for it so they feel like no one is losing a profit. If one does notlike a song well enough to buy it, they should not even be listening to it. However, considerthis scenario in defense of a Napster user. What if someone only wants one song on a $20.00CD? Is it fair for the Artist to in essence be charging that person $20.00 for one song? Inthis situation the consumer would not purchase the CD therefore the Artist would lose outany profit. Action must be taken to benefit both the consumer, the Artist and ourConstitutional rights as Americans.Some artist work for years to establish themselves as a popular musician, spendinguntold fortunes on recording equipment, training, marketing, plus thousands of man-hourson perfecting their craft, only to have their work ripped off by someone. What it all comesdown to is a persons own values. Most people have too few songs in their collection toworry about being prosecuted. Penalties for copyright infringement are harsh---5 years injail, up to $250,000 in fines, and possible statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song(TIME). Since the music is free it has to be stealing. In America, one does not get anythingfor free. People are robbing artists from the pennies they earn on each CD that sells. Manypeople believe that it is the same thing as recording a song off the radio. But they came upwith a solution to that problem. Now, artists are compensated every time a song is playedon the radio (Newsweek).The courts need to find a way to protect artists intellectual property rights in theemerging e-commerce arena. The core of the lawsuit is more about the changes intechnology and new technology (TIME). There has to be a way to reconcile this technologywith artists rights. If an artist writes and sings a song and someone else benefits from itwithout compensating the artists, the artist is hurt. President Bush comments on the Napstercase by saying, A way must be found to apply our copy...
