gument that the RIAA is using to sue Napster. On May 8, 2000, the RIAA sued Napster for copyright infringement (Heilemann, 2000, 1-2). In their opinion they feel that there are over eight hundred thousand people stealing music at any given time. The RIAA believes that Napster and its founders are promoting the illegal reproduction of copyrighted music, and not giving any royalties to the owners of the songs (Reuters, 1999). Their theory behind the lawsuit is that there is no reason for a lover of music to go out and buy a compact disc that they like, why would a person want to buy a CD, when they could get it for free? They belief that Napster should be shut down until it compensates the artists for lost revenues for copyrighted music that was stolen. There is not a First Amendment right to take someone elses copyrighted expression and duplicate it (Freedom Forum Staff, 2000,1). On the flip side, Napster believes that shutting their company down is in violation of 1008 of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), which immunizes all noncommercial consumer copying of music in digital or analog form (Reuters, 1999). This basically means that since Napster is not profiting off of the music, and the sharing of music is intended for the soul purpose of the noncommercial consumer usage, therefore, it is protected by the AHRA. According to Napsters newsletters, as a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way (Earp, 2001, 1). Napster believes that they are just the facilitators in an online exchange forum. Napster is the program that links computers together, not the program that steals music. They contest that they have done nothing wrong and that they shall not be shut down by a court of law. As to this day, the litigation between the two parties (RIAA and Napster) still has not been fully resolved. The CEO of Napster, Hank Barry, and...
