Keep Blaming Canada
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
…show more content…
This is the permission of people to make private copies of music for themselves. But realizing that people would make copies for friends and family, the government decided to try and compensate the artists. They added in a provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media. The money from this tax would go to the artists and authors of the music.
But with the effects of Napster and pressures from recording artists and other organizations being felt, Canada had to address the issue of peer-to-peer transfers of electronically stored music. On December 12, 2003, the Copyright Board of Canada decided that peer-to-peer uploading was illegal, but downloading would remain legal. The peer-to-peer component of the decision was prompted by questions from consumer and entertainment groups about ambiguous elements of Canadian law. Previously, most analysts had said uploading was illegal but that downloading for personal use might be allowed. "As far as computer hard drives are concerned, we say that for the time being, it is still legal," said Claude Majeau, secretary general of the Copyright Board. [3] The boards decision was based on the interpretation of the fact that the country's copyright law does allow making a copy for personal use, but does not address the source of that copy or whether the
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."
The case of A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., record companies brought infringement action against Napster for the unfair use of copyrighted work and harmed the potentiality of music within the market (239 F3d 1004, 2001). With the burgeoning of the internet age, musicians and artists were faced with the threat of in home piracy, via file sharing programs like Napster, or Grokster.
The great war was a big influential period for canada, a lot of things happened that affected canada in a positive way, without these monumental experiences it is very possible that canada would be different today in many ways. World war one will forever be a defining moment in canada's history but not just for canadians but for everyone who was affected directly by the war. Following our very important involvement in the war , canada economy improved, canadian women were granted more right and canada was seen and feared as a strong independent country.
In 1775 the newly form Conteintal Army during the American Revolutionary War began a military strategic plan to gain military control of the British Province of Quebec (known as modern day Canada). The objective of the campaign was to convince the French Canadians and local Indian tribes to commit and join the American Colonies against the British.
1)What was the premise behind the Recording Industry Association of America’s lawsuit against Napster? Copyright infringement, it claimed Napster violated “exclusive rights for reproduction and distribution of their copyright works”. 2) Based on your knowledge of how Napster worked, if you downloaded a copy of a song from a friend’s hard drive using Napster, would you be infringing on the musician’s or record company’s copyright?
LimeWire, as many know, was a free peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program. In August of 2006, LimeWire found themselves in some major legal trouble when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) demanded LimeWire be ceased for good. In the suit, the RIAA accused LimeWire of operating a web service ““devoted essentially” to piracy by allowing users to upload and download songs without permission.” (“Major Record Labels Settle Suit with LimeWire”).
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
Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.
Although the action of retrieving music illegally can be easily accessed as group three states, “majority of the music that is consumed illegally by the individuals...would not have been purchased if illegal websites were not available to them” it provides a weak point because either way people see it music is available to them with purchase and if that is the only option than that process will occur. The society that illegally downloaded music created can be seen in one huge source known as, “Napster” in an article, by Stephen Seigel he states, “ Napster allows its users to "share" songs with other users, completely bypassing the traditional forms of music distribution” (“Nipping at Napster”). Napster allows people to share all types of
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).
Ever since 18-year-old Shawn Fanning created Napster in his Northeastern University dorm room in 1999, downloading and sharing music online has become one of the most popular things to do on the Internet today. But why wouldn't it? Getting all your favorite songs from all your favorite artists for free, who wouldn't want to start sharing music? The answer to that question are the people who feel that stealing from the music industry is not morally right, because that is exactly what every person who shares music is doing. People who download music think it's something they can get away with but now it might be payback time to a lot of those people.