Software:Napster

From HandWiki
Napster
Developer(s)
  • Shawn Fanning
  • Sean Parker
Initial releaseJune 1, 1999; 26 years ago (1999-06-01)
Final release
September 3, 2002; 23 years ago (2002-09-03)
Operating systemCross-platform
Available inMultilingual
TypeMedia player
LicenseProprietary

Napster was an American proprietary peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing application primarily associated with digital audio file distribution. Founded by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, the platform originally launched on June 1, 1999. Audio shared on the service was typically encoded in the MP3 format. As the software became popular, the company encountered legal difficulties over copyright infringement. Napster shut down in 2001 following a series of lawsuits and subsequently filed for bankruptcy in June 2002.

The P2P model employed by Napster involved a centralized database that indexed a complete list of all songs being shared from connected clients. While effective, the service could not function without the central database, which was hosted by Napster and eventually forced to shut down. Following Napster's demise, alternative decentralized methods of P2P file-sharing emerged, including Gnutella, Freenet, FastTrack, I2P, and BitTorrent.

Napster's assets were eventually acquired by Roxio, and it re-emerged as an online music store commonly known as Napster 2.0. Best Buy later purchased the service, and then went on to sell it to Rhapsody on December 1, 2011.[1] In 2016, the original branding was restored when Rhapsody was renamed Napster. In 2022, the Napster streaming service was acquired by two Web3 companies, Hivemind and Algorand.[2] In March 2025, Napster was sold to Infinite Reality.[3]

Origin

Napster was founded by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker.[4] Initially, Napster was envisioned by Fanning as an independent peer-to-peer file sharing service. The service operated between June 1999 and July 2001.[5] Its technology enabled people to easily share their MP3 files with other participants.[6] Although the original service was shut down by court order, the Napster brand survived after the company's assets were liquidated and purchased by other companies through bankruptcy proceedings.[7]

History

Although there were already networks that facilitated the distribution of files across the Internet, such as IRC, Hotline, and Usenet, Napster specialized in MP3 files of music and had a user-friendly interface. At its peak, the Napster service had about 80 million registered users.[8] Napster made it relatively easy for music enthusiasts to download copies of songs that were otherwise difficult to obtain, such as older songs, unreleased recordings, studio recordings, and songs from concert bootleg recordings. Napster paved the way for streaming media services and transformed music into a public good for a brief time.

High-speed networks in college dormitories became overloaded, with as much as 61% of external network traffic consisting of MP3 file transfers.[9] Many colleges blocked its use for this reason,[10] even before concerns about liability for facilitating copyright violations on campus.

Macintosh version

The service and software program began as Windows-only. However, in 2000, Black Hole Media wrote a Macintosh client called Macster. Macster was later bought by Napster and designated the official Mac Napster client ("Napster for the Mac"), at which point the Macster name was discontinued.[11] Even before the acquisition of Macster, the Macintosh community had a variety of independently developed Napster clients. The most notable was the open source client called MacStar, released by Squirrel Software in early 2000, and Rapster, released by Overcaster Family in Brazil.[12] The release of MacStar's source code paved the way for third-party Napster clients across all computing platforms, giving users advertisement-free music distribution options.

A demo of the heavy metal band Metallica's song "I Disappear" had been circulating across the network before the song's official release. This led to it being played on several radio stations across the United States, which alerted Metallica to the presence of the leaked song, along with the fact that their entire back catalogue of studio material was also available on Napster. On April 13, 2000, they filed a lawsuit against Napster. A month later, rapper and producer Dr. Dre, who shared a litigator and legal firm with Metallica, filed a similar lawsuit after Napster refused his written request to remove his works from its service. Separately, Metallica and Dr. Dre later delivered to Napster thousands of usernames of people who they believed were pirating their songs. In March 2001, Napster settled both suits, after being shut down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a separate lawsuit from several major record labels (see below).[13] In 2000, Madonna's single "Music" was leaked out onto the web and Napster prior to its commercial release, causing widespread media coverage.[14] Verified Napster use peaked with 26.4 million users worldwide in February 2001.[15] In that same month, with a court-ordered interim shut-down imminent, Napster went public with a settlement proposal which would have paid the record labels $1 billion over the next five years, with the money coming through a subscription service.[16]

In 2000, the American musical recording company A&M Records along with several other recording companies, through the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), sued Napster (A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.) on grounds of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).[17] Napster was faced with the following allegations from the music industry:

  1. That its users were directly violating the plaintiffs' copyrights.
  2. That Napster was responsible for contributory infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights.
  3. That Napster was responsible for the vicarious infringement of the plaintiff's copyrights.

Napster lost the case in the District Court but then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Although it was clear that Napster could have commercially significant non-infringing uses, the Ninth Circuit upheld the District Court's decision. Immediately after, the District Court commanded Napster to keep track of the activities of its network and to restrict access to infringing material when informed of that material's location. Napster wasn't able to comply and thus had to close down its service in July 2001. In 2002, Napster announced that it had filed for bankruptcy and sold its assets to a third party.[18] In a 2018 Rolling Stone article, Kirk Hammett of Metallica upheld the band's opinion that suing Napster was the "right" thing to do.[19]

Promotional power

File:Napster Unique Users.svg

Along with the accusations that Napster was hurting the sales of the record industry, some felt just the opposite, that file trading on Napster stimulated, rather than hurt, sales. Some evidence may have come in July 2000 when tracks from English rock band Radiohead's album Kid A found their way to Napster three weeks before the album's release. Unlike Madonna, Dr. Dre, or Metallica, Radiohead had never hit the top 20 in the US. Furthermore, Kid A was an album without any singles released, and received relatively little radio airplay. By the time of the album's release, the album was estimated to have been downloaded for free by millions of people worldwide, and in October 2000 Kid A captured the number one spot on the Billboard 200 sales chart in its debut week. According to Richard Menta of MP3 Newswire,[20] the effect of Napster in this instance was isolated from other elements that could be credited for driving sales, and the album's unexpected success suggested that Napster was a good promotional tool for music.

