Essay writing, free sample essay topics, research papers
You are welcome to search the collection of free essays and term papers. Thousands of essay topics are available. Order unique, original custom papers from our essay writing service.
Sample essay topic, essay writing: Morality Of Napster - 1123 words
NOTE: Essay you see on this page is free essay, available to anyone. We strongly do not recommend using any direct quotes from these essays for credit - you will most probably be caught for copying/pasting off the Internet, as it is very easy to trace where the essay has been taken from by a plagiarism detection program. You are welcome to use these samples for your research, but if you want to be sure that your essay is 100% original and one of a kind, we highly recommend to order a custom essay from us.
At a glance, the conflict between Napster.com and the Recording Industry Association of America appears to be very cut and dry, however, analysis of the many factors involved uncover moral and legal issues which prove otherwise. Like any other dispute, this specific case is composed of two opposing arguments. From the perspective of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Napster infringed on copyright laws. Napster defends that copyright law does not unequivocally place them in the wrong. After a yearlong battle, a verdict has been reached and litigation has ended.
Through this analysis, it will be evident that the outcome attained between the RIAA and Napster satisfies utilitarian moral law as cogently possible. On December 6th, 1999, the RIAA sued Napster in Federal Court for copyright infringement, and petitioned that the court shut Napster down. Although Napster continued to run, the litigation and efforts towards shutting it down continued for what would be nearly one year. This lawsuit may seem simple because it involves an organization who distributed a form of copyrighted software called MP3 to over "20 million people with out permission of the rightful owner." This seems to indicate how Napster is clearly guilty of the charges brought against them. However, as copyright laws were analyzed, the relation of its terminology to the actions of Napster made it difficult to prove Napster guilty. The legal arguments presented by the plaintiffs pertaining to the specifics of copyright law are in their opinion "substantial enough in evidence to prove Napster of wrong doing." The RIAA charged Napster as being liable for contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement. Violations of these two copyright law concepts were the premise of the RIAA's case.Contributory copyright infringement, unlike direct copyright infringement, is not written in the Copyright Act. Instead, it is a concept based on the relationship between the contributing infringer and the direct infringing activity. Contributory infringement can arise from providing the "services or equipment" , and "the knowledge of the infringing activity [which] induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another" to aid the direct infringer
To prove contributory infringement, it must be shown that a company knew of the actual direct copyright infringement. It must also be shown that the contributory infringer substantially participated in the actual, direct infringement. In regard to this case, the capability of Napster's software leaves them subject to this charge. Napster 2.0 is the "service or equipment" which enables users, or "direct infringers" to search the community's database for MP3's. Napster has been prosecuted because they are the party responsible for the impact of their software, not its users.The second charge brought against Napster was that it was to blame for vicarious copyright infringement. Vicarious copyright infringement, like contributory infringement is a common concept that is not codified by the Copyright Act.
Liability for vicarious infringement can be imposed even when "the third party lacks knowledge of the infringing activity because of the supervisory nature of the relationship between the third party and the direct copyright infringer." Napster was brought up on charges of vicarious copyright infringement on the grounds that, regardless if the "software developers actually committed copy right piracy themselves; it is enough that they could have influenced the act or benefited from it in some way." Even if Napster was unaware of what its users were doing, their software is capable to perform copyright infringing activities. The design of the Napster software enables users to act illegally, and a claim to Napster's innocent myopia is not a justifiable defense. Because there is such significant and substantial evidence that accuses Napster of being at fault, they were in desperate need of a strong defense. Napster hired David Boies, the lead litigator from the Justice Department's infamous case against Microsoft. "Napster has hired Boies in the hopes that the courtroom Houdini can work the same magic for the online-music startup." The gist of Boies' argument is that there are enough exemptions in copyright law to permit Napster's existence. One is that Section 107, Title 17 of the Copyright Act allows for "fair use" of copyrighted work.
Which in more relative terms is reiterated by the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992. And finally, Boies will use the 1984 Sony Betamax Supreme Court decision to compare its similarities to those of Napster. Napster argues that the indeterminate terminology of Title 17, Section 107 SS501 of the Copyright Act does not deem their action illegal."The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." In a more basic interpretation of the "fair-use" section, a person is allowed to use some one else's work, without their permission, so long as there is no profit gain and the frequency of use is not abusive. Napster ascertains that copyright law does not definitively place them in unequivocal blame. Since the subject of "fair-use" is very inarticulate, Napster defended its use of the MP3 software as fair.
The argument that the AHRA allows Napster to act as it did is justified through its allowance of copyrighted material for non-commercial reproduction. "The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) allows anyone to copy music for 'noncommercial use'." Because this law makes no distinction in the number of copies of this material that are allowed its disparity between commercial and non-commercial use does not place Napster in clear blame. Boies used the 1984 Sony Betamax Supreme Court Decision as the foundation to Napster's argument. This 1984 case brought by Universal Studios Inc. and Walt Disney Co., was in fear that Sony's Betamax VCR posed a threat of widespread copying of movies and TV shows. However, "the court ruled for Sony, by a closely fought 5-4 vote, determining that the VCR offers 'substantial non-infringing' uses, such as being able to watch programs at the viewers convenience." Boies uses this case because the similarities between the VCR and Napster enforce the similarities between the Betamax case and Napster's own.
"In that landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled that if a technology has non-infringing uses, the maker cannot be held liable for copyright infringement." Like the VCR, Napster has non-infringing uses as a server, which provides chat rooms, information searches, and instant messaging capabilities. America's economic success in the 20th century can be attributed to our system of capitalism. William H. Shaw defines American capitalism as "an economic system, in which the major portion of production and distribution is in private hands, operating under what is termed a profit market system." Although the American economy has proven its success and strength over time, ...
Research paper and essay writing, free essay topics, sample works Morality Of Napster
Essay help, free essay samples:
Holocaust 6, Human Cloning, Glorious Sceptre, The Problem With Modern Education, Chaucerness, Damned Human Race, Achilles Anophtheis (achilles Revisited), The Buddhas Four Noble Truths: A Logical Basis For Philosophy, Themes In Cold Mountain, Paper, Toyota, South Africa, Embracing The Past To See The, Two Nation: The War Continues..., and much more...
All rights reserved © 2004-2013 essaypride.com, links