Have you dreamed that you could get your favorite artist?fs songs such as Eric Clapton, Rolling Stones, and Beatles without any payment? The dream has come true: Napster, an online music sharing soft. It enables its users to download music files through the Internet, which means that as long as one music lover has a computer and connection to the Internet, the music lover can get popular songs, classical music, and even national anthems. One CD costs about fifteen dollars, but Napster does not require its users to pay because the users are just borrowing and lending their music files with each other. This is just like a dream. I do not even know how much money I have spent to listen to my favorite musicians. .
The dream, Napster, has attracted over eighty millions of music fans all over the world since it was made in 1999, according to USA Today. Unfortunately it has also caught music companies?f attention and Napster was sued. The battle between the music companies and Napster, which pretends to be a messiah for music fans who complain about CD prices or just want songs free, were likely to be the lose of Napster and, in fact, it was. The Supreme Court ordered Napster to limit its service and the limitation of the service has been performed; however, this is not enough. Napster should completely stop its service because it is, in reality, violating the copyrights, users are not paying artists, and it can spoil the future of online music and movies distribution. .
Napster is certainly violating the copyrights. An excuse that is often generated by the music stealing users is that they do not distribute music files that they have, but they just borrow and lend the files among the users, so they are not violating the copyrights. Even though personal music trading, which has been frequently done among music consumers since the invention of tapes and CD?fs, may not offend against the law and, as a result, the users may not be violators of the copyrights, Napster is not the same case.