Since 2000, many musical artists, particularly those not signed to major labels and without access to traditional mass media outlets such as radio and television, have said that Napster and successive Internet file-sharing networks have helped get their music heard, spread word of mouth, and may have improved their sales in the long term. One such musician to publicly defend Napster as a promotional tool for independent artists was DJ Xealot, who became directly involved in the 2000 A&M Records Lawsuit.[21] Chuck D from Public Enemy also came out and publicly supported Napster.[22]

Lawsuit

Napster's facilitation of the transfer of copyrighted material was objected to by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which filed a lawsuit against the service on December 6, 1999.[23] The legal action, while intended to shut down the service, brought it a great deal of publicity and an influx of millions of new users, many of whom were college students. After a failed appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, an injunction was issued on March 5, 2001, ordering Napster to prevent the trading of copyrighted music on its network.[24]

Lawrence Lessig claimed, however, that this decision made little sense from the perspective of copyright protection: "When Napster told the district court that it had developed a technology to block the transfer of 99.4 percent of identified infringing material, the district court told counsel for Napster 99.4 percent was not good enough. Napster had to push the infringements 'down to zero.' If 99.4 percent is not good enough," Lessig concluded, "then this is a war on file-sharing technologies, not a war on copyright infringement."[25]

Shutdown

On July 11, 2001, Napster shut down its entire network to comply with the injunction. One week later, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily overturned the order from the week before and allowed Napster to resume operations, due to Napster saying it could block all but a tiny fraction of unauthorized song-swapping.[26] On September 24, 2001, the case was partially settled. Napster agreed to pay music creators and copyright owners a $26 million settlement for past, unauthorized uses of music, and as an advance against future licensing royalties of $10 million. To pay those fees, Napster attempted to convert its free service into a subscription system, and thus traffic to Napster was reduced. A prototype solution was tested in 2002: the Napster 3.0 Alpha, using the ".nap" secure file format from PlayMedia Systems[27] and audio fingerprinting technology licensed from Relatable. Napster 3.0 was, according to many former Napster employees, ready to deploy, but it had significant trouble obtaining licenses to distribute major-label music. On May 17, 2002, Napster announced that its assets would be acquired by German media firm Bertelsmann for $85 million to transform Napster into an online music subscription service. The two companies had been collaborating since the middle of 2000[28] when Bertelsmann became the first major label to drop its copyright lawsuit against Napster.[29] Pursuant to the terms of the acquisition agreement, on June 3 Napster filed for Chapter 11 protection under United States bankruptcy laws. On September 3, 2002, an American bankruptcy judge blocked the sale to Bertelsmann and forced Napster to liquidate its assets.[7]

Reuse of name

Napster's brand and logos were acquired at a bankruptcy auction by Roxio which used them to re-brand the Pressplay music service as Napster 2.0. In September 2008, Napster was purchased by US electronics retailer Best Buy for US$121 million.[30] On December 1, 2011, pursuant to a deal with Best Buy, Napster merged with Rhapsody, with Best Buy receiving a minority stake in Rhapsody.[31] On July 14, 2016, Rhapsody phased out the Rhapsody brand in favor of Napster and has since branded its service internationally as Napster[32] and expanded toward other markets by providing music on-demand as a service to other brands[33] like the iHeartRadio app and their All Access music subscription service that provides subscribers with an on-demand music experience as well as premium radio.[34]

On August 25, 2020, Napster was sold to virtual reality concerts company MelodyVR.[35]

On May 10, 2022, Napster was sold to Hivemind and Algorand. The investor consortium also includes ATC Management, BH Digital, G20 Ventures, SkyBridge, RSE Ventures, Arrington Capital, Borderless Capital, and others.[36][37]

On March 25, 2025, Napster was sold for $207 million to Infinite Reality, a technology and entertainment company specializing on digital media and artificial intelligence.[3]

  • There have been several books that document the experiences of people working at Napster, including:
    • Joseph Menn's All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster[38]
    • John Alderman's Sonic Boom: Napster, MP3, and the New Pioneers of Music[39]
    • Steve Knopper's Appetite for Self Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age.[40]
  • The 2003 film The Italian Job features Napster co-founder Shawn Fanning in a cameo as himself. This gave credence to one character's fictional back-story as the original "Napster".[41]
  • The 2003 episode of South Park "Christian Rock Hard" satirizes the law suits against Napster.
  • The 2010 film The Social Network features Napster co-founder Sean Parker (played by Justin Timberlake) in the rise of the popular website Facebook.[42]
  • The 2013 film Downloaded is a documentary about sharing media on the Internet and includes the history of Napster.
  • The 2024 film How Music Got Free, a documentary based on the non-fiction book How Music Got Free mentions file sharing on the Internet with mentions of Napster and other applications.

