Napster Essay, Research Paper

A teenager named Tom, walked into a music store last week and went straight to his favorite music section. After looking around for a short amount of time he spotted the CD he wanted. Tom then tore the magnetic sensor off the front of the package, stuffed the CD down his pants and then proceeded to walk through the front doors of the store, stealing the CD. Most people would say what Tom did was against the law and he should be punished for the crime.

What if I was to say this crime happens thousands of times per hour everyday, in a slightly different way and the people who commit the crime get away with it almost every time. The type of crime I am talking about is file sharing over the Internet. Particularly music files otherwise known as MP3 files. MP3 is short for MPEG audio layer three, which is an audio compression file that enables you to download high fidelity music from the web by shrinking the file (Goldsborough 21). This has been made extremely popular by a program called Napster, which allows people to share music over the net in MP3 form. One can imagine why this sort of program may be loved by some and hated by others.

Napster was designed in 1999 by a college drop out by the name of Shawn Fanning. According to Larry Graham in an article he wrote for IEEE Software, Fanning originally designed Napster so he could exchange music files with his friends but once he posted it on the Internet, thousands of others began using it (18). “In terms of users, the Napster site is the fastest growing in history, recently passing the 25 million mark in less than a year of operation”(Taro 1).

One may ask, why has Napster become so popular? The answer is simple people love getting things for free (Graham 18). What also helps is the average price for a new CD is around eighteen dollars and most teens or adults, for that matter do not have that amount of money to spend every time he or she likes a song.

The other side of this argument comes from the people that absolutely hate Napster. Musicians, record companies and anyone that makes money off the sale of music are Napsters biggest enemies, and the reason why is money. When someone can download a song for free he or she is less likely to go out and buy that CD. This takes away from profits and apparently effects profits enough for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to file a multi-million dollar lawsuit against Napster (Graham 19). The lawsuit is complicated and many injunctions and appeals have been filed in the legal maze that is taking place. For example on July 26,2000 according to bloomberg.com San Francisco U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel issued a preliminary injunction shutting Napster down that was supposed to take effect midnight that Friday (Chen n. pag.). Needless to say this never happened because Napster filed an appeal that was granted two days later (that Friday), which allowed Napster to stay in operation past the Friday deadline (Barnes, Ard n. pag.). The courts met again on October 2, 2000 but again no decision was reached. As of now the trial is in a stalemate, while Napster still operates and the RIAA patiently waits for a new court date to be set.

Whatever the outcome of this trial, it is sure to have a profound effect on the way files are shared on the Internet. Napster recently merged with media company Bertelsmann and has plans to charge users for certain services. Love Napster or hate it, it looks like it is here to stay in one form or another.

Barnes, Cecily. , and Scott Ard. “Court Grants Stay of Napster Injunction.” C/Net.

28 July 2000. 6 Feb. 2001. .

Chen, Vivian L. “Napster Ordered to Stop Duplicating Copyrighted Music.” Bloomberg Online. 26 July 2000. 6 Feb. 2001. .

Goldsborough, Reid. “The name of the game is jargon.” RN. Aug. 1999: 21.

Graham, Larry. “The Legal Tortoise and the Technology Hare.” IEEE Software. Sep./Oct. 2000: 18-19.

Taro, Karl. “Meet The Napster.” Time Magazine Online. 2 Oct. 2000. 1 Feb. 2001. .