Debates Over Music Copyright And The Internet example essay topic

NAPSTER PAPER -- Right or Wrong NAPSTER - RIGHT OR WRONG? Synopsis Recent controversy revolving the music industry and the distribution and "sharing" of music over the Internet has music executives, artists, consumers, Internet users / advocates, and politicians / judicial courts with conflicting arguments. After several court room battles, such as the March 5, 2001 Music Industry vs. Napster case in which Napster was ordered to "catalog the copyrighted songs it wants removed from the system", arguments are still and probably will always be split in half ("Judge"). The reason being is that some argue, mainly music industry executives, that on-line services such as Napster or MP 3. com are "violating copyright laws and threatening to erode the economic base for popular music" (Jost). Artists feel threatened that they will lose control of their music. Many struggling in the music business may feel that consumers will lose interest in purchasing their CD's since Internet users can download music for free.

Music executives and artists are threatened with the possibility of reduced music sales because file sharing over the Internet may promote piracy. Others such as rock star Courtney Love "support free distribution of music via Napster and other on-line music-sharing sources. 'Technology that exposes our music to a larger audience can only be a good thing,' she says" (Jost). Some consumers may find file sharing a good way to listen to an artist's music before they decide to purchase a CD. Many artists believe that Napster will threaten their means of living, but many others find it a great (free) marketing tool. Moral Dilemma The notion of million of Internet users worldwide having access to millions of pieces of music is astonishing.

What is more astonishing is that after Internet users have access to other musicians work, any person is able to manipulate how he or she will use it. This may cause music pirating, copyright infringement, loss of creative control, or simply that music is shared freely with so many people that "creativity is fostered among people", (Samudrala). "Technology is ambiguous, it has an impact according to the social context in which it is designed and used, because it is both a product and a source of economic and political power" (Barbour 3). Indeed, what is threatening to most of the party's in the controversy is the loss of power.

Musicians want it. Government wants it. The Music Industry wants it. Consumers want it as well. In intellectual property the response to "I own that" might be "What do you mean?" which is not as clear-cut as "I own a pair of sneakers". (Boyle 52).

But, whomever the power is designated to, there also exists legal and moral obligations not to mishandle art works in various ways. "The artist has certain rights, basically Copyright... These are not simply property rights affecting his [or her] sales and royalties but extend to considerations affecting integrity and that of his [or her] work" (Sparshott 143-158). So, why should any discussion be involved if under Copyright Law, the distribution of music over the Internet is illegal?

And if indeed the discussion of distribution of music over the Internet takes place, how could "free music" be ethical? Many believe that distributing or exchanging music through the Internet in an. mp 3 format is stealing. Is it not morally wrong to "steal?" But somehow many will say that the issue of Copyright Law is just "too complex and tangled to maintain the concept of property as a thing" (Sparshott 174). "Can we find an equitable means to bring the new media into the public forums and the open dialogue that their growing influences seems to require?" (Lawrence 5). If so, should music copyright laws adapt to new technologies and Internet users to allow new ways of distribution? Background Information What is Copyright?

"Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to authors of 'original works of authorship,' including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works" (United States Copyright Office). A copyright may be composed of five "exclusive rights" which includes: (1) Reproduce (2) Adapt (3) Publicly distribute copies of (4) Publicly perform (5) Publicly display the protected work (Sparshott 177). Common Legislation Common Law Copyright - Springs into being without any formality, notice, or registration upon creation of a musical or literary work. Statutory Copyright - Acquired by publication of a work with the proper notice of copyright.

Notice of Copyright - Publication of a work must be accompanied by a notice of copyright on each copy published or offered for sale. (Krasilovsky 110-111). Progression Copyright law in the United States has been modified and re-modified since its initial creation in 1790 where it only protected literary works. From 1831-1897, the law was extended to protect sheet music and musical performances. "In its first major copyright decision, the Supreme Court treated copyright as a statutory creation aimed primarily at serving the public interest and only secondarily at rewarding authors" (Jost). From 1954-1976, 35 major studies were commissioned by the Office of Copyright (Lawrence 3).

