nd other like cooperation’s, the courts can not find substantial laws stating that these “free music” services are breaking the law. It is only fair morally and legally that the artist and the record producers receive certain compensation for the exchange of their music over the Internet. Most recently, Napster contemplated the notion of charging its users five dollars a month to use the web site. For example, if there were 30 million Napster users at one time, Napster could bring in around 150 million dollars a month. Those figures are enormous and could prove very lucrative to the music industry. What is being over looked here is that the artists and record producers could make an incredible profit through the use of online media sharing. If Napster were able to document the music being transferred and charge a small fee for that download, both Napster and the music industry would benefit greatly. Not only would monetary issues be involved, but also permission would be granted from the artist making it legal and morally acceptable. Such fees imposed by Napster would deter only very few users. Using such services will always be cheaper than purchasing the CD from a retailer.Trying to make amends Napster has recently offered $1 billion to the record companies, but J. Rivers, whom makes networking software said he would “see Napster's $1 billion offer to the companies, and raise it – to $3 billion to $10 billion over the next ten years” (qtd. in Joseph Gallivan). Making the reparation so complicated is that the record companies can’t even put a finger on what their catalogs are worth. Factoring into the process of etirely shutting Naspter down, there is another point of view. In conclusion, the “free music” industry has raised complex and puzzling questions regarding copyright law and cyber space. Every copyright law has been reviewed and many attempts hav...
