|
|
|
|
|
Sharing Is Against The Law
|
|
|
Peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet was thought to be the wave of the future by many computer experts. When peer-to-peer file sharing technology was developed, record label executives didn’t know what to think; the leaders of the music industry thought that music as a marketable part of the economy was finished. Since the leaders of the music industry figured that most people have a computer nowadays, anyone could download music from the Internet for free. If everyone could download music for free and purchase the technology to burn their own CDs, no one would buy a CD from the store ever again. What was once a fantasy became a reality and put fear in the eyes of record executives. The leaders of the music industry believed the development of file sharing technology was their doom because they couldn’t create enough revenue to stay in business. Music label executives were outraged that the government allowed free music to be downloaded from the Internet. So the record labels took legal action against Napster. The record industry executives ended up winning the trial and Napster was shut down. It turns out that even though Napster ran successfully for many months the music industry remained financially healthy. Peer-to-peer file sharing capabilities, such as Napster, should be allowed to operate on the Internet because it creates world wide recognition, strengthen the economy, and make the music industry more successful. The dispute between Napster and the music industry went on for many months. The reason nothing was done about Napster in the begining is because there weren’t any laws to protect the music industry from this kind of technology. The only hang up that the government found with Napster’s service was they detected unlawful use because Napster was keeping files downloaded to their own server from various users. The reason Napster chose to operate this way wasn’t to disregard authority or infringe on copyrights, but to make files easy to download for users. The government stated that Napster was harboring songs on their servers illegally. Instead of the end user being to blame, Napster was held responsible because they were the only ones that controlled what was downloaded to their servers. Napster was set up with three gigantic servers that served the entire world. When users signed on to Napster their music files were then downloaded to Napster’s server for other users that happened to sign on to that particular server to download. Since Napster’s servers were the direct sources that users were downloading from, the government passed a law that stated a company has no right to distribute songs to other users without prior written permission or else they would be subject to penalties of copyright infringement. To avoid copyright infringement file sharing companies started to play dumb. The only difference between Napster and file sharing applications today such as WinMx, Blubster, and Morpheus, is that the applications allowed today are not downloading directly from the companie’s servers. The way that the government is allowing free file sharing to go on now is that the parent company can ONLY provide the application, not the servers. This means that the users are only using the capabilities of that particular application. This allows users to download and upload files directly from other users. These two concepts sound similar, but the government ruled that only the companies servers couldn’t be downloaded from. Instead the new versions of today only allow users to download directly from other users. This is said to be legal because there is no way the law can stop every little person from sharing over the internet because that would be impossible. The government will only prosecute the companies because the Government has the right to regulate them. The verdict brought against Napster is unjust. The Government’s job isn’t to pass laws in order to stifle the creativity of Americans, but to provide equal rights for everyone. The only reason that Napster should have rightfully been abolished is if the Government saw this situation as immoral. However, developing the technology to share files on the internet should be greatly rewarded, not taken away. The only thing wrong with the great technology developed by Napster is its controversy over moral standards, not unlawfulness. Therefore, the Government shouldn’t have abolished Napster. Not only is file sharing morally wrong but the leaders of the music industry say that people who engage in file sharing are stealing money from the music artists. This is a far fetched idea because we can dub cassettes and they don’t have any objection to that.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