See also

Further reading

  • Carlsson, Bengt; Gustavsson, Rune (2001). "The Rise and Fall of Napster – An Evolutionary Approach". Proceedings of the 6th International Computer Science Conference on Active Media Technology. 
  • Giesler, Markus; Pohlmann, Mali (2003). "The Social Form of Napster: Cultivating the Paradox of Consumer Emancipation". Advances in Consumer Research. 
  • Giesler, Markus; Pohlmann, Mali (2003). "The Anthropology of File Sharing: Consuming Napster as a Gift". Advances in Consumer Research. 
  • Giesler, Markus (2006). "Consumer Gift Systems". Journal of Consumer Research 33 (2): 283–290. doi:10.1086/506309. 
  • Green, Matthew (2002). "Napster Opens Pandora's Box: Examining How File-Sharing Services Threaten the Enforcement of Copyright on the Internet". Ohio State Law Journal 63: 799. 
  • InsightExpress. 2000. Napster and its Users Not violating Copyright Infringement Laws, According to a Survey of the Online Community.
  • Ku, Raymond Shih Ray (2001). "The Creative Destruction of Copyright: Napster and the New Economics of Digital Technology". University of Chicago Law Review. doi:10.2139/ssrn.266964. http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5128&context=uclrev. 
  • McCourt, Tom; Burkart, Patrick (2003). "When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution". Media, Culture & Society 25 (3): 333–350. doi:10.1177/0163443703025003003. 
  • Orbach, Barak (2008). "Indirect Free Riding on the Wheels of Commerce: Dual-Use Technologies and Copyright Liability". Emory Law Journal 57: 409–461. 
  • Abramson, Bruce (2005). Digital Phoenix; Why the Information Economy Collapsed and How it Will Rise Again. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51196-4. https://archive.org/details/digitalphoenixwh00abra. 
  • Judge criticises both parties in Napster case
  • "The File Sharing Movement" in Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, Who Controls the Internet: Illusions of a Borderless World Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 105–125. ISBN 978-0-19-515266-1

