Is this “burning of a CD” considered legal under the copyright laws? This question has recently been in constant debate and has been the subject of several court battles. Napster does not actually store music of any sort on their servers. It merely provides user access to other computers who happen to be online with saved media files in their hard drives. One could download a very large amount of music in one sitting and not even a penny would change hands in the process. The fact that the recording companies receive no money for this transfer of music is, of course, the main cause of all the controversy regarding “free music.” Although in a sense, haven’t we been participating in such activity to some degree since the invention of recorded music? The answer to this question serves as the main defense of the Internet companies providing such sharing services. For example, taking a media file from another online user would be much like borrowing a CD from that same individual. Furthermore, some fifty years ago, kids traded 45 rpm records instead of computer files and no lawsuits resulted. If music sharing has been going on for such a long period time, why is it that the artists and record producers only now raise such a ruckus over this entire “free music” issue?In regards to the turmoil the RIAA has conducted a statement that “Napster is failing to police its system in attempt to stop the spread of copyrighted works and that its service causes substantial harm to record companies” (Reuters 2).Then in one such article it states “Napster, by its conduct, knowingly encourages and assists the infringement of copyrights” (John Boarland). Respectively, the RIAA asked the court to find the company guilty of both contributory and vicarious copyright infringement and to shut down the service because it was causing its member companies irreparable harm. Blaming the ...