In 1976, the Copyright Act expanded its protection over original works of authorship and "codified the judicially created doctrine of 'fair use' as a defense to copyright infringement claims" (Jost). The 1976 Copyright Act "immunized libraries from liability for patrons' unsupervised use of copying machines" with an adequate copyright warning for its users to read. With the breakthrough of VCR's in the early 1980's, this meant that now consumers were able to record television programs (motion pictures specifically) without the consent of the movie studios. More importantly, the movie studios would loose their ability to control whom to charge for repeated movie showings. In 1984, the Supreme Court settled a suit brought upon Sony Corporation, then Betamax VCR manufacturer, by Universal City Studios and Walt Disney Productions that ruled that "home video recording did not constitute fair use and that Sony could be held responsible for the copyright infringement" (Jost). The home recording debate continues until this day, which compares to the debates over music copyright and the Internet.

The Internet has posed a greater threat to the music industry and has revolutionized how music is distributed to most music aficionados. Paul Goldstein, a professor at Stanford University, states that the Internet poses "daunting challenges to traditional ideas of copyright law based on works in fixed media that could not be reproduced without a loss of quality" (Jost). Software programs were never included in copyright law, which has currently caused such "hurdles" for plaintiffs. "Copyright holders feared the easy availability of copyrighted works on the Internet, but access providers contended they could not police users to prevent copyright infringements" (Jost). The Clinton administration adopted the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act which "called for a ban on equipment devices or software that could defeat copyright-protective encryption" (Jost).

The notion of the "Celestial Jukebox" was conjured up by Goldstein in the beginning of the early 1990's. But as rampant as the Internet grows per second, the notion of consumers instantaneously retrieving music, films, or literary works in exchange of a service fee was not successful for Internet advocates. In come Napster and MP 3. com, which ignored the service fee and provided an arena for Internet users to easily retrieve their musical preferences with a simple click of a button. To the music industry, this meant an easy means for pirating and exploitation of a musician's work.

Parties in the Controversy Proponents "Our copyright laws... are imperfect in definition, confused and inconsistent in expression; they are difficult for the courts to interpret and impossible for the Copyright Office to administer to the satisfaction of the public". Theodore Roosevelt, 1905 Napster Are online service providers held liable for their users' copyright infringements? Applications such as Napster are an on-line community of Internet users that share file, mp 3 files to be exact. This type of application does not actually compile or store mp 3's on their servers, but simply the application provides a search engine that allows this community to exchange their files with one another.

"Copyright grants authors control over their expression of ideas, leaving the ideas themselves as public property" (Clark). Napster justifies their application as a way for Internet users to share files; Napster does not store or produce these mp 3's from their end. Napster's attorney, Laurence Pulgram, that represented them for the Metallica vs. Napster case explains that Metallica was not entirely opposed to Napster. "Ironically, Metallica now says it wants Napster to allow fans to share Metallica bootleg recordings, but to prevent fans from sharing Metallica's studio recordings. So Metallica acknowledges Napster's utility for spreading promotional materials" ("Napster's").

The record companies introduced studies that demonstrate how Napster usage is "likely to reduce CD purchases". The Field Research Corporation found that 34% 500 Napster users among a nationwide sample of 3,200 college students stated that "Napster displaces CD sales". However, more than half of the other respondents responded by saying that Napster provided an easy way to obtain music, not necessarily stating that they would not purchase a CD. Peter Fader, a marketing expert at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, conducted a second study among 1,600 Napster users showed that 28% increased their CD purchases because of Napster, only 8% stated that there purchases decreased, and 64% did not show a change (Jost). Internet Advocates Many Internet Advocates are convinced that the "fair-use" doctrine written into the 1976 Copyright Act should be modified for Internet users. There is an idea and written law of "fair-use" that proponents feel should be accepted today for Internet users.

Basically, if copying is done for personal use, then no violation is being committed (Jost). Michael Shamos, a computer and copyright law expert at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, states that copyright holders "are trying to forestall the day when information, which wants to be free, will in fact be free" (Jost). The fair use defense has four factors: (1) Purpose and character of the use - commercial or educational; (2) Nature of the copyrighted work; (3) The amount and substantially of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" (United States Copyright Office). The idea of fairness concerning this issue is "evaluative" the reason being that time changes "moral ideas."Fair use is an equitable rule of reason, whose applicability in an individual case is dependent upon particular facts and their interrelationships". Benjamin Cardozo states his philosophical basis by saying that "life is too complex to bring the attainment of this ideal within the compass of human powers" (Lawrence 10-11). Shamos acknowledges "that copyright holders may have to do some rethinking to fashion a viable economic structure for the marketplace created by the new technology" (Jost).