References

  1. ↑ Sisario, Ben (2011-10-03). "Rhapsody to Acquire Napster in Deal With Best Buy". Mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com. United States. https://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/03/rhapsody-to-acquire-napster-in-deal-with-best-buy/. 
  2. ↑ Vincent, James (2022-05-18). "Napster joins Limewire and Winamp by jumping on the web3 bandwagon" (in en). https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/18/23122179/napster-web3-bought-hivemind-algorand. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 "Infinite Reality Acquires Iconic Music Service Napster". March 25, 2025. https://www.theinfinitereality.com/news/infinite-reality-acquires-iconic-music-service-napster. 
  4. ↑ Name inspired by Shawn's high school nickname "Nappy" for his signature afro.
  5. ↑ "Napster's High and Low Notes". Businessweek. August 14, 2000. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2000-08-14/napsters-high-and-low-notes. 
  6. ↑ *Giesler, Markus (2006). "Consumer Gift Systems". Journal of Consumer Research 33 (2): 283–290. doi:10.1086/506309. 
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Evangelista, Benny (September 4, 2002). "Napster runs out of lives – judge rules against sale". San Francisco Chronicle. https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Napster-runs-out-of-lives-judge-rules-against-2774278.php. 
  8. ↑ Gowan, Michael (2002-05-18). "Requiem for Napster". Pcworld.com. https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/22380/requiem_napster/. 
  9. ↑ Fusco, Patricia (March 13, 2000). "The Napster Nightmare". ISP-Planet. http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/napster.html. 
  10. ↑ Anderson, Kevin (September 26, 2000). "Napster expelled by universities". BBC News. https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/942090.stm. 
  11. ↑ "Official Napster Client For Mac OS, OS X -- The Mac Observer". macobserver.com. https://www.macobserver.com/article/2000/10/25.2.shtml. 
  12. ↑ Moore, Charles W.. "Eight MP3 Players For The Macintosh". Applelinks. http://www.applelinks.com/mooresviews/players.shtml. 
  13. ↑ Giesler, Markus (2008). "Conflict and Compromise: Drama in Marketplace Evolution". Journal of Consumer Research 34 (6): 739–753. doi:10.1086/522098. http://visionarymarketing.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/giesler2007jcr.pdf. Retrieved 2017-10-25. 
  14. ↑ Borland, John (June 1, 2000). "Unreleased Madonna Single Slips On To Net". CNET News.com. http://news.com/2100-1023-241341.html?legacy=cnet. 
  15. ↑ "Global Napster Usage Plummets, But new File-Sharing Alternatives Gaining Ground, Reports Jupiter Media Metrix" (Press release). comScore. 2001-07-20. Archived from the original on 2008-04-13. Retrieved April 26, 2014.
  16. ↑ "Napster to charge up to $10 a month". February 21, 2001. http://www.jamshowbiz.com/JamNapster/feb21_napster-can.html#coverage. 
  17. ↑ 17 U.S.C. A&M Records. Inc. v. Napster. Inc. 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N. D. Cal. 2000).
  18. ↑ .A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001). For a summary and analysis, see Guy Douglas, Copyright and Peer-To-Peer Music File Sharing: The Napster Case and the Argument Against Legislative Reform
  19. ↑ "Metallica's Kirk Hammett: 'We're Still Right' About Suing Napster". Rolling Stone. 2018-05-14. https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/metallicas-kirk-hammett-were-still-right-about-suing-napster-630185/. Retrieved 16 October 2019. 
  20. ↑ Menta, Richard (October 28, 2000). "Did Napster Take Radiohead's New Album to Number 1?". MP3 Newswire. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2000/radiohead.html. 
  21. ↑ "Case Nos. C 99-5183 and C 00-0074 MHP (ADR)". FindLaw.com. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/napster/napster/dec_xeal.pdf. 
  22. ↑ "Rapper Chuck D throws weight behind Napster". Cnet News. May 1, 2000. http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239917.html. 
  23. ↑ *A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Cal. 2000) , aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)
  24. ↑ 2001 US Dist. LEXIS 2186 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2001), aff’d, 284 F. 3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002).
  25. ↑ Lessig, Lawrence (2004). Free Culture: The Nature and Future of Creativity. Penguin. pp. 73–74. ISBN 978-0-14-303465-0. 
  26. ↑ "Appeals Court says Napster can go back online". Associated Press. July 18, 2001. http://www.jamshowbiz.com/JamNapster/jul18_napster-ap.html. 
  27. ↑ "Napster to ditch MP3 for proprietary format". theregister.co.uk. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/07/23/napster_to_ditch_mp3/. 
  28. ↑ "Bertelsmann to buy Napster for a song". https://www.cnet.com/news/bertelsmann-to-buy-napster-for-a-song/. 
  29. ↑ Teather, David (2000-11-01). "Napster wins a new friend" (in en-GB). The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2000/nov/01/internetnews.business. 
  30. ↑ Skillings (September 15, 2008). "Best Buy nabs Napster for $121 million". cnet.com. CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/best-buy-nabs-napster-for-121-million/. 
  31. ↑ "Today is Napster's last day of existence". CNN. November 30, 2011. https://money.cnn.com/2011/11/30/technology/napster_rhapsody/?source=cnn_bin. 
  32. ↑ "We Are Napster". Napster Team. July 14, 2016. http://blog.napster.com/2016/07/14/wearenapster. 
  33. ↑ "Services | Napster". https://business.napster.com/services. 
  34. ↑ "Press Releases" (in en). https://www.iheartmedia.com/press/iheartmedia-officially-launches-its-interactive-demand-radio-services-iheartradio-plus-and. 
  35. ↑ "Napster Sold to Virtual Reality Concert App MelodyVR for $70 Million". Billboard. 2020-08-25. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/9439418/napster-melodyvr-sale-price-details. Retrieved 2020-08-26. 
  36. ↑ "Hivemind and Algorand today announced the acquisition of Napster, to once again revolutionize the music industry by bringing blockchain and Web3 to artists and fans.". Linkedin. 2022-05-10. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/napster_hivemind-and-algorand-today-announced-the-activity-6929792306673815553-bbeZ. Retrieved 2022-05-10. 
  37. ↑ "Breaking: @HivemindCap and @Algorand today announced the acquisition of @Napster , to once again revolutionize the music industry by bringing blockchain and Web3 to artists and fans. Music industry veteran Emmy Lovell has been named interim CEO.". Twitter. 2022-05-10. https://twitter.com/HivemindCap/status/1524027670941556739. Retrieved 2022-05-10. 
  38. ↑ Menn, Joseph (2003). "All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster". Crown Business. ISBN 0609610937. 
  39. ↑ John Alderman (August 8, 2001). Sonic boom: Napster, MP3, and the new pioneers of music. Perseus Pub.. ISBN 978-0-7382-0405-5. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780738204055. Retrieved January 29, 2011. 
  40. ↑ Napster wounds the giant : Music . The Rocky Mountain News (January 5, 2009). Retrieved on January 29, 2011.
  41. ↑ "Information Security News: Napster founder has cameo role in 'Italian Job'". http://seclists.org/isn/2003/Jun/46. 
  42. ↑ Kirkpatrick, David. With a Little Help From His Friends . Vanity Fair. October 2010.
Short description: Practice of distributing or providing access to digitally stored information
Part of a series on
File sharing
Technologies
Video sharing sites
BitTorrent sites
Academic/scholarly
File sharing networks
P2P clients
Streaming programs
Anonymous file sharing
Development and societal aspects
By country or region
Comparisons

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia (audio, images and video), documents or electronic books. Common methods of storage, transmission and dispersion include removable media, centralized servers on computer networks, Internet-based hyperlinked documents, and the use of distributed peer-to-peer networking.

File sharing technologies, such as BitTorrent, are integral to modern media piracy, as well as the sharing of scientific data and other free content.

History

For a chronological guide to this subject, see Timeline of Napster.

Files were first exchanged on removable media. Computers were able to access remote files using filesystem mounting, bulletin board systems (1978), Usenet (1979), and FTP servers (1970's). Internet Relay Chat (1988) and Hotline (1997) enabled users to communicate remotely through chat and to exchange files. The mp3 encoding, which was standardized in 1991 and substantially reduced the size of audio files, grew to widespread use in the late 1990s. In 1998, MP3.com and Audiogalaxy were established, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act was unanimously passed, and the first mp3 player devices were launched.[1]

In June 1999, Napster was released as an unstructured centralized peer-to-peer system,[2] requiring a central server for indexing and peer discovery. It is generally credited as being the first peer-to-peer file sharing system. In December 1999, Napster was sued by several recording companies and lost in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc..[3] In the case of Napster, it has been ruled that an online service provider could not use the "transitory network transmission" safe harbor in the DMCA if they had control of the network with a server.[4]

Gnutella, eDonkey2000, and Freenet were released in 2000, as MP3.com and Napster were facing litigation. Gnutella, released in March, was the first decentralized file-sharing network. In the Gnutella network, all connecting software was considered equal, and therefore the network had no central point of failure. In July, Freenet was released and became the first anonymity network. In September the eDonkey2000 client and server software was released.[citation needed]

In March 2001, Kazaa was released. Its FastTrack network was distributed, though, unlike Gnutella, it assigned more traffic to 'supernodes' to increase routing efficiency. The network was proprietary and encrypted, and the Kazaa team made substantial efforts to keep other clients such as Morpheus off of the FastTrack network.[citation needed] In October 2001, the MPAA and the RIAA filed a lawsuit against the developers of Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster[5][6] that would lead to the US Supreme Court's MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. decision in 2005.

