that really need to be covered are not going to be talked about?

SARAH BAY: Well, maybe not... Maybe talked about, but truly not looked at in depth.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Uh-huh. Yes, Brent.

BRENT NEISER: I think it... It hinges on leadership as well, and a demonstrative vision. And I think because we've had the candidates wrapped up so early, this is a time to show "how I might govern," and to actually energize and engage Americans with that next level of introspection and kind of analysis -- and parading people that might be potential cabinet officers, how they interact, and laying out a vision on different issues, it would be a way to advance that -- because a lot of people do make up their minds before Labor Day.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: So that's the kind of thing you'll be looking for?

BRENT NEISER: I want to see a vision and leadership articulated.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Uh-huh. Eric, what are you going to be looking for?

ERIC DURAN: Well, I think some of those same things, but I think, you know, more importantly are I think what I'm hearing a lot from people is maybe they're not happy necessarily with what the outcome is in some of these conventions, and maybe they're not getting the choices that they would like, or maybe they would like to see viable alternatives

CHRIS GOODWIN: I think what's really at stake here is the credibility of the electoral system in this country. The fact is, the majority of people don't participate in any way. They either don't vote if they're registered, or they're not registered at all. So I think the key question is: Is the system going to open up a little bit and offer different points of view from Ralph Nader, who I support, or Patrick Buchanan, who I don't support. And I think that's a key. I think that the two major parties are offering two relatively boring, very similar candidates. And if that's what we're going to be left with between now and November, I think a lot of people are going to tune out.

ERIC DURAN: Well, at least during the convention, I think that you will really see the differences between the two candidates, and I think one of the candidates is talking about... clearly, when you think about abortion, when you think about tax cuts and how that's going to be going on, about education. I think there's distinct differences between the candidates, and those become more apparent during the convention perhaps than they would, you know, during debates where they have sound bites or some of the other serious stuff.

DENNIS COUGHLIN: One of the things that we're hearing now is a lack of name- calling, and that's why I think you are hearing more about the issues. And the hope, I think, of everybody in the room is that the campaign continues that way, and if there is a lack of mudslinging or name-calling, I think it'll be a much better campaign for all of us, no matter which side of the fence you are on.

ERIC DURAN: Well, I think that brings up an interesting point. I think that's something that you need in conventions and in the convention system. You could have it. It's all about the Republicans, and it's all about them, and it's not so much about clashing. It's just about presenting their ideas and I think you're going to hear that thing with the Democratic convention. But after that, when you go into the debates, then it's all about sound bites and, you know, laying out your issues.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Thank you all for being with us. It's very nice to see you who have been with us a long time, and glad to have you new people, too.

CONVERSATION - FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE

JIM LEHRER: Next, foreign correspondence, our occasional conversations with reporters stationed overseas for American news organizations. Terence Smith has tonight's.

TERENCE SMITH: Our foreign correspondent is David Filipov, Moscow bureau chief for the "Boston Globe." David, welcome home.

DAVID FILIPOV, Boston Globe: Thanks for having me.

TERENCE SMITH: Vladimir Putin-- is the Putin era different than the Yeltsin era?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, I think that the Putin era started when Putin became prime minister and started running the country, last August. And we already saw... we've seen the major difference, which is the second war in Chechnya. Certainly we're now seeing a lot of action surrounding business leaders-- the people known as the oligarchs in Russia-- surrounding certain leaders of mass media companies, and surrounding the regional governors in the Kremlin's efforts to bring them under control. So we're definitely seeing a flurry of activity, which, at least in politics and business, make it look a lot different than the last few years of the Yeltsin era.

TERENCE SMITH: And from the President's office, is it a different style?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, certainly, I mean, with Putin, he's always moving around, and when you look at his performance at the meeting of the leaders of the Group of Eight in Okinawa. He's moving around, he's doing judo demonstrations, and that's not the kind of thing that Yeltsin could do. Yeltsin carried this kind of... this sense of authority, this sense of history. Putin's not like that. He's very active. He's a good listener, by all accounts. By all accounts, he's a good speaker when he's in those talks. Certainly when I've heard him speak, the thing that impressed me most is his ability to adjust what he's saying to the people who are listening to him, which is not that common a quality among Russian politicians. It's clear he's had some training there. So, in that sense, he looks a lot different.

TERENCE SMITH: You referred to his crackdown on the oligarchs, these powerful business figures in Russia. Explain that. What's going on there?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, there are, indeed, several leading businessmen who are known as oligarchs in Russia, who by all accounts gained huge amounts of power and influence through their connections to the government, to the Kremlin, and often using state money through various different semi-illegal and legal-but-questionable methods to build huge business, media and financial empires. These people, who are very closely related to the middle part of the Yeltsin era and the end of the Yeltsin era, and now many of the leaders of this group, this informal group, have had criminal cases launched against their companies, or they've had... been visited by the tax police, who have this way of showing up in their masks with machine guns, and all very theatrical. But the point is, is that there's a sense that these people are not going to be the leaders of Russia, one way or another, the way that they were in the middle of the 90's, for much longer. That was an election campaign promise that Putin made, and with this action he appears to be acting on that.

TERENCE SMITH: Now, at the same time, there have been crackdowns with tax police, with guns at the ready, on media organizations as well.

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, in Russia it's the same thing. One or two, well, actually two or three of the more well-known "oligarchs," and let's use that in quotes because it's a loaded term here...

TERENCE SMITH: All right.