In conclusion, fair use ends up being more conflicting rather than providing a resolution (Lawrence 12). Free Music Philosophy Advocates There are many Internet users that feel the exchange of music files over the Internet is the "ethically right thing to do". Ram Samudrala, a very vocal "Free Music Philosophy" advocate, explains that "limiting your creativity to specific audiences... is shrinking existential responsibility and destructive to society as a whole". Destructive in the sense of "restricting legitimate expression".

He states, "when people create, they " re creating by standing on the shoulders of giants" (referring to the music industry). He also states that "the current practices of the recording industry... are unethical, and one must take steps to force changes" (Samudrala). Many Internet users and some music artists may agree that the industry giants have created a music monopoly where many consumers are left paying ridiculous prices for not-so-great music, and artists filing for bankruptcy. The Free Music Philosphy is "the idea that creating, copying, and distributing music must be as unrestricted as breathing air". Samudrala goes on to explain that under the Free Music Philosphy, "you have the freedom to make a copy of my CD, the freedom to download sound files of my songs from my server on the Internet, the freedom to cover or improve upon a song I've written, but you are not necessarily entitled to free Cd's" (Samudrala). Many people feel that making music is a creative process and within this process, musicians will draw from other creative minds; therefore, there exists a responsibility to give music back.

Thus, enabling "free music" to all people. "Intellectual property and other such rights have essentially existed to benefit society rather than the individual", states Samudrala. The Free Music Philosphy promotes the individual's creativity, and done corporate control over the musical creative process. Consumers and musicians will in essence have a creative connection with each other. "It will not be as important to own tangible things as to control how the planet will be shaped in our own images. Art, then will be perceived in its true form, the shaping of the exterior world to reflect man's inner nature" (Sparshott 187).

Will this work? According to Samudrala, "freeing music will certainly not be detrimental to the sales of merchandise and concert tickets" which he explains is the main means for musicians to gain their capital. "Profits from record sales will also not be affected because people will be encouraged to buy directly from the artist for the added bonuses of lyric sheets and packaging". He also notes that with the exception of Billboard chart-making musicians, "the chances of making a living by record sales in the present system are very low" where he justifies the point that most musicians record music with "creativity as the primary motivation".

So how is it that this group of people can justify as "ok" what the law claims is copyright infringement? There also exists the distinction between "abuse for fun and abuse for personal gain" (Johnson 111). Many Internet users will testify to exchanging music between users for entertainment and not necessarily for profit-gain. The Internet lends itself for instant information at a click of a button. Music consumers are also under the simple shopping technique of "listen before I buy". Music Artists It is difficult to classify music artists into one position in this issue.

When it comes to this party, the proposals, positions, and arguments will be split right in half. There are many active music artists that are voicing their opinions on this issue. There are individual artists who have come forth and stated that they do not find any harm with Internet users exchanging music freely via the Internet. In an interview with VH 1, U 2's front-man, Bono, said that he is already over paid, and the distribution of his music via the Internet is not causing him any type of economic downfall. Surprisingly, there are many artists that applaud this means of marketing their music. Many of these artists have their fans in perspective.

Chuck D, rapper of the former group Public Enemy, states: "I just go by logic-that people will want to hear something before they buy it... That's too logical for people in the music industry to understand", (Jost). One is left to wonder how an artist would not be cheated out of his or her earnings or they would sacrifice their creativity to the world if the Music Industry allowed the free exchange of music. Many artists feel their earnings are not primarily from record sales (since a huge amount needs to go to the record company, collaborators, musicians, etc. ), but from concert tickets, merchandise, or royalties from commercial deals. Opponents "To take from one and give to all is not less communism in the case of [intellectual] property than it is in that of any other kind of property". Eaton S. Drone (Lawrence 7) Copyright Legislation File sharing is illegal according to the opponents of such mp 3 applications such as Napster or MP 3. com.

