Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

 


Napster

(why is was wrong)

Links           References Page   

Contact information:

Cadet Jake Franklin

P.O. Box 1224

USAF Academy, CO 80841.

Phone # (719) 310-4352

CS 10 # 3-4500

    Napster is a website known by many, as the one that stole from artists. Napster, which came out in 1999, was a free site that allowed music lovers of all ages to trade their music with each other. This was viewed as morally wrong by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). They claimed that the artists were losing money, because people stopped buying their music and started getting it for free. This was taking from the artist profits and was causing some of them to start suing.

    Aerosmith was one of the first groups to sue Napster or better yet its maker, Shaun Fanning, for allowing people to share their music for free, and taking away from the artists. The people were sharing their music by using Peer to Peer technology. This would allow someone to copy another persons music as long as both were connect to the internet and using the program Napster. No one was making money from this program especially the artists, so because such an up roar was created Shawn Fanning was forced to shut down his website and people all over the world were being sued by artists. One of the most noted is a little twelve year old girl getting sued millions of dollars because she shared her music.

 

Air Force Relevance

    This is morally wrong because the artist has rights to his or her music and by allowing people to buy their music they are sharing their choice, but to get their music for free is stealing from the artist which is a crime. This is just like you are not supposed to rent movies and then make copies of your own and sell them to other people, or even make bootlegs of movies. This is all about trust and if you cannot trust your superior or the people around you then you cannot get work done. You are not supposed to steal from your fellow man, and so if you have no hard feelings of stealing the artists music, then how is one supposed to know that you wont steal from their wallet of even home. This is all about trust and how you would want to be treated.

Morally wrong

    When someone owns the right to something then you are not allowed to take it from them without their permission. Just like if you own a car it is morally wrong to take it from them and drive it around town without their permission. By Consequentialism standards this would be morally ok, because the positive consequences outweigh the negative consequences. Just one person is being hurt by people sharing music, the artist, but thousands even millions of people are benefiting from getting free music. They are happy, more likely to spend money on other supplies or good now because they have more money to give away, which even benefits other people. So if you look at it like that only one person is losing something, while so many others are benefiting from the free music.    

    How ever most people believe in Non-consequentialism, which states that something is morally wrong or right regardless of the consequences. How would you view it if someone took something from you without your permission or didn't even pay you for it. That would be stealing and that would be wrong, and that is how this topic should be viewed. It is not right for someone to take something from you without your permission just like it is not right to steal from the artists without their permission.

More information on Ethics.

FAQ's

Documentation