Piracy of Music - Essay Example

The music industry is currently confronting a formidable threat, identified as the practice of music file sharing through peer-to-peer networks or, in more blunt terms, as music piracy and the unauthorized recording and distribution of copyrighted intellectual material. The enormity of the threat is evidenced in the fact that from 2000 to 2003 and, as a direct consequence of music piracy, the industry lost two billion dollars in sale (Desmond et al., 2004). Apart from the significance of the quoted figure, those who earn their livelihood from the music industry are extremely worried about their future and their capacity to continue to support themselves and their families. This concern is clearly articulated by Pimm Fox (2004) who warns that if unauthorized music sharing via peer-to-peer protocols continues unabated, there is no doubt that the greater majority of music stores will be forced out of business. In other words, the piracy of music is not a "victimless" crime, as many have argued but, is a blatant violation of copyright law which claims victims, as in people whose livelihood is directly and strongly harmed by the practice (Thall, 2003). Therefore, even though some have defended the practice of peer-to-peer music file sharing, the fact is that it is a direct violation of copyright laws and has real victims and, as such must be confronted through an identification of its root causes, commonly argued as overpriced CDs and limited options for legally customized music selections, and the reformation of the music business in a way which would address these causes. Music piracy is an inarguable violation of established copyright laws and of the fundamental legal principle of property. Music, as explained by Frank Thorsberg and Elsa Wenzel (2003) is defined as a form of property and, more specifically, as intellectual property. This means that rights are owned and controlled by an individual, a group of individuals or corporation and that only its legal owners possess the right to exploit and distribute it, or arrange for its exploitation and distribution (Thorsberg and Wenzel, 2003). According to the law, therefore, music is property and each piece of musical creation has an owner whose rights to it, as noted by Thall (2003) are protected and upheld by both national and international law. From the legal perspective, therefore, music is property and each piece of music has a legally identified and registered owner. The fact that music is property over which individuals enjoy ownership rights that are protected by the law, means that the rights to use that music, or property, are controlled by the owner. Peer-to-peer music file sharing, insofar as it violates the owner's right to determine the distribution of his/her property and denies him/her the right to economically exploit his music as a financial asset, is a violation of the rights of property owners as established by the law(Thall, 2003). Accordingly, music copyright owners have denounced, as stated by Thorsberg and Wenzel, (2003) music file sharing as music piracy and the theft of property. When one considers that "civilized society is predicated upon the sanctity of private property" (Thall, 2003), the full enormity of the practice is exposed. Quite simply stated, and from within the legal perspective, the unauthorized downloading of music through peer-to-peer programs such as Kazaa, iMesh or LimeWire, constitutes the theft of private property. In defense of the practice and in response to the legal claim that music piracy is a crime, some have argued that it is a victimless crime which harms no one. This argument is not only baseless but it is in direct contradiction with facts which irrevocably prove that the music industry is suffering near-incalculable loss as a result. Financial estimates calculate annual loss at 350 million dollars per annum with an analysis of the growing popularity of peer-to-peer music file sharing leading to the prediction that this figure is likely to multiply in the near future (Desmond et al., 2004). When one considers that each piece of musical recording requires an investment of time, talent and financial resources, one realizes that music owners are being robbed out of their rightful investment. Therefore, there are victims to this crime. The fact that there are victims to this particular crime is further emphasized when one looks at he state of music stores. As noted by Fox (2004), an increasing and ever-escalating percentage of small to medium-sized music shop are going bankrupt and are closing down. The cause of heir bankruptcy and subsequent loss of livelihood is that peer to peer music file sharing has significantly decreased the demand for legally purchased music (Fox, 2004). Quite simply stated, in light of the fact that they can obtain the product for free, fewer and fewer people are purchasing music through the established legal channels with the consequence being that music stores are going out of business and the music industry is suffering substantial loss. Consequently, to argue that music piracy is a victimless crime is to deny established facts which irrevocably prove otherwise. Music piracy is a crime and as is the case with all types of crimes, its root causes have to be investigated and identified if the crime is to be confronted and resolved. In response o the necessity of identifying the motives for this particular crime as an integral first step towards resolving it, Roberts, Gimbel and Childless (2003) investigated the root causes of the proliferation of music piracy. As investigations revealed, the primary motive for the unauthorized an illegal downloading of music through peer-to-peer