Opponents, a. k. a. Music Industry, claim that such applications violate copyright laws because these on-line communities do not own copyrights to a particular piece of music or several pieces of music to give them the right to distribute or manipulate music to their discretion. "Copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible form of expression" (United States Copyright Office). In essence, the on-line applications that allow Internet users the means of downloading is in danger of violation of this law.

"Technology is beneficial and the reduction of any undesirable side effects is itself a technical problem. Government intervention is needed only to regulate the most harmful impacts" (Barbour 24). RIAA The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) believes that internet applications such as Napster and internet users who are distributing music via the Internet should be held liable for copyright infringement; therefore, discontinuing the use of music distribution without legal permission. David Leibowitz, executive for the RIAA, stated in 1995 "the day is fast approaching when consumers can enter the Internet and receive real time compact-disk quality sound transmission" ("Regulating"). As suspected in 1995, in 2001 Internet users all over the world are able to do this and the technology will only take us further. The RIAA's mission is to "foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality... and work to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer, industry and technical research; and monitor and review - - state and federal laws, regulations and policies" (RIAA).

"When you post digital music files on the Internet for anyone to take and keep, it's not promotion but distribution. It's up to the artist and copyright owner to decide how their music will be heard, distributed and promoted. Though most people do not realize it, only about 15 percent of all releases sell enough copies to make a profit and those record sales support the other 85%, including those from new and emerging artists. When someone decides to take distribution into his or her own hands, that decision can impact not only the artist whose music is being taken, but the artists that may have been supported by those sales. It's also important to remember that sales of recordings don't just support the musical artist. Piracy cheats producers, composers, sound engineers, studio musicians, publishers and vocalists out of their share of royalties on which they generally depend for their livelihoods" (RIAA).

Hilary Rosen, President and CEO of the RIAA, states "one need not debate the finer points of copyright law to know that trafficking in stolen copyrighted works is a foundation of Napster's business... If intellectual property is not protected on-line, there will be substantial disincentive for making it available there. And if creativity itself is devalued by the contention that there is no harm in stealing its fruits, the inspiration to produce music in the first place will be diminished" (Jost). Artists (Means of Living) How can Internet users be manipulating the system of buying and profiting if they can simply download music in a matter of minutes for free? Internet users should consider the fact that music is someone's means of living. If Internet users are easily downloading someone else's work, it is just as easy for these users to start burning this music into blank CD's and selling them for profit.

"Music companies aren't championing the MP 3 format for the simple reason that it removes so much fat from their balance sheets" (Burpee). Anne Branscomb wrote "Who Owns Creativity?" in 1988 and stated "realistic legal rules depend on a social consensus about what kind of behavior is acceptable and what is not. To some degree unauthorized copying has become acceptable practice" (Edgar 137-138). Similar to a person going to the library and copying a few pages from a book or magazine, which is legal under copyright law.

Although, with the multi-million dollar music industry, this option is "unacceptable practice."The author doesn't own the work of authorship per se, but has legal relations to other regarding the use of the material world to copy the work. The rights conferred on the owner are not plenary but only sufficient to prevent others from commercially exploiting the real world with reference to the work" (Sparshott 186). Artists (Distribution) Many artists have come forth to go head-to-head with certain on-line applications and their Internet users such as Metallica vs. Napster. Metallica drummer, Lars Ulrich, states, "This is not about Metallica versus the Internet... But we want to control how that's done, just like we " ve always controlled what we make" (Jost). The No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) is helping to protect artists, such as Metallica, so that they are able to prosecute anyone in violation of copyright infringement and anyone profiting from it.

If prosecuted, violators may serve up to three years imprisonment and up to $250,000 in fines (RIAA). Glenn Brown, a writer for The New Republic Online, in his article "Running for Cover", researches past copyright law and its origins to evaluate whether the same doctrines could apply to the present issue of copyright and the Internet. In 1909, the Copyright Act "granted composers exclusive control of 'parts of instruments serving to reproduce mechanically the musical work. ' Although if, for example, a jazz musician of that time wanted to use someone else's song, the musician would be free to do this, but would need to follow the appropriate procedures to provide royalties to the copyright owner. This section of the Copyright Act is called the compulsory license exception (Brown).

