The Napster Debate

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

A&M Records vs Napster was one of the biggest copyright infringement cases that later defined the legality of file sharing. It was a class action lawsuit that include over fifteen major record labels including Universal Studios, Warner Bros, and Sony Entertainment. The official case though is called A&M Records vs Napster. A&M Records sued Napster claiming they were infringing on their plaintiff's intellectual property. Napster was a peer to peer file sharing service. It was mostly used to share mp3 music files in mass volumes. This was right at the start of mp3 players. Music was starting to become easily accessible through digital copies.

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

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

Although, an important fact to consider before making such decisions is the consumer preference. After the consumers were introduced to Napster, they would not accept to pay for music again, because they already have had experienced a better service with a lower opportunity cost (no need to leave their houses to buy CD’s, huge supply of all kinds of music and zero cost).

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).

The internet is the one media that brings up the most controversy in bands spreading their music. Whether they promote it or not their music is downloaded for free on the internet. Most bands do not like that their music is downloaded for free, but they can’t do much to stop it. In a way downloading music for free could bring the musicians even more money. If a person likes one of the songs they downloaded off of the internet they may be inclined to buy the entire album or at least the single. After the person buys the latest album they may even buy earlier albums from the same artist if they like the music enough. The internet has

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.

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