edf40wrjww2CF_PaperMaster:Desc
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 con ...