Normative Ethical Analysis Congressional laws are written for the benefit of society in order to keep a system of order and complacency. Within these laws we have rights to secure our system of order. Politics and ethics will always go hand-in-hand, which I believe is the cause of so much conflict and confusion; it is not clear-cut, and not everyone understands laws, specifically Copyright Laws. Laws are based on norms (right thing to do according to society) and moral values.

The confusion comes into play because people tend to base their opinions on issues according to their emotions and sometimes neglect facts and details. "One has a natural right to own what one has created. The natural rights argument claims that since no one is entitled to own another person, and since my labor is an extension of my person then no one can own what I create" (Johnson 34). So in this case, the Social Contract Theory could apply to the issue of Copyright Laws. Would adapting our ever-changing technologies to how music is distributed, and possibly re-writing copyright laws, establish some sort of social order to benefit everyone, even if it affects certain individual's freedoms?

How can we be free and yet secure from other people's freedom; secure and yet free to do what we want to do? We need to "conceive rights of security in a manner that both makes them appear to be absolute and negates the proposition that they restrict legitimate freedom of action of others. Thus, if we define liberty as free actions that do not affect other at all, and rights as absolute protections from harm, the contradiction vanishes" (Boyle 47). So, how can we, as a society, be responsible for an individual's loss of freedom in the case of music copyright? The freedom's being lost are the "inventiveness and free flow of information" that our society demands.

Deborah Johnson talks about "different senses of responsibility" in her book titled, Computer Ethics. (1) Someone may be said to be "responsible" in the sense that he / she has "role responsibility" (2) Causality: someone failed to do a certain action and this action caused a certain end product to happen (3) Blame-worthy: claim that a person did something wrong which led to the event / circumstance (4) Legal Liability: failure to fulfill a role-responsibility and liability without fault; when someone has to pay damages even if not their fault (Johnson 127). In relation to my probable solution, better understanding legislation needs to be set forth along with the proper education to follow for the parties involved in this controversy. Without a set of laws to respect and follow, freedoms will not be lost for just a small group of people, but for all. Probable Solution It is difficult for me to determine a one-sided position. After evaluating each of the party's proposals, positions, and arguments, my position in the controversy over music copyright and the Internet is not straight-forward.

I side with the creativity issue; that one should respect someone's creative works. Not necessarily for the legality point of view because it is obvious that mishandling someone else's creative works is prohibited under Copyright Law, but because you are tampering with a tangible thing that took effort, heart and soul to produce. It is especially wrong when a person's means of living, in this case music production, is threatened in this manner. The distribution of music over the Internet is not entirely out of place. As many of the proponents have coincided is that the Internet can be a wonderful and easy way to market your product.

Stanford Goldstein conjured the idea of the "Celestial Jukebox" back in 1994 which offers access to any information or entertainment on the Internet, copyrighted, with a fee that gives the company or individual their designated royalties (Clark). The "Celestial Jukebox" could work if everyone (Music Industry, on-line application, music artists, and music consumers) would come to an agreed system. On the other hand, I also understand the advocates who would like to see the Copyright Law rewritten to embrace new technologies; however, I do not agree with, specifically, the Free Music Philosophy advocates that believe that no laws should mandate how music is distributed. Like MPAA President Valenti said, "If [the courts] exile or shrink copyright, it will be Armageddon time because without copyright protection who is going to invest the huge amounts of money into creative work if they can be burglarized at any moment" (Jost).

Unless we were living in a Utopian society, anarchic systems may work. "In Technology and Power, the psychologist David Kip nis maintains that those who control a technology have power over other people and this affects personal attitudes as well as social structures" (Barbour 13). And indeed, who are the ones in power in this issue? Is it the Music Industry? Musicians? Government?

Consumers? And what should be done? We may begin by analyzing the problem by using the Human Approach: " o Better Legislation: I think that the copyright laws are hard to interpret because they are not clear when it comes to the issue of cyberspace. So we could start with improving legislation in that case. o Changing Informal Social Attitudes / Conventions and Education: I think the media attention revolving the Napster issue has brought Copyright Law to discussion. The same as with every issue, one cannot pass things by and say "Everyone else is doing it, so it should be ok?" or "I wasn't aware that it was illegal?" Most of the time when something seems too easy to do, more than likely some type of repercussions are to be expected.

