Napster
NAPSTER: BREAKING THE CONSTITUTION The Napster software, which launched in 1999, allows people to share digital music files (MP3) between each other. This Internet program has sparked a historical debate about copyright law and the Internet. Copyright owners strongly believe that "sharing" these files via Napster is "stealing"(TIME). Downloading music against the wishes of an artist or producer is breaking the law. Some believe that it is not stealing or illegal. They are just making a copy of someone's song. In the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 it says "......promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries....." (Constitution). This led to copyright law, which gives artists the exclusive rights to their music from the moment of its creation until, generally 70 years after the artist dies (Michigan Review). There may not be respect for the copyright law, but it is still breaking the law. According to the Michigan Review, in areas around college campuses and universities, CD sales have dropped 4%. In 2000, retail CD sales at stores near colleges with high Napster use are actually below 1997 sales (Mi
chigan Review). That is a huge reversal in an area that usually sees high demand for music. Also according to the Michigan Review, CD sales are up 16% across the nation. How can Napster be a bad thing if it is helping the record industry? Maybe some people buy CDs based on what they hear on Napster, but for most college students Napster has the opposite effect. Colleges and universities have been hotbeds for sharing of online music files by a variety of methods for many years. All Napster and similar tools have done is make this sharing of files much easier (Newsweek). There are no in-betweens here. In all fairness to the artist, one should make a choice. They should buy it or delete it from their computer. Some people might not like a song well enough to want to pay for it so they feel like no one is losing a profit. If one does not like a song well enough to buy it, they should not even be listening to it. However, consider this scenario in defense of a Napster user. What if someone only wants one song on a $20.00 CD? Is it fair for the Artist to in essence be charging that person $20.00 for one song? In this situation the consumer would not purchase the CD therefore the Artist would lose out any profit. Action must be taken to benefit both the consumer, the Artist and our Constitutional rights as Americans. Some artist work for years to establish themselves as a popular musician, spending untold fortunes on recording equipment, training, marketing, plus thousands of man-hours on perfecting their craft, only to have their work ripped off by someone. What it all comes down to is a persons own value
Some common words found in the essay are:
Artist Constitutional, Review CD, According Newsweek, Internet Explorer, Michigan Review, Constitution Diversity, Internet Copyright, President Bush, Discoveries Constitution, CONSTITUTION Napster, michigan review, copyright law, cd sales, according michigan review, downloading music, breaking law, authors inventors, writings discoveries, sharing files, respective writings discoveries, compensate artist, purchase cd,
Approximate Word count = 1084
Approximate Pages = 4 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
