Napster and Intellectual property Essay

In fact, three particular fair uses can be specified, namely: sampling (before purchasing some music users can obtain a demo copy); space shifting (converting music files from one format into another); distributing music records by new and already popular musicians – and none of them is a copy right infringement. Furthermore, to my mind, the main purpose of this case is not to protect artists’ exclusive rights but to slow down the development of new technololgy MP3. RIAA legs behind the Napster and can not offer up-to-date music services in the Internet; therefore, the easiest way to stop the rival is to call him in the court. Sure, from the economic point of view, Napster causes some losses to the recordig industry as its users get music for free, wheras ordinarily they would have to pay for it. However, Napster makes no profit itself and copies are not offered for sale. Moreover, Napster promotes new and unknown authors along with the new groundbreaking technology MP3 that came in place of CD. Yet, when laws are concerned, it has been widely known that law under which intellectual property rights are protected is quite a controvercial issue and it is a subject of much controversy concerning how this law should be applied in our digital era. In fact, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in A & M Records, Inc.

v. Napster, Inc. 239 F.

com/LAW/

2. A&M RECORDS V NAPSTER. Retrieved on December 5, 2005 from: