Abstract Millions of users worldwide use online file swapping services, in order to download free music. Record companies, needless to say, are not very happy about this, neither are many musicians. This paper presents the historical and legal background of this subject. Then, it discusses the morality of such free music services, based on two major ethical theories: consequentialism and contractianism. Introduction The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) [1], states: “No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.” The above indicates that individuals can make copies of music recordings for personal noncommercial use and cannot be sued for copyright infringement [2]. In 21st century terms, it can be argued that downloading MP3 files containing music for personal use is not illegal. Napster lawyers thought so too. This argument was used by Napster’s lawyers as one of the two lines of defense at the lawsuit filed against Napster by The Record Industry Association of America (the RIAA) [3]. Unfortunately for Napster, the judge ruling was in favor of the RIAA, and eventually it brought Napster down. Napster was a pioneer in the area of file swapping over the Internet. The Napster web site made available the software necessary for the Peer-to-Peer (P2P) file transfer to work. People used it primarily for copying MP3 music files, thus avoiding the need to actually purchase recorded music. Napster quickly became a very popular web site with a 15 million registered users in less than a year, according to company sources. However, Napster’s remarkable success was not at its best interest. It had drawn the attention of the Record Industry, and raised its concerns of Copyright infringement in large volumes. Barely a year after its launch, it was sued by the RIAA, which represents major recording companies such as Universal Music, BMG, Sony Music, Warner Music Group, and EMI. The RIAA claimed that by allowing users to swap music recordings for free, Napster’s service violated Copyright laws. Eventually, the judge ruled against Napster, and, failing to complete the sale deal with Bertelsmann AG, it had to shut down its operations and liquidate its assets [3].
Napster is a virtual community, which consists of music news and chat-rooms, the main feature it offers is an easy way to download MP3's (music files). This controversial service has brought the lawsuit to Napster. Napster allows its subscribers to download the music files without charge. It is not however, from Napster that the subscribers get these files. It is from each other. The users share their hard drives so that other users can download any of their music files that they want.
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.
An “analyst” was quoted in the case (in 2002) as saying that “people will pay for music on the Internet, eventually.” This person was skeptical of the willingness of consumers to pay for
Simply put; All things are good until man makes it otherwise. And by using Burke's "lens" we can look at the internet use of Napster and see how different people have found different views of it and how now some people deem Napster as bad or in a negative lens they see Napster. The Napster software, launched early in 1999, allows internet users to share and download MP3 files directly from any computer connected to the Napster network. The software is used by downloading a client program from the Napster site and then connecting to the network through this software, which allows sharing of MP3 files between all users connected to the network.
Napster was an American company that created a revolutionary platform that allowed for music sharing online. Originally, it was established as a peer-to-peer file sharing service that emphasized the exchange of MP3 formatted soundtracks. Founded in 1999, by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, who rebounded post-Napster to become the first President of Facebook, it operated between June 1999 and July 2001. It was a revolutionary because the network allowed for music to be “set free” – suddenly, an incredible amount of information was made available on the Internet, a relatively new forum that had yet to experience huge waves. Napster was that wave – it democratized the access to information and enabled the common user to listen to millions of songs without having to pay for it. Within a few months of its opening, it had 20 million users – an exponential growth which would attract the attention of large media companies, record labels, and famous bands like Metallica, which would eventually lead to the downfall of Napster.
In this paper, we will explore the ethical considerations of this practice as it relates to Intellectual Property (IP) – whether protected by copyright law or not. We will concentrate primarily on music, but where appropriate, other media will be considered, as many of the issues are common across the different types.
People have been finding alternative ways to access their music since technology evolved, whether it was recording songs off the radio onto a cassette tape or borrowing your friend’s CD in order to ‘burn’ it, No one played by the rules, legally. This piece will discuss illegally downloading music and the political theories and concepts it represents. What are the social norms and attitudes that drive this behaviour? and what is the solution, if there is one?
Music piracy is the process of copying, or file sharing copyrighted materials illegally. Music theft hurts the artists that bring music to your ears due to the fact that they’re not receiving a decent amount of income because their songs are obviously getting stolen. A survey has identified that 70 percent of all 18 to 29 year olds have pirated music, TV shows, or movies. “Music has been compact and easy to reproduce since the days of sheet music. It is, moreover, intensely social: People want to share it with each other, whether by sending a YouTube URL in the 21st century, trading Grateful Dead tapes in the 20th, or copying sheet music for other singers in the church choir in the 19th” (Berlatsky). Another poll found that 46 percent of all Americans have engaged in piracy (Anderson). Back in the 1980s, music piracy was slightly spotted, when people created things called mixed tapes, however making these did not cost the industry much money. Cases of music piracy highly increased after the compact disc (CD) was created in 1982. One major case of music piracy was affiliated with the heavy metal band Metallica on April 13, 2000. Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster due to many copyright infringements, and racketeering. The heavy metal band found $10 million worth of damages which is roughly $100,000 per downloaded song. NetPD evaluated Napster’s illegal program, and produced a list of 335,435 users that were downloading and sharing the band’s albums.
true that napster allows millions of users to download songs for absolutely free; however, isn't
Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the integrity of artists copyrights in the age of MP3. Prince has now filed a motion in New York federal court aimed at shutting down several websites offering free downloads of the Artist's songs." (http://www.mtv.com…19990304/prince.jhtml) In addition, in recent music news, "Nine Inch Nails lead man Trent Reznor copyright infringement suit was dismissed. Another artist claimed that the Reznor had stolen material for his last album." (http://www.mtv.com…19991202/nine_inch_nails.jhtml) The copyright law has become an important legal aspect to know our music generation.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the ethical problem that file sharing software creates when used to transfer copy written material. It is contested that the very existence of this software promotes piracy. The paper will focus on the creators of the file sharing software, knowing that the user employs their product illegally. The software creators (Kazaa, Grokster, Morpheus, etc) are claiming that they cannot control what the end user does with its product. In fact, this point has been upheld by a recent court ruling.
The other side of this argument comes from the people that absolutely hate Napster. Musicians, record companies and anyone that makes money off the sale of music are Napsters biggest enemies, and the reason why is money.
Napster was an early peer-to-peer file sharing network which could be used for transmitting various files, but which attained massive popularity as a way to share music through .mp3s. Unsurprisingly, major record companies took issue with
The music industry started in the mid 18th century with Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Through the decades there has been a great increase in this industry; however, the revenues for this industry have declined by half in the last 10 years. This has been caused by music piracy, which “is the copying and distributing of copies of a piece of music for which the composer, recording artist, or copyright-holding record company did not give consent” . After 1980’s, when the Internet was released to public, people started to develop programs and websites in which they could share music, videos, and information with...
The first reason why downloading and uploading copyrighted materials from the Internet should be legal is that downloading copyrighted materials positively affects the economy. The European Commission Joint Research Center reported that the profits of music companies would be 2% lower if uploading and downloading copyrighted materials were banned. However, music companies are able to acquire more profits despite illegal downloading because many people tend to purchase CDs or DVDs after watching or listening to copyrighted materials for free. Moreover, the research showed that people who download music illegally spent more money to buy music than people who did not download illegally. In addition, research conducted by the Swiss government informed that one-third of Swiss people downloaded copyrighted materials from the Internet because personal use of copyrighted materials is legal in Switzerland. Even though there is a fact that many people can download copyrighted materials from the Internet legally in Switzerland, the amount of money that people spend to buy copyrighted materials is not f...