ity to download virtually any song quickly, efficiently and most of all, free; why would anyone ever consider purchasing a CD from a retail store? In that same ruling, it was stated that the Napster users “reap” an economic advantage for they now get something for free that they ordinarily would have to pay for. Such information is what has provoked the music industry to become irate. In an interview between Time magazine and Dr. Dre regarding Napster, Dr. Dre stated, "Napster is taking food out of my kids' mouths. I've always dreamed about making a living at something that I love to do. And they're destroying my dream." Madonna went as far to say, "I like the idea of trading information on the Net, but to have a whole album online for free is bull*censored*. I mean, pay for my record." I couldn’t agree more and such statements support my entire belief that such Internet services should be limited and regulated.“Napster is not directly responsible for the distribution of songs because it doesn’t provide the songs for the users to download” (qtd. Online2). Napster is just a simple place where users log on to retrieve songs from other users. It turned from being a little network between friends and families to make trading songs easier for them. It turned out to be a hit and it exploded. Now his company has to suffer and pay money towards the records companies for trading copyrighted materials that was merely set by him? A creative young intelligent student should not have his work shut down because he succeeded and is now a big hit with more than twenty million people. In the news Napster explains that they are not responsible for any infiringement, yet the record companys want to charge $100,000 per pirated song. Another problem similar to Napster is there are other music trading programs avaliable on the computer for free as well. So, why is Napster being targeted and not others?Napster a...
