eir finances. The university lawyers primarily argued traditional copyright and patent law, although many admitted that the legal principles involved were not clear. Countless interviews and quotes were forthcoming from record producers and bands such as Metalica who took an active part in commencing legal proceedings against Napster. These officials are extremely wealthy individuals who needed the media to spread the idea that Napster was stealing from music industry. From the perspective of the large institutions, the public was primarily able to see arguments and opinions of those who wanted shut Napster down in order preserve their profits. The abundant amount of news sources on this topic made the media’s job much easier and was also consistent with the views of the financially wealthy and powerful businessmen. The result was a flood of articles and commentaries, which support the music industries contention that Napster is stealing. This evidence of one-sided reporting is further supported by the fact that founder Shawn Fanning, was not exclusively interviewed until July 2000. A concrete example of the validity of the IBT is apparent in the Napster matter because the one sided view that the media has portrayed and their almost exclusive reliance on biased sources.The EBBT also applies to the Napster controversy. The EEBT would assume that the owners of the media have an interest in spreading their views about how to deal with Napster. For certain, the owners of the news media have close connections to the entertainment and recording industries and they have a strong economic incentive to make sure that these industries retain their vitality and profits. For example, Rupert Murdoch is financially invested in almost every element of the media and entertainment industry, including the record business. The initial coverage of Napster painted the company as one that threatened the economic vitality of the record business and r...
