Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Program - Assignment Example

?Insert Introduction The advent of Napster, a peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program made music piracy more robust, easily perceptible and famous when it got online in June 1999. Even 2 years after being shut down, other versions of P2P got created, and thereby acting as a harbinger of widespread and universal music piracy movement. While common thought has it that P2P file sharing, like any other form of piracy comes with financial implications and the infringement of copyright laws, there are others such as Kal Raustilia and Chris Sprigman who hold a contrary opinion. Raustilia and Sprigman opine that, neither is it possible to quantify losses which emanate from online piracy, nor do losses really accost online piracy. Raustilia and Sprigman discount statistical provisions by proponents of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) who are poignant that the US economy forfeits at least 200 billion dollars and 750,000 US job vacancies every year. Raustilia and Sprigman argue that there is no lucidity in these figures, since the job vacancy figures double the number of employees who got enrolled in the filming industry in 2010. Raustilia and Sprigman also quote Tim Lee who argues that it is not unusual for statistics to be punctuated with estimations, double and triple counting. The same duo continues that at times, piracy can substitute for legitimate transactions, and may therefore not be bad. The same also contend that piracy may also trigger the saving of more money, and the economic relevance of increased savings may not be sidestepped (Raustilia and Sprigman, 1). However, on a personal standpoint, the opinions that Raustilia and Sprigman advance seem less plausible, logically and ethically sound, as shall be seen in the discussion that ensue forthwith. In the first place, piracy in itself is a crime, being a form of copyright infringement. This is because, like any other form of piracy, P2P file sharing program infringes copyright laws by copying and distributing a recording company and an artiste’s work without the consent of both. In this light, the Copyright Act of 1909 exists and is in force, even though more strictness is attributed to written work. Conversely, had piracy been attributed as a less injurious crime or as a tolerable and beneficial undertaking as Raustilia and Sprigman opine, then there would be no need of forming institutions and agencies which guard against piracy. Of particular concern is the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) as a powerful lobby group which represents the recording industry and favors stricter laws and heavier punishments for those who pirate music. RIAA is poignant that since 2002, music revenue has plummeted by 7% as the sales of CDs receded from 882 million to 803 million units. RIAA is also specific that the information immediately above showed that three times as more CDs were shared via P2P than the CDs that had been bought. It is obvious that this trend must have cost music producers and artistes. Furthermore, Gorski points out that doing away with the provisions and enforcement of Title 17 of Sections 501 and 506 of the United States Code is bound to create a very confused and lawless situation which may override the gains that Raustilia and Sprigman taut as reasons that legitimize music piracy. Title 17 of Sections 501 and 506 of the United States Code states that it is illegal to create copies of another person’s creative work. It is at this point that gives the federal law the mandate to protect artistes from unlawful and unauthorized reproduction, distribution and transmission of copyrighted material. It is against this backdrop that several people and companies have in times past been subjected to legal suits because of music piracy through the use of P2P file sharing. The same has also led to five year jail terms and an imposition of fines totaling 250,000 US dollars (Gorski, 161). As if all the above is not enough, the No Electronic Theft Law (NET Act) prescribes copyright violations which involve digital recordings. It is for this reason that P2P file sharing companies like Napster, Mp3.com and Aimster have been subjected to prosecutions under Title 17 of the United States Code. In all these prosecutions, the RIAA has won every one of these cases. However, it is helpful to state or admit that there is an instance in which the ideas that Raustilia and Sprigman advance can be vindicated. This is in the instance in which there are a number of CDs which are downloaded for free. In this case, there is bound to be increased savings. Nevertheless, even in this case, there is still a deviation from the standpoint Raustilia and Sprigman take since free downloads are different from music piracy (Raustilia and Sprigman, 1). Again, it is doubtable that money saved by engaging in piracy can lead to the furtherance of economically significant savings, vis-a-vis, increased savings. The copyright laws, the existence of copyright seals and the operations of state instruments which enforce copyright laws significantly stunt the amount of money that should be accrued from music piracy. It is also paradoxical that Raustilia and Sprigman seek to sanitize music piracy with the claim that music piracy can trigger financially constructive achievements, while the very act of piracy takes away artistes and music producers’ right to earn from their work, ingenuity and creativity. Conclusion In regard to the foregoing, one can clearly see that the arguments that Raustilia and Sprigman advance are not only very unfortunate, but also legally and economically untenable. The chaos that would accompany the ratification of the duo’s proposal would be unparalleled and too hard to handle. Particularly, it is clear that Raustilia and Sprigman do not consider the fact that their proposition would also involve, legalizing plagiarism, since Title 17 of the United States Code, the NET Act and the Copyright Act of 1909 seek to protect all works of creativity. This extends the field of music and electronic entertainment, to cover even academic and literary works. Works Cited Gorski, David. The Future of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Subpoena Power on the Internet in Light of Verizon Cases. 24.1 (2011); 161. Print Raustilia, Kal. & Sprigman, Chris. “How Much Do Music and Movie Piracy Really Hurt the U.S. Economy?” Freakonomics, 2012, Retrieved From http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt-the-u-s-economy/ Electronic Read More