Shortly after its loss in court, Napster was shut down to comply with a court order. This drove users to other P2P applications and file sharing continued its growth.[7] The Audiogalaxy Satellite client grew in popularity, and the LimeWire client and BitTorrent protocol were released. Until its decline in 2004, Kazaa was the most popular file-sharing program despite bundled malware and legal battles in the Netherlands, Australia, and the United States. In 2002, a Tokyo district court ruling shut down File Rogue, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit that effectively shut down Audiogalaxy.

Demonstrators protesting The Pirate Bay raid in 2006

From 2002 through 2003, a number of BitTorrent services were established, including Suprnova.org, isoHunt, TorrentSpy, and The Pirate Bay. In September 2003, the RIAA began filing lawsuits against users of P2P file sharing networks such as Kazaa.[8] As a result of such lawsuits, many universities added file sharing regulations in their school administrative codes (though some students managed to circumvent them during after school hours). Also in 2003, the MPAA started to take action against BitTorrent sites, leading to the shutdown of Torrentse and Sharelive in July 2003.[9] With the shutdown of eDonkey in 2005, eMule became the dominant client of the eDonkey network. In 2006, police raids took down the Razorback2 eDonkey server and temporarily took down The Pirate Bay.[10]

"The File Sharing Act was launched by Chairman Towns in 2009, this act prohibited the use of applications that allowed individuals to share federal information amongst one another. On the other hand, only specific file sharing applications were made available to federal computers" (the United States.Congress.House). In 2009, the Pirate Bay trial ended in a guilty verdict for the primary founders of the tracker. The decision was appealed, leading to a second guilty verdict in November 2010. In October 2010, Limewire was forced to shut down following a court order in Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC but the Gnutella network remains active through open source clients like FrostWire and gtk-gnutella. Furthermore, multi-protocol file-sharing software such as MLDonkey and Shareaza adapted to support all the major file-sharing protocols, so users no longer had to install and configure multiple file-sharing programs.[citation needed]

On January 19, 2012, the United States Department of Justice shut down the popular domain of Megaupload (established 2005). The file sharing site has claimed to have over 50,000,000 people a day.[11] Kim Dotcom (formerly Kim Schmitz) was arrested with three associates in New Zealand on January 20, 2012 and is awaiting extradition.[12][13] The case involving the downfall of the world's largest and most popular file sharing site was not well received, with hacker group Anonymous bringing down several sites associated with the take-down.[11] In the following days, other file sharing sites began to cease services; FileSonic blocked public downloads on January 22,[14] with Fileserve following suit on January 23.[15]

In 2021 a European Citizens' Initiative "Freedom to Share" started collecting signatures in order to get the European Commission to discuss (and eventually make rules) on this subject, which is controversial.[16]

Techniques used for video sharing

From the early 2000s until the mid 2010s, online video streaming was usually based on the Adobe Flash Player. After more and more vulnerabilities in Adobe's flash became known, YouTube switched to HTML5 based video playback in January 2015.[17]

Types

Peer-to-peer file sharing

Peer-to-peer file sharing is based on the peer-to-peer (P2P) application architecture. Shared files on the computers of other users are indexed on directory servers. P2P technology was used by popular services like Napster and LimeWire. The most popular protocol for P2P sharing is BitTorrent.

File sync and sharing services

Screenshot of an open-source file-sharing software Shareaza

Cloud-based file syncing and sharing services implement automated file transfers by updating files from a dedicated sharing directory on each user's networked devices. Files placed in this folder also are typically accessible through a website and mobile app and can be easily shared with other users for viewing or collaboration. Such services have become popular via consumer-oriented file hosting services such as Dropbox and Google Drive. With the rising need of sharing big files online easily, new open access sharing platforms have appeared, adding even more services to their core business (cloud storage, multi-device synchronization, online collaboration), such as ShareFile, Tresorit, WeTransfer, or Hightail.

rsync is a more traditional program released in 1996 which synchronizes files on a direct machine-to-machine basis.

Data synchronization in general can use other approaches to share files, such as distributed file systems, version control, or mirrors.

Academic file sharing

In addition to file sharing for the purposes of entertainment, academic file sharing has become a topic of increasing concern,[18][19][20] as it is deemed to be a violation of academic integrity at many schools.[18][19][21] Academic file sharing by companies such as Chegg and Course Hero has become a point of particular controversy in recent years.[22] This has led some institutions to provide explicit guidance to students and faculty regarding academic integrity expectations relating to academic file sharing.[23][24]

Public opinion of file sharing

In 2004, there were an estimated 70 million people participating in online file sharing.[25] According to a CBS News poll in 2009, 58% of United States who follow the file-sharing issue, considered it acceptable "if a person owns the music CD and shares it with a limited number of friends and acquaintances"; with 18- to 29-year-olds, this percentage reached as much as 70%.[26]

In his survey of file-sharing culture, Caraway (2012) noted that 74.4% of participants believed musicians should accept file sharing as a means for promotion and distribution.[27] This file-sharing culture was termed as cyber socialism, whose legalisation was not the expected cyber-utopia.[clarification needed].[28][29]

