I'd like to discuss a problem involving music sharing and Napster in America today. With the recent court hearing against Napster many teenagers and people are enraged with the judgment against Napster. I feel that music sharing should be legal regardless of the copyright laws in effect. When Shawn Fanning created Napster, he wanted to build a community that could share and swap music files known as MP3's. In the beginning, the big record companies had no problem with this program and thought that it would stimulate their business. After it's huge growth and popularity, they started to complain about Napster saying it was taking a portion of their business and was threatening record companies business. I think that this is absurd because most people using Napster would download a song by a certain artist and then go out and buy the CD. If anything, Napster brought more business to them. There was also a section of their website dedicated to advertising new and upcomin!
             g bands in order to spread their popularity to the public. They were not paid for this at all. Thanks to certain record companies including: Interscope, Warner Brothers, and Electra, a lawsuit was filed against Napster. After all the trials and tribulations, the judgment was ruled against Napster forcing them to basically terminate their website. Shawn Fanning and his attorneys tried very hard to cut a deal with these record companies asking to let Napster stay online, but they wouldn't have it. Not even a billion dollars would satisfy this money hungry music industry. I think that the termination of Napster was a poor call by the judicial branch of the government. On the other hand, I completely understand the rules of the copyright process and can see why they did what they did. I feel that there must be a better solution to this problem than what has occurred. That is why I wish to share a couple of alternative solutions that I ...