DAVID FILIPOV: But these people, one of the things that they purchased when they were building their empires was a vast holding of media companies; TV, radio. One of the more professional media companies, most media, is run by Vladimir Gusinsky, who was briefly held in prison, who has had a lot of pressure put on him, and there's clearly more on the way. He's not allowed to leave Moscow. He's had his personal property confiscated. This is clearly the main target right now in this crackdown against "oligarchs."

TERENCE SMITH: Is it political pressure?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, I mean, these guys made their millions and their billions in the mid-90's. The prosecutors have always been there. They only start right now. You know, put two and two together, there's clearly a political element. You know, where were the prosecutors in 1997 when all the privatization deals, that are now suddenly being reviewed, were done -- or 1995? On the other hand, to say that these "oligarchs" deserve it, and they're getting what they deserve, or that the methods are their just desserts, that's also probably putting it a bit too... that's pushing it a bit too far because we're not seeing, necessarily, due process here. We're seeing political revenge. So, it's a complicated situation right now, and there's a lot of room for Putin to... you know, he's walking through sort of a minefield here. The other question that keeps coming up is whether all the people who illegally acquired huge amounts of money are being investigated right now -- or whether there are some Kremlin-friendly "oligarchs" who are getting a buy. All indications are that there are certain people who aren't involved in these probes, and that makes it sound all the more like, you know, typical-- unfortunately-- Russian situation where one group comes in, pushes the other group out.

TERENCE SMITH: Another thing that is, of course, on President Putin's plate is the war in Chechnya. It's the war that won't go away. Every few months, it seems to me, the Russian military says that they have the rebels under control, and then there's another outbreak.

DAVID FILIPOV: Well, I used to... I used to make the comparison to Lebanon, although I guess I can't do that anymore. The situation in Chechnya is very complicated. There are indications that Putin and his generals knew what they were getting into. They were able to portray this as a small, victorious war that reached its culmination at the time when Putin was getting elected President. He very adroitly... well, I won't go so far as to say that the war was started to get him elected, but it certainly served as the kind of issue that Russians could rally around. "Oh, here's an energetic leader that knows how to get things done." Certainly, Chechnya's autonomy was not making Russians very happy. There were a lot of kidnappings, there was a lot of violence in the region. So, it looked really good. The problem was, by putting a huge army into a place where there are people running around- - guerrilla fighters running around-- who can basically fight, like, by night and then hide by day, that's going to be a very explosive situation. Now we're seeing the bitter fruit of that: 20, 25 dead Russian soldiers per week, casualties in the close to hundreds.

TERENCE SMITH: And what's the prospect? Is it likely to keep going on?

DAVID FILIPOV: Well... Well, if you listen to the Russian estimations of the rebels' strength, on the one hand, if you count all the Russian estimations of rebel losses, then the rebels have lost over 20,000 people since the fighting started last August. But if you look at how many are left, according to official Russian estimations, they've always said, "3,000 to 4,000," "2,000 to 3,000." And so, we're still in a situation where, according to official figures, there's still 2,000 to 3,000 well-trained, well-motivated rebels who are able to blend in with the civilian population and clearly feel confident enough walking out in broad daylight, like they did the other day, and opening fire on Russian troops in the capitol, Grozny. Meanwhile, the Russian army has been withdrawing some of its units because they don't... they can't afford to pay combat pay, which is close to $1,000 per month, to a 90,000-man force. So, really what we have now is a situation where the Russian army is committed to keeping control over Chechnya. They're not going to pull out.

TERENCE SMITH: Right.

DAVID FILIPOV: They've decided that they're not going to let this happen. They let Chechnya be autonomous, they're not going to let it happen again. At the same time, they've got enough strength there only to control their own... the place where they stand. The rebels move around freely and take potshots. It's a mess, and it looks like a quagmire that will go on for as long as quagmires go on.

TERENCE SMITH: Which is a long time.

DAVID FILIPOV: Which is a long time.

TERENCE SMITH: David Filipov, thank you very much.

DAVID FILIPOV: Thank you.

FINALLY - PEACE

JIM LEHRER: Finally, tonight, a poem about peace. Here is NewsHour contributor Robert Pinsky, the Poet Laureate of the United States.

ROBERT PINSKY: The end of the Camp David talks, without any immediate agreement, recalls what a powerful word peace can be, and also how worn out the word can seem. Everyone wants peace for the world-- from Miss America to Saddam Hussein-- but invoking it is easier than attaining it. The exhausting necessities of compromise and negotiation can make us forget that peace is not just a political phrase, but an ideal. One of the most touching uses I know of the word "peace" is in a poem by Fulke Greville, written in the 16th century. Greville elevates the idea of peace to a kind of platonic perfection, an ideal, and though he comes at it through Christianity, an ideal that's virtually Buddhist, putting peace at the center of all things. Here is Greville's poem, which gives a fitting passion and grandeur to peace by defining it as divine love. "Love is the peace, whereto all thoughts do strive, done and begun with all our powers in one. The first and last in us that is alive, end of the good, and therewith pleas'd alone. Perfection's spirit, goddess of the mind, passed through hope, desire, grief and fear. A simple goodness in the flesh refined, which of the joys to come doth witness bear. Constant, because it sees no need to vary, a quintessence of passions overthrown, rais'd above all that change of objects carry, a nature by no other nature known: For glory's of eternity a frame, that by all bodies else obscures her name."

RECAP

JIM LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Thursday: The House voted to reduce taxes on Social Security benefits and the on-line music sharing service Napster faced a court order to close down at midnight Friday night. We'll see you online, and again here tomorrow evening with Shields and Gigot, among others. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.