is of commercial nature or if it is for nonprofit educational purpose. Secondly, the nature of the copyrighted work, then the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and finally, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Other relevant factors may also be considered, since fair use is an equitable rule of reason to be applied in the light of the overall purpose of the Copyright Act.Regarding the first factor, the purpose and character of the use. Napster is obviously a commercial website, even though it is not currently charging a fee it attracts a sufficiently large user base for future advertising purposes, its only source of profits. Now, when considering the first factor, a judge must define whether the new use is essentially repeat or instead transformed by changing it with meaning, new understanding, or the like. In this case Napster provides a transformative space shift by which subscribers can enjoy the sound recording contained on their CDs without lugging around discs themselves, this is simply another way of saying that the unauthorized copies are being retransmitted in another medium, this is insufficient basis for any legitimate claim of transformation. Repetition of copyrighted material is unlikely to be deemed fair use. In this case no new insight or understanding was issued, just repackaging. While this service is innovative, it is not transformative.With regard to the second and third factor, both undisputed by Napster, the nature of the copyrighted work is definitely created close to the core of the intended copyright protection. As far as the amount of copyrighted work being copied, it is acknowledged that the work as a whole is being replayed and recorded, this negating any claim of fair use.The final factor is the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. In this case, the Napste...
