ings." First of all, the court has ruled that computers cannot be classified as digital recording devices. Furthermore, "noncommercial" does not apply to the distribution of files among millions of anonymous strangers. Home copies are classified as those used privately within the household and are not used for implicit and explicit commercial purposes. After downloading the music, anyone in possession of those files can make and sell it for profit. Ultimately, Napster is a company that is making money by allowing their users to trade files. The program provides for commercial use of the recordings, therefore should be abolished. Even so, Napster claims that an injunction to shut down the company would violate Napster and its users. “First Amendment rights to free speech.” I believe that this is a faulty argument because even the Courts have already ruled that the First Amendment "is not a license to trammel on legally recognized rights of intellectual property" and it is no longer open to doubt that the First Amendment does not shield “copyright infringement." It is unfair for Napster to assume that they can break a law and be protected under a different law. The constitution makes it clear that it is not okay for Napster to use their freedom of speech to violate another law. Even more surprisingly, Napster believes that since they are capable of numerous and substantial non-infringing uses, they can have no liability. It is true that Napster has many other uses other than allowing members to switch mp3 files. Users can also chat with other members to find out about the latest music, as well as search for new talent. Because the pros of using Napster outweigh the cons, they say that nothing can and should be done against them. Napster does have its beneficial qualities, so it is claiming protection under the "staple article of commerce" doctrine. This doctrine maintains that a company maybe be allowed to exist if the ...
