Napster Accomplishments

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.

Both Grokster and Napster “distributed free software that allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks” (Oyez). In the Napster case “The recording association asserts Napster is guilty of contributory copyright infringement” (The Guardian). According to Slate “Grokster is, of course, the sequel to Napster”. Mindsets were very similar in certain aspects. Grokster and Napster both thought they weren’t breaking any laws due to Acts and finding ways to cheat the system. Even though either one won in court, both played a major role in leaving a footprint when it comes to violating copyright laws.

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

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 provided users of the system with a platform to facilitate the transmission of digital forms of music files, called MP3 files. Napster’s platform primarily facilitates “peer-to-peer” file sharing, which allows users to present MP3 files stored on their personal computer to other users looking to copy the file, search for particular MP3 files, and transfer

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.

In Napster’s early form of p2p sharing, I do believe that shutting down the company was the most appropriate choice. People who were complaining and saying that file sharing was fair use believed that CDs cost too much and rich music artists didn’t need all of the money (Mayer, 2008). But the fact of the matter is, unauthorized downloading is theft and is considered completely illegal. When users illegally download music they are violating the terms of licenses and rights granted by specific record companies (Go-Gogh, 2000).

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

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

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.

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

The "business side of music is struggling to generate enough revenue because of the new technology" ("How the Internet Changed Music."). "Most of the people who are part of making a record are paid in royalties, and anytime music changes hands without money being involved, those royalties can’t be paid—which is why so much has been done in recent years to try and reduce music piracy"("How The Internet Changed Music."). iTunes and Amazon has helped by offering cheap downloads for single songs, which allows the customer to only purchase songs they like rather than the entire album ("How the Internet Changed Music."). Spotify and Pandora, who offer either ad-based or paid subscription streaming of their music libraries, are Internet radio stations which have also helped with the piracy problem ("How The Internet Changed

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."

4.Ofcourse, music companies share a moral responsibility for what has happened. The main goal of this music companies is their profit from the music that they produce but it seems that they don’t see any benefit from this happening. Many people would prefer to spend their money on something else instead of purchasing pricey music unless they are fans. Fans won’t exist if the artist weren’t popular and artists wouldn’t be popular if there were no fans. There is no difference at all for a fan who bought an album of an artist and a fan who downloaded the artist music in the internet. Both are still fans who made the artist known. Technology like Napster did change the music industry both in a good way and a bad way. Let’s face it, nothing in this world is perfectly good or perfectly bad. Everything has its own bad and good side. Good because like what I just said, people who are thrifty or cautious of purchasing music may have a option to download it and listen to it for free and in this way, it is easily shared to anybody unlike physical albums. Not everybody visits the music store frequently. It’s bad side is it is very accessible to everybody like some music may contain harsh words which may influence the youth who downloads the music from the website and also physical album sales