Case 2: Napster  Case 2: NapsterCopyright laws exist to protect authors’ and publishers’ rights, but also to balance that protection with access and innovation. In 1999, two teenagers created the file-sharing program Napster. Within its first year, the service surpassed 20 million users. Many Napster users shared music files with each other, but without any compensation to the artists and producers who made the music, sparking a series of legal battles over copyright and distribution. In 2001, an appellate panel upheld a previous ruling that Napster violated copyright laws, stating that, “Repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.”Artists were divided on the benefits and harms of Napster. Over 70 artists formed “Artists Against Piracy” in coalition with major record companies to combat the piracy occurring on Napster and other peer-to-peer internet services. In contrast, some established artists such as Neil Young saw piracy as the “new radio” and applauded the potential to reach larger audiences and drive additional sales through increased popularity. Seeing both the benefits and detriments of piracy, singer Norah Jones stated, “If people hear it I’m happy…it’s great that young people who don’t have a lot of money can listen to music and be exposed to new things… But I also understand it’s not ideal for the record industry, and a lot of young artists who won’t make any [money] off their album sales, but at least they can tour.”Although court rulings forced Napster to terminate its file-sharing business, Napster’s innovations stimulated payment-based services, such as iTunes, Pandora, and many others. But the availability of such services has not put an end to the debate surrounding artist compensation with digital music, as seen with Taylor Swift’s open letter to Apple in 2015. Swift’s albums, along with the music of many other artists, were going to be streamed at no cost to new Apple Music customers over the first three months of service without any compensation to the artists. In her open letter, Swift stated, “I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.” Within a few hours, Apple responded by changing the terms of its agreement in order to compensate artists at a reduced rate. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/digital-downloads Questions:1.  Artists generally agree that piracy causes financial harm, but some artists recognize that piracy creates exposure for the artist and access for the listener. Do you think the benefits of piracy outweigh the harms done? Why or why not?2. What would the utilitarian say about this case?3.  If we have covered Kant, what would Kant say about this case?  What is the morally correct actions from a Kantian perspective?4. If you illegally share a music file have you done anything immoral? Briefly defend your answer. Assignment Rubric: Case Write-UpAssignment Rubric: Case Write-UpCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClearly explains any plausible answer or gives an argument for what should be done. May include DEI issues.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrate an understanding of the ethical traditions in the case.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide clear arguments for defending or critiquing the views presented.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide premises and conclusions for all arguments.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 pts Free features N Outline $5 FREE N Revisions $30 FREE N Title Page $5 FREE N Bibliography $15 FREE N Formatting $10 FREE PLACE AN ORDER NOW Why Choose Us? N Satisfied and returning customers N A wide range of services N 6-hour delivery available N Money-back guarantee N 100% privacy guaranteed N Only custom-written papers N Free amendments upon request N Free extras by request N Constant access to your paper’s writer N A professional team of experienced paper writers N 10+ years of experience in the custom writing market MANAGE ORDERS We accept PLACE AN ORDER NOW

Case 2: Napster  Case 2: NapsterCopyright laws exist to protect authors’ and publishers’ rights, but also to balance that protection with access and innovation. In 1999, two teenagers created the file-sharing program Napster. Within its first year, the service surpassed 20 million users. Many Napster users shared music files with each other, but without any compensation to the artists and producers who made the music, sparking a series of legal battles over copyright and distribution. In 2001, an appellate panel upheld a previous ruling that Napster violated copyright laws, stating that, “Repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.”Artists were divided on the benefits and harms of Napster. Over 70 artists formed “Artists Against Piracy” in coalition with major record companies to combat the piracy occurring on Napster and other peer-to-peer internet services. In contrast, some established artists such as Neil Young saw piracy as the “new radio” and applauded the potential to reach larger audiences and drive additional sales through increased popularity. Seeing both the benefits and detriments of piracy, singer Norah Jones stated, “If people hear it I’m happy…it’s great that young people who don’t have a lot of money can listen to music and be exposed to new things… But I also understand it’s not ideal for the record industry, and a lot of young artists who won’t make any [money] off their album sales, but at least they can tour.”Although court rulings forced Napster to terminate its file-sharing business, Napster’s innovations stimulated payment-based services, such as iTunes, Pandora, and many others. But the availability of such services has not put an end to the debate surrounding artist compensation with digital music, as seen with Taylor Swift’s open letter to Apple in 2015. Swift’s albums, along with the music of many other artists, were going to be streamed at no cost to new Apple Music customers over the first three months of service without any compensation to the artists. In her open letter, Swift stated, “I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.” Within a few hours, Apple responded by changing the terms of its agreement in order to compensate artists at a reduced rate. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/digital-downloads Questions:1.  Artists generally agree that piracy causes financial harm, but some artists recognize that piracy creates exposure for the artist and access for the listener. Do you think the benefits of piracy outweigh the harms done? Why or why not?2. What would the utilitarian say about this case?3.  If we have covered Kant, what would Kant say about this case?  What is the morally correct actions from a Kantian perspective?4. If you illegally share a music file have you done anything immoral? Briefly defend your answer. Assignment Rubric: Case Write-UpAssignment Rubric: Case Write-UpCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClearly explains any plausible answer or gives an argument for what should be done. May include DEI issues.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrate an understanding of the ethical traditions in the case.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide clear arguments for defending or critiquing the views presented.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide premises and conclusions for all arguments.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 pts Free features N Outline $5 FREE N Revisions $30 FREE N Title Page $5 FREE N Bibliography $15 FREE N Formatting $10 FREE PLACE AN ORDER NOW Why Choose Us? N Satisfied and returning customers N A wide range of services N 6-hour delivery available N Money-back guarantee N 100% privacy guaranteed N Only custom-written papers N Free amendments upon request N Free extras by request N Constant access to your paper’s writer N A professional team of experienced paper writers N 10+ years of experience in the custom writing market MANAGE ORDERS We accept PLACE AN ORDER NOWQuestions Case 2: Napster  Case 2: NapsterCopyright laws exist to protect authors’ and publishers’ rights, but also to balance that protection with access and innovation. In 1999, two teenagers created the file-sharing program Napster. Within its first year, the service surpassed 20 million users. Many Napster users shared music files with each other, but without any compensation to the artists and producers who made the music, sparking a series of legal battles over copyright and distribution. In 2001, an appellate panel upheld a previous ruling that Napster violated copyright laws, stating that, “Repeated and exploitative unauthorized copies of copyrighted works were made to save the expense of purchasing authorized copies.”Artists were divided on the benefits and harms of Napster. Over 70 artists formed “Artists Against Piracy” in coalition with major record companies to combat the piracy occurring on Napster and other peer-to-peer internet services. In contrast, some established artists such as Neil Young saw piracy as the “new radio” and applauded the potential to reach larger audiences and drive additional sales through increased popularity. Seeing both the benefits and detriments of piracy, singer Norah Jones stated, “If people hear it I’m happy…it’s great that young people who don’t have a lot of money can listen to music and be exposed to new things… But I also understand it’s not ideal for the record industry, and a lot of young artists who won’t make any [money] off their album sales, but at least they can tour.”Although court rulings forced Napster to terminate its file-sharing business, Napster’s innovations stimulated payment-based services, such as iTunes, Pandora, and many others. But the availability of such services has not put an end to the debate surrounding artist compensation with digital music, as seen with Taylor Swift’s open letter to Apple in 2015. Swift’s albums, along with the music of many other artists, were going to be streamed at no cost to new Apple Music customers over the first three months of service without any compensation to the artists. In her open letter, Swift stated, “I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing, and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.” Within a few hours, Apple responded by changing the terms of its agreement in order to compensate artists at a reduced rate. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/digital-downloads Questions:1.  Artists generally agree that piracy causes financial harm, but some artists recognize that piracy creates exposure for the artist and access for the listener. Do you think the benefits of piracy outweigh the harms done? Why or why not?2. What would the utilitarian say about this case?3.  If we have covered Kant, what would Kant say about this case?  What is the morally correct actions from a Kantian perspective?4. If you illegally share a music file have you done anything immoral? Briefly defend your answer. Assignment Rubric: Case Write-UpAssignment Rubric: Case Write-UpCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeClearly explains any plausible answer or gives an argument for what should be done. May include DEI issues.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDemonstrate an understanding of the ethical traditions in the case.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide clear arguments for defending or critiquing the views presented.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProvide premises and conclusions for all arguments.2 ptsFull Marks0 ptsNo Marks2 pts Free features N Outline $5 FREE N Revisions $30 FREE N Title Page $5 FREE N Bibliography $15 FREE N Formatting $10 FREE PLACE AN ORDER NOW Why Choose Us? N Satisfied and returning customers N A wide range of services N 6-hour delivery available N Money-back guarantee N 100% privacy guaranteed N Only custom-written papers N Free amendments upon request N Free extras by request N Constant access to your paper’s writer N A professional team of experienced paper writers N 10+ years of experience in the custom writing market MANAGE ORDERS We accept PLACE AN ORDER NOW