Economic impact

According to David Glenn, writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, "A majority of economic studies have concluded that file-sharing hurts sales".[30] A literature review by Professor Peter Tschmuck found 22 independent studies on the effects of music file sharing. "Of these 22 studies, 14 – roughly two-thirds – conclude that unauthorized downloads have a 'negative or even highly negative impact' on recorded music sales. Three of the studies found no significant impact while the remaining five found a positive impact."[31][32]

A study by economists Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf in 2004 concluded that music file sharing's effect on sales was "statistically indistinguishable from zero".[33][34] This research was disputed by other economists, most notably Stan Liebowitz, who said Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had made multiple assumptions about the music industry "that are just not correct."[33][35] In June 2010, Billboard reported that Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf had "changed their minds", now finding "no more than 20% of the recent decline in sales is due to sharing".[36] However, citing Nielsen SoundScan as their source, the co-authors maintained that illegal downloading had not deterred people from being original. "In many creative industries, monetary incentives play a reduced role in motivating authors to remain creative. Data on the supply of new works are consistent with the argument that file-sharing did not discourage authors and publishers. Since the advent of file sharing, the production of music, books, and movies has increased sharply."[37] Glenn Peoples of Billboard disputed the underlying data, saying "SoundScan's number for new releases in any given year represents new commercial titles, not necessarily new creative works."[38] The RIAA likewise responded that "new releases" and "new creative works" are two separate things. "[T]his figure includes re-releases, new compilations of existing songs, and new digital-only versions of catalog albums. SoundScan has also steadily increased the number of retailers (especially non-traditional retailers) in their sample over the years, better capturing the number of new releases brought to market. What Oberholzer and Strumpf found was better ability to track new album releases, not greater incentive to create them."[39]

A 2006 study prepared by Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz, published by Industry Canada, was "unable to discover any direct relationship between P2P file-sharing and CD purchases in Canada".[40] The results of this survey were similarly criticized by academics and a subsequent revaluation of the same data by George R. Barker of the Australian National University reached the opposite conclusion.[41] "In total, 75% of P2P downloaders responded that if P2P were not available they would have purchased either through paid sites only (9%), CDs only (17%) or through CDs and pay sites (49%). Only 25% of people say they would not have bought the music if it were not available on P2P for free." Barker thus concludes; "This clearly suggests P2P network availability is reducing music demand of 75% of music downloaders which is quite contrary to Andersen and Frenz's much published claim."[42]

According to the 2017 paper "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU" by the European Commission, illegal usage increases game sales, stating "The overall conclusion is that for games, illegal online transactions induce more legal transactions."[43]

Market dominance

A paper in the journal Management Science found that file-sharing decreased the chance of survival for low ranked albums on music charts and increased exposure to albums that were ranked high on the music charts, allowing popular and well-known artists to remain on the music charts more often. This hurt new and less-known artists while promoting the work of already popular artists and celebrities.[44]

A more recent study that examined pre-release file-sharing of music albums, using BitTorrent software, also discovered positive impacts for "established and popular artists but not newer and smaller artists." According to Robert G. Hammond of North Carolina State University, an album that leaked one month early would see a modest increase in sales. "This increase in sales is small relative to other factors that have been found to affect album sales."

"File-sharing proponents commonly argue that file-sharing democratizes music consumption by 'levelling the playing field' for new/small artists relative to established/popular artists, by allowing artists to have their work heard by a wider audience, lessening the advantage held by established/popular artists in terms of promotional and other support. My results suggest that the opposite is happening, which is consistent with evidence on file-sharing behaviour."[45]

Billboard cautioned that this research looked only at the pre-release period and not continuous file sharing following a release date. "The problem in believing piracy helps sales is deciding where to draw the line between legal and illegal ... Implicit in the study is the fact that both buyers and sellers are required in order for pre-release file sharing to have a positive impact on album sales. Without iTunes, Amazon, and Best Buy, file-sharers would be just file sharers rather than purchasers. If you carry out the 'file-sharing should be legal' argument to its logical conclusion, today's retailers will be tomorrow's file-sharing services that integrate with their respective cloud storage services."[46]

Availability

Many argue that file-sharing has forced the owners of entertainment content to make it more widely available legally through fees or advertising on-demand on the internet. In a 2011 report by Sandvine showed that Netflix traffic had come to surpass that of BitTorrent.[47]

Main article: Legal aspects of file sharing

File sharing raises copyright issues and has led to many lawsuits. In the United States , some of these lawsuits have even reached the Supreme Court. For example, in MGM v. Grokster, the Supreme Court ruled that the creators of P2P networks can be held liable if their software is marketed as a tool for copyright infringement.

