Music over the Internet has become a popular form of entertainment. Daily, people download and listen to music online. The rapid growth of such sites as Napster and MP3.COM is evidence of the popularity of online music. While music lovers enjoy this free access, the music industry is taking its stand in court. Industry representatives argue that these sites, Napster in particular, reduce their profits and violate copyright laws. These music services should be allowed to continue providing music for their users.One of Napster’s selling points is its capacity to locate rare music files and unmarketed live music. As I type this paper, I am listening to The Foo Fighters perform “Baby, Hold On.” The Eddie Money Band originally recorded this song in the late 1970’s. On a recent visit to the Conan O’Brian Show, The Foo Fighters sang their rendition of this classic tune. As the band has never recorded “Baby, Hold On” in a studio, this television performance resulted in the only available recording of the song. Napster enabled me to find the sole Foo Fighter version of “Baby Hold On.” Without Napster, I would have never been able to find it. This is the case with many of the songs I download from the controversial music site. I suspect this is true for many Napster users.Big Music’s main contention with Napster is that users download songs that they should purchase on compact discs. The industry alleges violations of copyright laws. What is the difference between downloading a song off the Internet and recording a favorite tune off the radio? If the music industry is going to pursue legal attacks against Napster, should they not also include radio in their legal battle? If Napster charged consumers to download songs, its services should be banned. However, Napster is free and no profits are gained. The law states that all noncommercial music reproduction is legal - N...
