Research Paper on:
FILE SHARING: WHY IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
the issue became divided. On the one hand, lovers of music pointed out that this actually helped recording artists, as it gave greater exposure to music. On the other were  legal issues, such as copyright infringement and intellectual property rules, not to mention the huge royalties that were being lost by artists and their producers as music wasnt bought, but  pirated. But Napster introduced something interesting to the common Internet user; the concept of file sharing. File sharing, also called "peer to  peer computing" (or P2P) allows users to log on to one anothers hard drives to download everything from music, to television clips, to movies.  But we agree that Napster should have been shut down and that all file sharing types of activities should be curtailed severely. The argument that people share CDs  and books all the time doesnt wash here. The Internet is a different animal, and as such, needs to be considered in a different light when it comes to file  sharing. Much of the argument against P2P centers around piracy -- as the recording industry, in 2001, when attempting to shut down  Napster, pointed out that such activities are unethical as "the action deprives record companies and artists of fair profits and royalties by allowing users to pirate material that has been  copyrighted" (Levin et al, 2004, 51). In other words, much in the same way that few people would go into a video store and steal a CD, "taking" music from  another persons hard drive is piracy. These days, Napster has been replaced by Grokster, with Grokster users also sharing music (much as