On the other hand, not all file sharing is illegal. Content in the public domain can be freely shared. Even works covered by copyright can be shared under certain circumstances. For example, some artists, publishers, and record labels grant the public a license for unlimited distribution of certain works, sometimes with conditions, and they advocate free content and file sharing as a promotional tool.[48]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Adner, Ron (2012-03-05). "From Walkman to iPod: What Music Tech Teaches Us About Innovation" (in en). https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/from-walkman-to-ipod-what-music-tech-teaches-us-about-innovation/253158/. 
  2. ↑ Elser, Amy (March 25, 2005). Reliable distributed systems: technologies, Web services, and applications - Kenneth P. Birman - Google Books. Springer. ISBN 9780387215099. https://books.google.com/books?id=KeIENcC2BPwC&q=napster+first&pg=PA532. Retrieved January 20, 2012. 
  3. ↑ Menta, Richard (December 9, 1999). "RIAA Sues Music Startup Napster for $20 Billion". MP3 Newswire. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/napster.html. 
  4. ↑ "EFF: What Peer-to-Peer Developers Need to Know about Copyright Law". W2.eff.org. http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/p2p_copyright_wp.php. 
  5. ↑ Woody, Todd (February 1, 2003). "The Race to Kill Kazaa". Wired. https://www.wired.com/2003/02/kazaa/. 
  6. ↑ Menta, Richard (October 3, 2001). "RIAA and MPAA sue Morpheus, Grokster and KaZaa". MP3 Newswire. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/sue_morpheus.html. 
  7. ↑ Menta, Richard (July 20, 2001). "Napster Clones Crush Napster. Take 6 out of the Top 10 Downloads on CNet". MP3 Newswire. http://www.mp3newswire.net/stories/2001/topclones.html. 
  8. ↑ Dean, Katie (September 8, 2003). "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins". Wired. https://www.wired.com/2003/09/riaa-legal-landslide-begins/. Retrieved November 1, 2019. 
  9. ↑ Röttgers, Janko (July 26, 2003). "Bittorrent-Webseiten unter Druck" (in de). heise online. https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Bittorrent-Webseiten-unter-Druck-82795.html. 
  10. ↑ Motion Picture Association. "BELGIAN & SWISS AUTHORITIES BREAK RAZORBACK2: World’s Largest P2P Facilitator Put Out of Illegal Business". https://web.archive.org/web/20060415024031/http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_02_21_razer.pdf. 
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 Mufson, Steven (January 20, 2012). "Department of Justice site hacked after Megaupload shutdown, Anonymous claims credit. Washington Post". Washingtonpost.com. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/department-of-justice-site-hacked-after-megaupload-shutdown-anonymous-claims-credit/2012/01/20/gIQAl5MNEQ_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop. 
  12. ↑ Schneider, Joe (January 24, 2012). "Megaupload's Dotcom in Custody as New Zealand Awaits Extradition Request, Bloomberg". Bloomberg.com. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-24/megaupload-s-dotcom-in-custody-as-new-zealand-awaits-extradition-request.html. 
  13. ↑ Leask, Anna (23 January 2012). "Dotcom in custody ahead of bail decision". The New Zealand Herald. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10780553. 
  14. ↑ Musil, Steven. "FileSonic disables file sharing in wake of MegaUpload arrests". CNET. https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/filesonic-disables-file-sharing-in-wake-of-megaupload-arrests/. 
  15. ↑ Lanxon, Nate. "Filesonic, Fileserve pull file-sharing services following Megaupload arrests". Condé Nast Britain. https://www.wired.co.uk/article/filesonic-file-sharing-offline. 
  16. ↑ Ernesto Van der Sar (2020-12-17). ""Freedom to Share" Launches EU Citizens' Initiative to Legalize File-Sharing". https://torrentfreak.com/freedom-to-share-launches-eu-citizens-initiative-to-legalize-filesharing-201217/. 
  17. ↑ McCormick, Rich (2015-01-27). "YouTube drops Flash for HTML5 video as default" (in en). https://www.theverge.com/2015/1/27/7926001/youtube-drops-flash-for-html5-video-default. 
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Rogerson, A.M. (2014). Detecting the work of essay mills and file swapping sites: some clues they leave behind. Semantic Scholar. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Rogerson, A.M.; Basanta, G. (5 February 2016). "Peer-to-Peer File Sharing and Academic Integrity in the Internet Age". Handbook of Academic Integrity. Springer Nature. pp. 273–285. doi:10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55. ISBN 978-981-287-098-8. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-981-287-098-8_55. Retrieved 13 December 2023. 
  20. ↑ Eaton, S.E. (12 July 2020). "Academic Integrity During COVID-19: Reflections From the University of Calgary". International Studies in Educational Administration (Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management) 48 (1): 80–85. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/items/3817c241-3d4b-433e-b424-e955e81c0b48. Retrieved 13 December 2023. 
  21. ↑ Butler, J. (15 April 2020). "Arts & Sciences investigates Physics 192 academic integrity breach". Washington University Student Media, Inc.. https://www.studlife.com/news/2020/04/15/arts-sciences-investigates-physics-192-academic-integrity-breach. 
  22. ↑ McKenzie, L. (13 May 2018). "Learning Tool or Cheating Aid?". Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/14/professors-warned-about-popular-learning-tool-used-students-cheat. 
  23. ↑ "Information for Faculty: Note-sharing sites". Sheridan College. https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/ld.php?content_id=34999338. 
  24. ↑ "Copyright for Students". Sheridan College. 30 July 2023. https://sheridancollege.libguides.com/copyright_students/home. 
