an Internet service provider because it provides access for many people via a few lines of high-speed service. Because of this claim, Napster has been able to dodge the many assumptions by judges and media of the courts. “Copyright laws need to be reformed around a more flexible stance to prepare for the wave of things to come. There’s no crime in listening to music you already have,” (“EFF…”). The Internet is new territory for many people, and raises many issues against the justice system. New laws have to be created in order to keep everyone happy (“Napster…”). Napster authorities have also claimed that the program is merely a music player and provider. A California judge ruled that the MP3 players, which is part of Napster, “isn’t subject to government restriction” (Sullivan, 15). The Mp3 player, in which the judge referred to, is contained within the “library” section of the program.The Napster court case is similar to the case between Sony and Universal Studios. In 1984 Sony was sued because it blazed the path of VCR’s (Videocassette Recorders). Universal Studios made a case of arguing that consumers of VCR’s could tape movies or programs and were accountable for copyright infringement. The deciding result of the Supreme Court was the VCR had a considerable amount of “non-infringing uses” (Huffstutter). The VCR was mainly used to play rented videos or home videos rather than to make bootleg videos. Napster’s court case is extremely similar to Sony vs. Universal Studios, in that both cases deal with copyright infringement. When the courts decide on a verdict, “it won’t stop the technology” because it’s already out there (Philips and Huffstutter). “It’s impossible to kill the software” and “it’s pointless to try” (Philips and Huffstutter). The decision over the...