networks is that the current price of music CDs is completely out of line with the budget of the larger percentage of music consumers. The greater majority of contemporary music consumers, as opposed to classical music consumers, for example, are children, teenagers and adolescents. The greater majority of this group, if not all, suffers from financial constraints. Within the limits of these constraints, or as calculated by the average weekly pocket money of this group, contemporary music CDs are excessively overpriced. In other words, they are not simply expensive but are unaffordable. Accordingly, members of this group have resolved the identified problem by downloading contemporary music through peer-to-peer networks, irrespective of the fact that doing s is a violation of the law (Roberts, Gimbel and Childless, 2003). In other words, and as highlighted by studies, the proliferation of illegal music piracy is a direct response to the fact that the price of music CDs exceeds the budget of the majority of consumers. While the discrepancy between consumer budget and CD process does not justify the violation of established copyright laws, it does provide an explanation for the increasing popularity o the music downloading and piracy phenomenon. In direct reference to CD process as a root cause of the problem, Ante (200) argues that it is incumbent upon the music industry to establish a better match between the prices of the product of the budget of the average consumer. In other words, and while neither defending the practice no arguing against the inalienable right of music copyright owners to economically benefit from their intellectual property rights, the fact is that prices are a problem (Ante, 2003). The implication, thus, is that a solution to the proliferation of music piracy is to re-adjust he prices of music CDs and make them more affordable to the average consumer. The current average price of $15, as clarified by Roberts, Gimbel and Childless (2003), excessively exceeds the budget of the majority and this is precisely why teenagers, children and adolescents are obtaining music through the practice of illegal piracy. The fact that lowering the prices of CDs would significantly reduce the size of the problem has been conformed by studies which underscore that 50% of regular music downloaders have not only identified excessive pricing as a motive but have affirmed that if prices were lowered, they would much rather purchase a CD than download it from a peer-to-peer program over the internet (Roberts, Gimbel, and Childless, 2003). Consequently, lowering prices is part of the solution. A second leading motive for the increasing proliferation of music downloading is that the music industry rarely provides consumers with music compilations which satisfy their tastes and demands. As Ali and Begun (2003) point out, a large percentage of those who download music from the internet have identified the unavailability of music compilations which meet their taste, as a primary motive. Quite simply stated, in order to obtain legal access to one or two songs which they like and want to possess, consumers have to purchase entire albums for process ranging from ten to fifteen dollars per album. This translates into, as far as the consumer is concerned, the purchase of one song for ten to fifteen dollars (Ali and Begun, 2003). Confirming this as a leading cause of music piracy, Miller (2003) emphasized that were the music industry to provide consumers with music compilations which satisfied their tastes and demands and provided them with the option of purchasing single sings, instead of entire albums, it is highly probable that the practice of music piracy would substantially decrease (Miller, 2003). Consequently, the failure o the music industry to respond t consumer tastes and demands has acted as a motive for the illegal downloading of music through file sharing programs. In the final analysis, the continued violation of copyright laws ad the theft of intellectual property is an untenable situation. The problem needs to be confronted and the practice has to be eliminated and brought to an end, especially in light of the fact that there are actual victims to this crime. The most effective solution to this problem lies in an identification of its causes and in their subsequent resolution. Noting can justify this crime or excuse it but the music industry has to acknowledge that its failure to respond to consumer demands, whether in taste or price, has led to the proliferation of music piracy and reform itself accordingly. Works Cited Ali, Lorraine and, Bret Begun. "It's the Music Stupid." Newsweek. 22 Sept. 2003. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Ante, Spencer E. "What Price Music Online" Business Week Online. 17 Oct. 2003. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Desmond, Michael et al. "Sneaky Sharing." P.C. World. 22, 10. Oct. 2004. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Fox, Pimm. "The Day Music Stores Died." Computerworld. 38, 21. 24 May 2004. Academic Search Premier. AUC Lib. Online. EBSCOhost. Miller, Michael J. "Music, Pirates, and Me." PC Magazine. 11 Nov. 2003. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Roberts, Johnnie L., Barney Gimbel and, Sarah Childless. "Out Of Tune." Newsweek. 22 Sept. 2003. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Thall, Peter M. "The Right To Control Property Is One Of Our Most Sacred Compulsory Licensing Is Not the Answer." Billboard. 6 Sept. 2003, Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Thorsberg, Frank and, Elsa Wenzel. "Copy Controls Crackdown." PC World. Aug. 2003. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Read More