  25. ↑ Delgado, Ray (March 17, 2004). "Law professors examine ethical controversies of peer-to-peer file sharing". Stanford Report. Stanford University. http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/march17/fileshare-317.html. 
  26. ↑ "Poll: Young Say File Sharing OK". CBS News. February 11, 2009. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/18/opinion/polls/main573990.shtml. 
  27. ↑ Caraway, Brett Robert (2012). "Survey of File-Sharing Culture". USC Annenberg Press, Creative Commons license (by-nc-nd). http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/1216/720. 
  28. ↑ Filby, Michael (2011). "Regulating File Sharing: Open Regulations for an Open Internet". Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology 6: 207. https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals%2Fjcolate6&div=24&id=&page=. Retrieved 28 December 2021. 
  29. ↑ Filby, Michael (1 January 2008). "Together in electric dreams: cyber socialism, utopia and the creative commons". International Journal of Private Law 1 (1–2): 94–109. doi:10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435. ISSN 1753-6235. https://www.inderscienceonline.com/doi/abs/10.1504/IJPL.2008.019435. Retrieved 28 December 2021. 
  30. ↑ Glenn, David (July 17, 2008). "Dispute Over the Economics of File Sharing Intensifies". The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, D. C.). https://www.chronicle.com/article/dispute-over-the-economics-of-file-sharing-intensifies-989/. 
  31. ↑ Hart, Terry. More Evidence for Copyright Protection , copyhype.com, February 1, 2012. "The literature review looked at a 23rd study but did not classify it here since the author presented a mixed conclusion: the overall effect of unauthorized downloads is insignificant, but for unknown artists, there is a 'strongly negative' effect on recorded music sales."
  32. ↑ AJ Sokolov, Daniel . Wissenschaftler: Studien über Tauschbörsen unbrauchbar , c't magazine, June 11, 2010.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 Levine, Robert. Free Ride: How the Internet Is Destroying the Culture Business and How the Culture Business Can Fight Back, Bodley Head, February 2011, ISBN 1847921485.
  34. ↑ Oberholzer, Felix; Koleman Strumpf. "The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis". http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf. 
  35. ↑ Liebowitz, Stan J. (23 September 2007). "How Reliable is the Oberholzer-Gee and Strumpf Paper on File-Sharing?". Intellectual Property: Copyright Law eJournal (ResearchGate GmbH). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1014399. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228172429. Retrieved 13 December 2023. 
  36. ↑ Peoples, Glenn. Researchers Change Tune, Now Say P2P Has Negative Impact Billboard. June 22, 2010.
  37. ↑ Oberholzer & Strumpf. "File Sharing and Copyright" NBER Innovation Policy & the Economy, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2010. "Artists receive a significant portion of their remuneration not in monetary form – many of them enjoy fame, admiration, social status, and free beer in bars – suggesting a reduction in monetary incentives might possibly have a reduced impact on the quantity and quality of artistic production."
  38. ↑ Peoples, Glenn. Analysis: Are Musicians Losing the Incentive to Create? Billboard. July 26, 2010.
  39. ↑ Friedlander, Joshua P. & Lamy, Jonathan. Illegal Downloading = Fewer Musicians ifpi.org, July 19, 2010.
  40. ↑ The Impact of Music Downloads and P2P File-Sharing on the Purchase of Music: A Study for Industry Canada , Birgitte Andersen and Marion Frenz
  41. ↑ Peoples, Glenn. A New Look at an Old Survey Finds P2P Hurts Music Purchases , Billboard. February 2, 2012.
  42. ↑ Barker, George R. Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs Social Science Research Network. January 23, 2012.
  43. ↑ "Estimating displacement rates of copyrighted content in the EU". https://cdn.netzpolitik.org/wp-upload/2017/09/displacement_study.pdf. 
  44. ↑ Bhattacharjee, Sudip., Gopal, Ram D., Lertwachara, Kaveepan. Marsden, James R. & Telang, Rahul. The Effect of Digital Sharing Technologies on Music Markets: A Survival Analysis of Albums on Ranking Charts Management Science 2007.
  45. ↑ Hammond. Robert G. "Profit Leak? Pre-Release File Sharing and the Music Industry " May 2012. File sharing benefits mainstream albums such as pop music but not albums in niche genres such as indie music. ... Further, the finding that file sharing redistributes sales toward established/popular artists is inconsistent with claims made by proponents of file sharing that file-sharing democratizes music consumption."
  46. ↑ Peoples, Glenn. Business Matters: Pre-release File Sharing Helps Album Sales, Says a Study. So Why Not Replicate This Legally? Billboard. May 22, 2012.
  47. ↑ Global Internet Phenomena Report - Spring 2011 Sandvine Global Internet Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. May 12, 2011
  48. ↑ Secure Federal File Sharing Act : Report (to Accompany H.r. 4098) (Including Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office).. United States.. March 11, 2010. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015085442476;view=1up;seq=1. Retrieved February 15, 2018. 
  49. ↑ Larrier, Travis (March 4, 2013). "Bilal Is the Future (And the Present ... And the Past)". The Shadow League. https://theshadowleague.com/bilal-is-the-future-and-the-present-and-the-past/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=c2ffa10bef1f424fb252543ee09315d038103bd2-1595252623-0-AQaQvFZEknRWDZtLz_-KpHpRYNhNqscHTfCHp6Tr8hduX5gs6uyAaQfef1hB3snODkYFwgSlXH9pQZS_OgmovWZg1dxWOfdv6KYaotwCiVhAfOA1NooyRIZBbQ7AuwrnezemOt0aOvC5JqXaUG-ixf6x0eEfcLz6_aB4mZaVUtX5eXwwFSBkfNJmBxG6In4wWiDOMJXhVyzdm_YyrRyUJNYEEsTZ9jXVjo4xZCyDtxOzub5oRn9F3uGLl4IYob_-oI06lSh6NUnbSSYC8SejeXAaDrJ45SThoPXWHhy2_qU8bC0XPFFKmGzELGJ4Di6R6VT6lqtMNIwnKTLQL7_EXDk. Retrieved July 20, 2020. 

Further reading





Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Software:Napster&oldid=3960657"