In the 21st century we live in an economy, relatively unhindered by the government, a policy called “lassier faire” which allows the market to run without the government’s control. Although there is a certain invisible hand that the government posses to ensure that monopolies, or any of the harmful businesses are being operated to ensure safety for the average citizen. “Napster” founded by Shawn Flanning is a web site which can be joined on any home computer with access to the internet, where there after can trade and download virtually any song that person desires. For this simple reason this website is under attack from lawsuits coming from the music industry.
Musicians are at the head of the charge aimed against Napster for the exploitation of their music. A panel of U.S circuit of appeals that are a panel of judges ruled that Napster is in a violation of copyright infringements. It is a way to receive music without actually purchasing it and some many companies feel for the loss of revenues Napster should pay royalties or seize to exist. The RIAA, which represents many record companies, filed a federal lawsuit against Napster just months after the song trading website began in 1999. The lawsuit claims that Napster could rob the music industry of billions of dollars in lost profits.
In defense against the courts, and angry musicians founder Shawn Flanning has stated ” any decision the courts decide to enforce will be heavily matched with appeals to keep Napster going” according to the NY times. Also quoted saying “Napster works because people who love music share and participate, people said it wouldn’t survive
when there was only 700,000 users, and again when there was 17,000,000 members, now today we have more than 50 million members, and we’ll find a way to multiply and stay around”.
The court found that Napster had infringed upon copyright holders’ rights to control the reproduction and distribution of their music, also stating that the recording industry would likely prevail. Having the preliminary injunction smack on Napster last July only to overturned being found to be “overbroad” and must be redrawn. This is a sign of Napster surviving another battle. The war still rages on and the recording labels claim the lost of revenues and copyright infringement.
My opinion on this matter is that this issue has to be settled by the courts because of the capacity of Napster is self also the amount of money recording industry could stand to lose. In conclusion, I’m in Napster’s corner and would hate to see it changed, or even worse terminated.