Napster

A good place to start seems to be with stating some facts about copyright laws and providing some background information. In order to make an educated decision on any topic, one should have as much information as possible to make the analysis more complete and in depth. The basis of the copyright laws is that the artist/author/creator is the sole proprietor of his/her creations and it is illegal for outside parties to reproduce and redistribute his work. The first copyright law was adopted in the U.S. in 1790. The current copyright law for the most part adheres to the Copyright Act of 1976. In 1992, Congress agreed to pass the Audio Home Recording Act, which made it possible for people to make copies of music for personal use. In 1998, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which barred people from circumventing password-protected and other secure Web sites that provide access to creative works. The artist/author/creator’s durational limitation on copyrights is the author’s life plus fifty years. This is just some basic information about copyright laws involved in this discussion. Next, we should discuss the issue of Napster’s copyright l

. . .
capable of substantial noninfringing uses" in order to be protected by law. ” **** It is obvious at this point that both sides have some outstanding points and with every new bit of information presented it gets harder and harder to choose sides. This is where the defense’s case rests on the Sony decision. This is how the lawsuit against Napster’s infringement on copyright policies first started in December of 1999: “The music industry's trade group has sued a small startup company, alleging it is operating as a "haven" for music piracy on the Internet by making illegal copies of MP3 files freely available… The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), in a lawsuit filed this week in the U. “The doctrine of substantial similarity in product appearance has a very low standard for determining infringement. As a matter of fact one could argue that programs like Napster may actually boost record sales by introducing new bands’ music to the public. ” On the other hand: “The RIAA's Fabrizio sees things differently…”There are no substantial noninfringing uses of Napster. and foreign copyright, adding that compliance with the law is the responsibility of the end-user. ” That same study went on to conclude that free swapping of music files over the internet is to blame for the declining of college market record sales. District Court in Northern California, accused Napster Inc. Another important point worth mentioning is that the boundaries are very flexible for most policies regarding the internet and information age related subjects. But outside of the law and fairness issues, what are the economic implications? They are actually quite interesting.

Common topics in this essay:
Ninth Circuit, According RIAA's, Sean Parker, Copyright Act, RIAA RIAA, VCR Napster, Services Napster, Information Age, Shawn Fanning, Francisco… Patel, copyright laws, file sharing, record sales, record labels, napster users, substantial noninfringing, mp3 files, contributory vicarious, copyright act, copyright law, users violating copyright, association america riaa, violating copyright laws, motion summary judgment, file sharing difficult,

Approximate Word count = 2017
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)

Already a member? Click here