The Federal Reserve System Essay Research Paper — страница 2

  • Просмотров 133
  • Скачиваний 5
  • Размер файла 15
    Кб

happen all in one night. It took many years. And Napster takes these musicians work and makes it seem like it is worth nothing.Like the blood sweat and tears were worthless. And Napster users make it seem like the time and effort these musicians put into there work is not worth a penny. Piracy on the Internet Should Napster be prosecuted is not a question. Napster should prosecuted without a doubt. Its intentions were never to introduce new artist like Napster claims. The whole New Artist Program was created in April of 2000 after they were sued the first time.(Document 3. 7) So they new in the first place what there users were going to do with the software. Napster probably thought that since its just a host that they weren’t going to get in trouble. But what Napster should

have thought about wuz that they are aiding the people who are doing all the downloading which is still illegal.And if the music is not copywritten it still shouldn’t be done because it is still considered stealing and immoral! If the courts do not rule that the copyrights do not block the exchange and copying of music or published materials, not only will alot of musicians find their revenue streams dry up but so too will any business that relies on making a profit! Pretty soon you will see everyone bootlegging music and artists will be regular Joe’s! I think that Shawn Fanning is a brilliant man for inventing something like this at his young age. But to allow stealing to go on is not the right way to run anything. My mother always told me that in this life when you work

hard for something you’ll get it. But there’s always someone like Mr. Fanning who will let other people do the work in order to get the fame and glory! Copying Control Services. Copyrightlaw.asp page. 28th November 2000. 27 November. 2000 Stephen, Andrew. “Perfect for music lovers–or thieves.” COPYRIGHT 2000 New Statesman, Ltd. 4 Sept. 2000. 27 November,2000 . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA . Document 3 of 4. A&M Records and Other Plaintiffs vs. NAPSTER, INC., Defendant (s).August 10, 2000.