Company V. Napster Case
Napster is a very popular web site that allowed many users to share music files. The way that Napster shared music files is through peer-to-peer sharing. These files that are called MP3’s (Motion Picture Expert Group 1, Audio Layer 3: an algorithm that compresses digital music files) were shared between registered users anonymously at no cost to the users. The format of MP3’s reduces the files allowing users to quickly and easily share these files. MP3’s can also be copied multiple times without damaging the quality of the file. Napster allows registered users to download a “Music Share” software that will allow peer-to-peer sharing of the MP3 files. There is a large hub that all registered users had access to through the music sharing software where Napster would manage the download process.
…show more content…
If a user’s download was interrupted, then Napster would find the same MP3 file that was being downloaded and then would automatically continue the download with that newly acquired file location.
Napster never gained any revenue through charging registered users for the music sharing software or by downloading music. The way that Napster collected revenue was by advertisers. Advertisers would pay Napster to infuse their advertisements on Napster’s web site. There was a law suit against Napster that is referred by A&M Records, Inc. vs Napster, Inc. Although this case is called A&M Records, Inc. vs Napster, Inc. it consisted of many record companies that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law suit was filed because it is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. The law suit was filed against Napster and not individual users because it was determined that Napster was responsible for the file
sharing. There are two sides to this case study. A pro side and a con side. There were many tools that could be utilized through the music sharing software. These tools allowed registered users to look for music by artist or song title. It has a directory search that would allow users to locate music files. Once a specific file was found, Napster would then allow users to connect to the hub and start to download that specific file. Users could also upload music files and monitor which ones they wanted to share. The pro to Napster developing the music sharing software is that it allowed registered users the chance to share music, ideas, and events over the internet. The con to Napster providing a music sharing software is that Napster knowing allowed registered users to download MP3 files when downloading MP3 files is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. Napster was allowing users to download music for free which was making an impact on the music industry by limiting the sales of the music. Napster was also making a revenue by allowing advertisers posting advertisements on their music software. In evaluating this case study, the pro side of this case is very convincing because the users can share music, ideas, and events through the internet, but the con side in my opinion is much more persuasive. The intellectual property that is being shared (music and ideas) by Napster is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. The music and ideas of the artist was published and the material is copyrighted, so the only way that a user acquires the music is by purchasing a copy. It is immoral to download a copy of someone’s music without that persons’ permission. It’s like going to the store and stealing an artist’s album for your personal gain. Even though an idea cannot be owned, when that idea is written and copyrighted it is illegal to download or copy that idea without the owners’ permission.
If a user’s download was interrupted, then Napster would find the same MP3 file that was being downloaded and then would automatically continue the download with that newly acquired file location.
Napster never gained any revenue through charging registered users for the music sharing software or by downloading music. The way that Napster collected revenue was by advertisers. Advertisers would pay Napster to infuse their advertisements on Napster’s web site. There was a law suit against Napster that is referred by A&M Records, Inc. vs Napster, Inc. Although this case is called A&M Records, Inc. vs Napster, Inc. it consisted of many record companies that are members of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The law suit was filed because it is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. The law suit was filed against Napster and not individual users because it was determined that Napster was responsible for the file
sharing. There are two sides to this case study. A pro side and a con side. There were many tools that could be utilized through the music sharing software. These tools allowed registered users to look for music by artist or song title. It has a directory search that would allow users to locate music files. Once a specific file was found, Napster would then allow users to connect to the hub and start to download that specific file. Users could also upload music files and monitor which ones they wanted to share. The pro to Napster developing the music sharing software is that it allowed registered users the chance to share music, ideas, and events over the internet. The con to Napster providing a music sharing software is that Napster knowing allowed registered users to download MP3 files when downloading MP3 files is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. Napster was allowing users to download music for free which was making an impact on the music industry by limiting the sales of the music. Napster was also making a revenue by allowing advertisers posting advertisements on their music software. In evaluating this case study, the pro side of this case is very convincing because the users can share music, ideas, and events through the internet, but the con side in my opinion is much more persuasive. The intellectual property that is being shared (music and ideas) by Napster is a direct infringement of the record companies’ copyrights. The music and ideas of the artist was published and the material is copyrighted, so the only way that a user acquires the music is by purchasing a copy. It is immoral to download a copy of someone’s music without that persons’ permission. It’s like going to the store and stealing an artist’s album for your personal gain. Even though an idea cannot be owned, when that idea is written and copyrighted it is illegal to download or copy that idea without the owners’ permission.