Napster Is Taking Over.Essay Preview: Napster Is Taking Over.Report this essayIn todays world, music is a core part of being a college student. You see proof of this on a daily basis by the thumping bass from your neighbors room or the headphones visible from an MP3 player on students while walking to class. But where are all of these students getting all this music from? Another core part of being a college student is being continuously broke. With CDs costing upwards of ten dollars for as little as eight tracks of music, its commonsense that college students would make up a large percentage of illegal downloaders. As a result of the massive use of free peer to peer programs the record industry has suffered greatly. They are working hard in trying hard to put a stop to it, but they cant do it alone.
Shawn Fanning brought the first example of illegal downloading to us in the summer of 1999 (Abbott 2003). Fanning provided the public with downloadable tracks of music using a program known as Napster. At its prime, there were over 80 million registered users downloading from Napster (Lam 2001). Only 6 months after operation, the RIAA (the Recording Industry Association of America) filed a lawsuit against Shawn Fanning and Napster for $100,000 per each downloaded song. The legal problem with Napster was that downloaders were not paying the due royalties to the artist and producers. Napster and its contemporary, Audiogalaxy, were not exact forms of shareware, so the RIAA was able to sue them as companies. The people who were actually doing the downloading got off scotch-free with thousands of free downloaded music tracks. As a result of the case Napster was shut down. Today we are introduced to subsequent forms of downloading, like KaZaA,Bearshare, and limewire would create a whole new kind of trouble for individuals getting free music.
KaZaA is not a centralized company; therefore it cannot be shut down (Abbott 2003). Because of this the RIAA turned to targeting the users downloading the music. Thousands of cases have been filed against “music pirates” and in many cases the criminals are college students such as you or me. In fact, college students are one of the prime targets of the RIAA but has nailed one of the most prolific file-traders in the U.S., filing a lawsuit against 12-year-old Brianna LaHara.
When not at the playground with her friends, “Biggie Brianna” is trading music files from her home in New York. The little girl received one of the 261 lawsuits filed by the RIAA She may look like a sweet and innocent child, but the RIAA says its only going after major copyright violators at the moment. So you make the call. Peer-to-peer file sharing advocates received a boost in their ongoing battle against music industry executives when Jupiter Media Metrix released a study indicating that Internet file-sharing traffic volume actually increases music sales.
The research firm found that 34 percent of all peer-to-peer file-sharing users said they dole out more money for music than before they started swapping tunes online, although 15 percent of file swappers admitted to purchasing less music.
About 50 percent of respondents said they spend the same amount of money as they did before they started using such services as Kazaa , Morpheus, Gnutella and Madster.
In contrast, the study found that only 19 percent of respondents who do not use file-sharing services said they now spend more money on music, while 10 percent said they spend less. A majority — 71 percent — said their spending habits have not changed.
The report also noted that broadband Internet access via cable modems and DSL (digital subscriber line) services, along with the proliferation of recordable CD drives, have not impacted consumer music spending to a great degree.
Aram Sinnreich, a Jupiter analyst and the reports author, told news sources that the Internet is one of the best things that could have happened to the music industry. Instead of trying to fight file trading, he said, the industry should focus on making money from it.
Slowly but surely the music industry seems to be losing its grip on its most precious asset as illegitimate online services continue to attract millions of its consumers.
Music is now not just a packaged commodity to be bought with well-earned pocket money on a Saturday morning, but a 24-hour service, available free from hundreds of online sources at the touch of a mouse,
Even with the threat of a law suit, more shareware programs have emerged, at least until Apple provided a solution, a legal solution. In 2003 Apple released its own music program, iTunes. iTunes provides users with the opportunity to store their music and buy tracks for $0.99 each. Since its launch, iTunes has been wildly popular and successful and has spawned other legal downloading companies. Napster re-emerged in 2004, this time with legal rights to selling music. Also in 2004, $330 million was generated from legal music downloads
Though there are still ways to obtain music for free illegally, some people are beginning to turn to solution like iTunes. ITunes still offers deals to its customers such as discounted albums or the opportunity to buy single tracks instead of an entire record (Shapiro 2005).
Students today dont understand that downloading music over computer networks without purchasing copyright permission is both unethical and against the law. For centuries, artists and other creative people have been granted the right to own and control their original work. These rights are protected by what is known as copyright. When you make illegal copies for someones creative work, you are stealing and breaking the law. In the United States, copyright protection is guaranteed under the Constitution. The Constitution states, “Congress shall have the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries…” (Article 1, Section 8).
Easier understood, it is against the law to make unauthorized reproductions, distributions, or digital transmissions of copyrighted songs. The Copyright Law also makes sharing song files via internet unlawful. This law includes the Federal Laws providing of “severe civil and criminal penalties” (Title 17, United States Code, Sections 5-1 and 506), for the illegal distribution of sound recordings as well. At colleges around the country, the ritual of downloading free music using illegal file-sharing programs has become as much a part of campus life as football, frat parties and, oh yes, studying. Some Universities, however, are taking matters into their own hands. They are charging students a small fee, and offering them legal, licensed online
/
Under this new law, you and 10 of your friends can download up to 10 copyrighted songs from your local library. For a small fee, you can share your MP3 files at least 4,500 times A student who illegally downloads one of their copyrighted tracks has the option to pay $50.00 (i.e., $3.50 per song) for permission to share with others.
The College of Education law states, (Section 1520(k)(2)(A)) that “you may not copy or distribute this Software, software, data, materials, or other information in any form without express written permission from S. A. or the college or university that obtained the copyrighted material.” (Citing N. Y. Rev. Ann. § 10-1-541(g)(1)(A)(3)(B)(iii)(A)) Students who download copyrighted music, a “discreet, private communication provided to others, without direct or indirect authorization from, S. A., through a network other than a S. A. college or university have the same right to copy or distribute the copyrighted content in good faith, in accordance with the standard of ‘fair use.’ However, you may not take that action solely without express written authorization from S. A.
College of Engineering & Technology’s law says that “students” have the right to “use any form of material that is part of an individual’s classroom or in an instructional environment including, but not limited to, music, artwork, books, videos, and other materials in a classroom, on public or private property in a public place, or on the premises of an associate professor or other person in charge of such a classroom.
So, if you decide to share copyrighted music in your home and it’s not public, then you need permission from S. A. or the college and university with some form of public and confidential permission. The standard is that students have the legal right to a fair use in determining what kind of work they make. However, you might be entitled to a lawyer who wants more information about copyright law in your home. One such approach is to ask for permission from a law firm if you use a copyrighted music, music, or information, but they can’t do this for you because of their background in copyright law. You aren’t required to bring this case. The Internet community is very important in the law because there are over 1.1 billion websites and more than 10 million websites. They are online spaces where people have lots of fun together. With the legal assistance of a lawyer, they can obtain more information about what copyright law may be and how it differs from other areas of law.
The college doesn’t have to sue you to get permission to download the copyrighted music. Once you’ve created a file, the college uses that as your legal basis for obtaining that permission. For example, when you download a song from a college stationer.