Violation of Copyright Laws - Assignment Example

Of great interest is the position that Kal Raustilia and Chris Sprigman (2012) take, contrary to conventional knowledge and mainstream belief. Australia and Sprigman are of the persuasion that it is not possible to quantify losses attributed to piracy and copyright violations and that statistical provisions by proponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) show that copyright infringement costs the US 200 billion dollars and 750,000 jobs annually, cannot be relied upon.

Raustilia and Sprigman (2012) cite Tim Lee’s assertion that statistical figures should neither be taken at face value nor unquestionably relied upon since such figures are almost always prone to approximations, double and triple counting. Raustilia and Sprigman continue that in some instances, music piracy may serve as a substitute for legitimate transactions and that the same can also trigger increased savings, since, instead of money being spent to purchase music, music is downloaded on the one hand. On the other hand, increased savings may catalyze economically significant initiatives and undertakings, thereby covering for the supposed loss of jobs and revenue that piracy may have caused.

Nevertheless, a critical look at factors that underpin legislation that proscribes the infringement of copyright rules and logical reasoning leaves the proposition that Raustilia and Sprigman advance as too impractical to be affected. In the same vein, it is most probable that Raustilia and Sprigman had not thought deeply about the implications that would come with the violation and collective disregard of copyright laws.

In the first place, Gorski (2011) illustrates that the need to safeguard creativity and originality defeats the standpoint that Raustilia and Sprigman (2012) advance. It must be realized that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code, the NET Act, and the Copyright Act of 1909 do not merely seek to ensure that all who access music buy them, but to protect originality and creativity. Always, music is a culmination of training and creativity which are valuable resources. It is preposterous to argue that the training and creativity which an individual uses to earn a living should be treated as valueless. In this case, Raustilia and Sprigman’s proposition that music piracy can help generate financial or economic value does not suffice since such an arrangement alienates the original thinker, creator, and director of an original piece from his work. The kind of advancement that Raustilia and Sprigman make is tantamount to robbing Peter to pay Paul, if not worse.

In a separate wavelength, it is important to note that legislative pieces such as the Copyright Act of 1909, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code, and the NET Act are the very provisions that created the existence of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and mandate RIAA to discharge its duties and responsibilities. RIAA shows clearly that the music industry alone has forfeited millions of dollars to piracy. RIAA further divulges that in 2002, music revenue fell by 7% since the sale of CDs declined from 882 million to 803 million units. The report that RIAA provides, in this case, may be used to vindicate the statistical provisions that the proponents of SOPA and PIPA advance (that piracy costs the US 200 billion dollars and 750,000 jobs annually) and to strongly discount the ideas that Raustilia and Sprigman are propagating (Gorski, 2011).

According to Hiatt and Serpick (2007), the legal provisions that the Copyright Act of 1909, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code and the NET Act and the NET Act dispense are too strict to allow any threshold for profitability in piracy, as the two bloggers allege. Although it will be interesting to see Raustilia and Sprigman quantify the profit which will have been accrued from piracy, it remains to be seen if such profit will be able to survive the hefty fines which come with the violation of the NET Act alone. Following the passage and ratification of the NET Act, many have been subjected to prosecution and subsequent sentencing of a 5-year jail term or a court fine of 250,000 US dollars. It is less likely that those dabbling with piracy will realize a profit margin meaningful enough, after paying the 250,000 dollar court fine.

Conclusion

The foregoing underscores the need to continue upholding copyright laws and to amend them, to make them, together with agencies such as RIAA more powerful and effective in combating piracy. The failure to protect originality and creativity has far-reaching rippling effects which may fundamentally shake the US. This is because, originality and creativity of thought is a fundamental concept that spans literary works, education and academics, and commerce. While music, movies, and poems may fall under literary works, the disregarding of copyright laws will sanctify plagiarism and copying. It is also impossible to run a business in any country which does not provide brands with copyright laws and protection.   Read More