Napster: The Copyright Battle Essay

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.

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

In fact, the program was freely available. Ads were presented, but that is considered indirect financial benefits. 10) If Napster had acted as a distributor and provided back-end royalties through the RIAA to the original owners of copyrights to the music, do you think Napster would still be in existence and possibly one of the largest online music

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.

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

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).

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

First, it is important to discuss the direct, contributory and vicarious infringement claims against Napster. Direct copyright infringement claims are based on a breach of a copyright owners’ exclusive rights to the copyrighted work(s). A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). Napster was found liable for this because the users used its platform to upload and download copyrighted music, thus infringing on two exclusive rights: reproduction and distribution. Id at 1014. Contributory copyright infringement claims are based on secondary infringers who have either actual or

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

There are types of music that can be downloaded on the computer. Napster, which can be downloaded at Napster.com, is a program that music can be found. The music is kept in a library and just a double click on the mouse lets one hear any song downloaded. These songs can be found with either the title or the artist of the song. I feel that Napster has a good thing going with the free music. However, I feel that it shouldn’t be completely be free. The artists of the music are loosing out on a lot of money. A solution to this problem could be that songs could not be downloaded to the Napster program until the record had made a certain amount of money. Although, right now Napster is in court trying to compromise on a decision that will make everyone who uses Napster, everyone who created Napster and the artist of music happy.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.