"Users [need] to understand the connection between their behavior on-line and its impact on other users" (Johnson 118-122). So to conclude, this issue will continue to be an open forum of ideas. Is there a right or wrong answer? When it comes to copyright, as long as there are laws protecting intellectual property the answer to that is "yes". Conclusion "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called the idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it focuses itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannon dispossess himself of it... That ideas should be spread from one to another on the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature".

Thomas Jefferson (Edgar 114-115 I will have to state that in this day and age, many people are very disrespectful when it comes to intellectual property and technology. Technology grows too rapidly and so rampantly that it leaves us no time to figure out what is politically, legally, and morally the right thing to do. As with software piracy or Internet hackers, our society today is not content with leaving things alone. We feel the need to probe and even share our new discoveries. Teddy Roosevelt voiced his concerns in the early 1900's about Copyright Laws being very confusing to read and complicated to understand, and today we are still left shrugging our shoulders. Perhaps the media attention revolving the Napster issue will cause Congress to re-write these Copyright Laws to adapt to our ever changing society and technological advances.

What was known as file-sharing is now been clarified as being copyright infringement. Until modifications in copyright law take into effect, I would suggest not to tamper with. mp 3 downloads because "it's just not worth it". Works Cited Barbour, Ian. Ethics in an Age of Technology.

San Francisco: Harper Collins Publishers, 1993. Boyle, James. Shamans, Software, & Spleens: Law and the Construction of the Information Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Brown, Glenn Otis. "Running for Cover".

The New Republic Online. 27 Jul 2000.3/2/2001... Burpee, Geoff. "The MP 3 Revolution: Is what's bad for music companies bad for music?" Time ASIA. com.

5 Oct 1999.3 Feb 2001... Clark, Charles S. "Clashing Over Copyright: Is intellectual property safe in the Internet Age?" The CQ Researcher. Vol. 6 (1996): 985-1008. Scarborough-Phillips Library. 20 Feb 2001. Johnson, Deborah G. Computer Ethics.

New Jersey: Renssilear Polytechnic Institute, 1995. Edgar, Stacey L. Morality and Machines: Perspective on Computer Ethics. Sudbury: Jones Bartlett Publications, 1997. Jost, Kenneth. "Copyright and the Internet: Should consumers download music and movies for free?" The CQ Researcher.

Vol. 10 (2000): 769-92.27 Jan 2001. "Judge Nixes Napster: Song-swapping service ordered by district court to remove copyrighted titles". CNN. com. 6 Mar 2001...

Lawrence, John Shelton and Timber, Bernard. Fair Use and Free Inquiry: Copyright Law and the New Media. Norwood: Able Publishing Corp., 1980. Krasilovky, M. William and Sidney S hemel. This Business of Music.

New York: Billboard Publications, Inc., 1971. "Napster's side of the story". CNN. com. 19 May 2000.4 Mar 2001... "Regulating the Internet: Can the use of cyberspace be governed?" The CQ Researcher. Vol. 5 (1995): 561-584.

RIAA: Recording Industry Association of America. 5 Feb 2001... Samudrala, Ram. Ram-brings.

"The Free Music Philosophy". 17 Jun 1998.5 Feb 2001... Sparshott, Francis. "Why Artworks Have No Right to Have Rights". Ethics and the Arts: An Anthology. Ed.

David E.W. Fenner. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1995. United Stated Copyright Office: The Library of Congress. 5 Feb 2001...

Bibliography

American Intellectual Property Law Association. 3 Feb 2001.
Am I a Crook? Videocassette. PBS Adult Learning Satellite Service, 1998.
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. 3 Feb 2001.
Computer and Communications Industry Association. 3 Feb 2001.
Copyright and Fair Use". Stanford University Libraries. 2 Mar 2001.
Copyright in the Digital Age". CNN. com - LAW Center - Trials & Cases. 20 Feb 2001.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. 3 Feb 2001.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals. 3 Feb 2001.
It's Just Not Worth It. Videocassette. 1991.
MP 3. com. 3 Feb 2001.
Napster. com. 3 Feb 2001.
Urs ery, Danny. Principles of Normative Ethics. 27 Apr 2001.