A & M Records Vs Napster Summary

What Napster actually does is provide access to nearly every recording anyone oculd want. Napster has not copied or accumulated any of the recordings available from it; it simply helps people to seek the music that they want. It has music available that may not be available anywhere else, and it offers instant connection. It allows someone to listen to a song and check out the artist before spending eighteen dollars on the CD. It is like a "library," where everyone connected "shares" songs with one another. Artists, such as Metallica, who sued Napster, believed their songs were "being given away and the 'library' as ill-gotten pirate booty."

In 1999, Shawn Fanning and his little program called Napster created quite a stir in society. Napster's software allows music listeners to open pieces of their personal hard drives to everyone using Napster, sharing whatever MP3 songs they have already downloaded or stored. At any time, thousands of people are online, sharing hundreds of thousands of songs, many of which are technically illegal to download without the permission of the copyright holders. [1] This led to a lawsuit filed by the Recording Industry Association of America, with the rock group Metallica as its frontman. In this case, several issues were brought up, one of which was the right of the creator of the music to control what happens with

Both Grokster and Napster “distributed free software that allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks” (Oyez). In the Napster case “The recording association asserts Napster is guilty of contributory copyright infringement” (The Guardian). According to Slate “Grokster is, of course, the sequel to Napster”. Mindsets were very similar in certain aspects. Grokster and Napster both thought they weren’t breaking any laws due to Acts and finding ways to cheat the system. Even though either one won in court, both played a major role in leaving a footprint when it comes to violating copyright laws.

In the case of Metallica v Napster (2000), Metallica filed suit against Napster for infringing upon their ownership of their unique music. “The suit claims that Napster ‘devised and distributed software whose sole purpose is to permit Napster to profit by abetting and encouraging’ piracy” (Doan, 2000). The music was original and copyrighted by Metallica. The Napster song downloads were being done without their consent or royalties paid.

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that peer to peer file sharing is copyright infringement. Millions of people illegally copied and shared copyrighted music, films, and software over the internet that directly infringed MGM’s copyright. Copyright violations were knowingly caused by the defendant by promoting the

Starting in the year 1999, a company called Napster opened up a whole new world to the Internet where every song ever made was instantly available to you on your computer for free. It was created by an 18-year-old Northeastern University student named Shawn Fanning. Napster transformed personal computers into servers that shared mp3 files all across the Internet (Mayer, 2008). It became popular very quickly because exchanging mp3 files freely and having any music desired right at your fingertips had never been possible before. However, this program that provided the privilege of having free instant music to download did not last long, it was shut down after just two years by

According to the text A Gift of Fire, Napster “opened on the Web in 1999 as a service that allowed its users to copy songs in MP3 files from the hard disks of other users” (Baase, 2013, p. 192, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The

Napster was a music sharing software that was shut down because of copying and distributing unauthorized MP3 files that violated the United States and foreign copyright laws. One of the major reasons why Napster was shutdown is

Major record companies and internationally known bands such as Metallica and many others soon realized how badly Napster was taking a toll on their profits resulting in a major lawsuit charging Napster with contributory and vicarious copyright infringement -(“Piracy and File-Sharing”).  Napster appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit Court noted that plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of direct copyright infringement, meaning that the record labels had to prove their ownership of the allegedly infringed content in order to establish their case -(“Piracy and File- Sharing”). 

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

Digitalization, data compression, and the internet have affected the music industry significantly. These technologies have shifted the recording industries from hard-copy recordings to digital music distribution. This has made it easier for consumers to enter the music market through copying. Consumers have access to copying technology that allows them to obtain music without paying the record label. The situations clipped high in 1999 when Napster, a file-sharing service was launched. The service facilitated music file sharing on a wider scale. The consumers just download the music and transfer it to a digital music device. This has negatively affected the trade value of music sales, for instance in

1. The legal issue involved in this case is the piracy of music from various artists that is easily accesible to everybody from the website called “Napster”. The moral issue in this case is the music being stolen according to the music companies or the music was just being borrowed by people all over the internet according to Napster supporters. The difference between the two is the legal issue is based on actual evidence like there is a law imposed about this case while the moral issue is based on strong likelihood or firm conviction. The systematic, corporate issue is about the website booming and how it affects the music industry while the individual issue is the persons who makes