The infamous Napster under attack for it's pirating of music from famous musician's needs to be shut down. Piracy is a major issue of moral standards, right, and wrong in the entertainment world. Napster is well known for it's sharing of MP3 files through the Internet; taking, receiving, and bootlegging. Over 70% of college students said they use Napster at least once a month. The majority of its users are aware that Napster is an illegal bootlegging website, the federal government says. The U.S. Copyright Office says Napster's operations are clearly illegal under the very law Napster hopes will make its senior executives and well-heeled investors filthy rich which was written in 1992 saying that if a person wants to compile music to a personal CD for self then its ok. But in that law there was never any mention of legal dissemination to obtain the music. I oppose Napster because they have no coherent or viable plan to compensate artists. If Napster makes money off the dissemination of an artists copyrighted material then the artist should participate in those profits. (Currently Napster does not make a profit, however the fact that they raised at something like $40,000,000 in capital to finance their operation suggests that their investors obviously intend to make a profit one day). But the million dollar question is; should Napster be shut down because of it's illegal sharing of files?? The answer is YES.
"BURNED” CD's are a major issue in the U.S. To download from a website, and save it to a CD, or your computer. Personal music a person has made up, or created by himself is legal to save. But copyrighted music on the other hand is illegal. Commercial radio stations generate revenue off of the use of copyrighted material. Through longstanding arrangements with BMI and ASCAP a portion of that money (however small) is shared with the songwriters. Why doesn't Napster try
Page 1 of 4