Editing Streaming media (section)

=== Napster ===
[[Music streaming]] is one of the most popular ways in which consumers interact with streaming media. In the age of digitization, the [[Private good|private consumption]] of music has transformed into a [[Public good (economics)|public good]], largely due to one player in the market: Napster.

[[Napster]], a [[peer-to-peer]] (P2P) file-sharing network where users could upload and download [[MP3]] files freely, broke all music industry conventions when it launched in early 1999 in Hull, Massachusetts. The platform was developed by Shawn and John Fanning as well as [[Sean Parker]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fortune.com/2013/09/05/ashes-to-ashes-peer-to-peer-an-oral-history-of-napster/|title=Ashes to ashes, peer to peer: An oral history of Napster|website=Fortune|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=9 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190309220739/http://fortune.com/2013/09/05/ashes-to-ashes-peer-to-peer-an-oral-history-of-napster/|url-status=live}}</ref> In an interview from 2009, Shawn Fanning explained that Napster "was something that came to me as a result of seeing a sort of unmet need and the passion people had for being able to find all this music, particularly a lot of the obscure stuff, which wouldn't be something you go to a record store and purchase, so it felt like a problem worth solving."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2009/05/31/an-interview-with-napsters-shawn-fanning/|title=An interview with Napster's Shawn Fanning|last1=Evangelista|first1=Benny|date=31 May 2009|website=The Technology Chronicles|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=21 May 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210521093345/https://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2009/05/31/an-interview-with-napsters-shawn-fanning/|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Not only did this development disrupt the music industry by making songs that previously required payment to be freely accessible to any Napster user, but it also demonstrated the power of P2P networks in turning any digital file into a public, shareable good. For the brief period of time that Napster existed, mp3 files fundamentally changed as a type of good. Songs were no longer financially excludable, barring access to a computer with internet access, and they were not rivals, meaning if one person downloaded a song, it did not diminish another user from doing the same. Napster, like most other providers of public goods, faced the [[free-rider problem]]. Every user benefits when an individual uploads an mp3 file, but there is no requirement or mechanism that forces all users to share their music. Generally, the platform encouraged sharing; users who downloaded files from others often had their own files available for upload as well. However, not everyone chose to share their files. There was no a built-in incentive specifically discouraging users from sharing their own files.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Ethics of Anonymous Computing: Napster |url=https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/anonymous-computing/technology/napster.php3 |access-date=21 September 2023 |website=cs.stanford.edu}}</ref>

This structure revolutionized the consumer's perception of ownership over [[digital goods]]; it made music freely replicable. Napster quickly garnered millions of users, growing faster than any other business in history. At the peak of its existence, Napster boasted about 80&nbsp;million users globally. The site gained so much traffic that many college campuses had to block access to Napster because it created network congestion from so many students sharing music files.<ref name="expertise1">{{cite web|url=https://www.lifewire.com/history-of-napster-2438592|title=The History of Napster: Yes, It's Still Around|last1=Harris|first1=Mark|website=Lifewire|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=15 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190315210151/https://www.lifewire.com/history-of-napster-2438592|url-status=live}}</ref>

The advent of Napster sparked the creation of numerous other P2P sites, including [[LimeWire]] (2000), [[BitTorrent]] (2001), and [[the Pirate Bay]] (2003). The reign of P2P networks was short-lived. The first to fall was Napster in 2001. Numerous lawsuits were filed against Napster by various record labels, all of which were subsidiaries of [[Universal Music Group]], [[Sony Music]] Entertainment, [[Warner Music Group]], or [[EMI]]. In addition to this, the [[Recording Industry Association of America]] (RIAA) also filed a lawsuit against Napster on the grounds of unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, which ultimately led Napster to shut down in 2001.<ref name="expertise1"/> In an interview with the ''New York Times'', Gary Stiffelman, who represents [[Eminem]], [[Aerosmith]], and [[TLC discography|TLC]], explained, "I'm not an opponent of artists' music being included in these services, I'm just an opponent of their revenue not being shared."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/arts/record-labels-answer-to-napster-still-has-artists-feeling-bypassed.html|title=Record Labels' Answer to Napster Still Has Artists Feeling Bypassed|last=Strauss|first=Neil|date=18 February 2002|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=11 March 2019|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=23 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323004314/https://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/18/arts/record-labels-answer-to-napster-still-has-artists-feeling-bypassed.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== The fight for intellectual property rights: ''A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.'' ====
The lawsuit ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]'' fundamentally changed the way consumers interact with music streaming. It was argued on 2 October 2000, and was decided on 12 February 2001. The [[Court of Appeals]] for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a P2P file-sharing service could be held liable for contributory and vicarious infringement of copyright, serving as a landmark decision for Intellectual property law.<ref name="wustl1">{{cite web|url=https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/case-study-am-records-inc-v-napster-inc/|title=Case Study: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. – Blog {{!}} @WashULaw|date=1 August 2013|website=onlinelaw.wustl.edu|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=31 May 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200531145508/https://onlinelaw.wustl.edu/blog/case-study-am-records-inc-v-napster-inc/|url-status=live}}</ref>

The first issue that the Court addressed was [[fair use]], which says that otherwise infringing activities are permissible so long as they are for purposes "such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching [...] scholarship, or research."<ref name="cornell2001">{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm|title=A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)|website=law.cornell.edu|access-date=11 March 2019|archive-date=12 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412213747/https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/239_F3d_1004.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> Judge Beezer, the judge for this case, noted that Napster claimed that its services fit "three specific alleged fair uses: [[sampling (music)|sampling]], where users make temporary copies of a work before purchasing; space-shifting, where users access a sound recording through the Napster system that they already own in audio CD format; and permissive distribution of recordings by both new and established artists."<ref name="cornell2001"/> Judge Beezer found that Napster did not fit these criteria, instead enabling their users to repeatedly copy music, which would affect the market value of the copyrighted good.

The second claim by the plaintiffs was that Napster was actively contributing to [[copyright infringement]] since it had knowledge of widespread file sharing on its platform. Since Napster took no action to reduce infringement and financially benefited from repeated use, the court ruled against the P2P site. The court found that "as much as eighty-seven percent of the files available on Napster may be copyrighted and more than seventy percent may be owned or administered by plaintiffs."<ref name="cornell2001"/>

The [[injunction]] ordered against Napster ended the brief period in which music streaming was a public good – non-rival and non-excludable in nature. Other P2P networks had some success at sharing MP3s, though they all met a similar fate in court. The ruling set the precedent that copyrighted digital content cannot be freely replicated and shared unless given consent by the owner, thereby strengthening the property rights of artists and record labels alike.<ref name="wustl1"/>