Music Piracy - Research Paper Example

Michael J. Hood Mr. Robert Nagel English 1120 2 December Music Piracy Introduction Piracy is illegal copy of original recording for business purpose without taking the permission from the rights owner. The problem of piracy has become acute with the fast pace of technology development. With the emerging of new recording techniques of broadcasted programs it has become very easy for pirates to continue their illegal activities. In music piracy, there are three types of illegal activities, (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 1), which are: Counterfeiting This is the unsanctioned duplicating of the sound, graphics, trademark, label, and packaging of the original recording. The purpose is to misguide the customer that he or she is buying the original recording (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 2). Pirate Recordings These are unsanctioned copies of music from genuine recordings for profit gain. Pirated CDs or music cassettes are named as Top Ten, Hollywood Hits or a combination of hit titles of various music companies. The pirated copy looks different than the original commercial release (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 3). Bootlegging This is recording, copying, and selling of a musical performance like a live concert or broadcast without the authorization of the artist or the music company holding all copyrights of it (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 4). Piracy happens on many platforms like End User Piracy, Reseller Piracy, BBS/Internet Piracy, and Trademark/Trade Name Infringement. End User Piracy – It is related to duplicating of software either from one computer to another, copying office software to home computer, borrowing software to make copies for selling purpose (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 5). Reseller Piracy – It is deliberate reproduction with fake certificates for cheating the buyers assuming that they have purchased from the developing company (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 6). Internet Piracy – Peer-to-peer (P2P) downloading encourages internet piracy. Individual requests for not sharing licensed material are not adhered to. It is illegal to copy a copyrighted album on P2P service. Downloading MP3s becomes infringement when files are distributed after conversion to MP3 from CDs (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 7). Trademark/ Trade Name Infringement – It is improper use of a registered trademark (Indian Music Industry, “What is Piracy?” par. 8). Background The issue of music piracy can be related to the pre-digital age of 1970s when there were legal altercations between the owners of copyrights of films and music and suppliers of technology. In one such case between Ames Records and CBS, legal action was taken by CBS for infringement on its copyrights by Ames permitting subscribers to hire records on rent. Again in 1980s CBS took legal proceedings against Amstrad for supplying cassette tape-to-tape recording material. In both cases, the CBS lost the fight as the court ruled out that prevention of the use of material was not in the hands, as these companies did not “sanction” any copyright infringement. In another battle between Sony and Universal City Studios, the court freed Sony for copyright infringements under the US law, as there were found ‘substantial non-infringing uses for the video-recorders supplied by Sony (Walton, “Golden Age of Free Music vs. Copying is Stealing,” Par.4). The digital age has made copying fast and easy through new media like CDs, DVDs, MP3 players, hard drives, and digital cameras. Consumers are the winners exploiting the opportunity while rights holders are loosing billions of dollars particularly through P2P sharing of files. Unable to safeguard their interests through court, rights holders are suing consumers, ISPs, operators and even funders of file sharing systems (Walton, “Golden Age of Free Music vs. Copying is Stealing,” Par.9). How it happens According to Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI), the internet piracy occurs by compressing, posting, and sending music files via the internet sources like websites, emails or P2P transferring of files. Music files on the internet use a compression process, called MP3. It permits downloading and unsanctioned copying. There is a flood of such sites on the internet that offer P2P file sharing, resulting in loss of income to artists and copyrights holders throughout the world. Not only composers, artists, authors, and record companies are fighting a lost war against online piracy but governments are also getting deprived of income from sales and excise taxes from the authorized sales of CDs and tapes replaced by illegal downloading from the internet (MIPI). “As an artist its hard knowing that people are [illegally] downloading your songs when they could be buying your album” - Natalie Gauci  Opposition to Music Piracy The law is very clear on copying of music. It is illegal, making one liable to pay for the losses incurred to the owner of copyrights. There have been a number of court decisions favoring the owners of copyrights. As per the court decisions, the P2P and any other unsanctioned uploading and downloading equals to the crime of infringing copyrights. Some of the court rulings given below make the stance of judiciary very clear (RIAA, “Piracy Online and on the Street”). “As stated by Record Company Plaintiffs in their brief, "Aimster predicates its entire service upon furnishing a road map for users to find, copy, and distribute copyrighted music." …We agree. Defendants [Aimster] manage to do everything but actually steal the music off the store shelf and hand it to Aimsters users.” Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002) (RIAA, “Piracy Online and on the Street”). “…they [Aimster] apparently believe that the ongoing, massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of Record Company Plaintiffs copyrighted works by Aimsters end users somehow constitutes "personal use.’ This contention is specious and unsupported by the very case on which Defendants rely.” Aimster Copyright Litigation. 01-C-8933, MDL # 1425 (Memorandum Opinion and Order, September 4, 2002) (RIAA, “Piracy Online and on the Street”). If we follow the letter of the law, music piracy is a theft under the copyright legislation but we need to question the law, which is unjust and unfair. Taking a hint from the Pew survey, about 35 million Americans use file-sharing software, which is near to 29 percent of the internet users, about 26 million who share files online. I personally disagree with RIAA that random suing of music down-loaders will bring a change in the attitude of people. The course of law will make the people aloof towards the concerns of the music providers. It will create divisions among the people and increase a sense of hatred for the industry. Awareness campaigns can help only in dissuading selected people from downloading free and sharing out of fear, which can not be called a process of creating awareness through education; it equals to legal terrorism (Moore, “Is Music Piracy Stealing?”). As per the Pew report, “Americans’ attitude towards copyrighted material online has remained dismissive, even amid a torrent of media coverage and legal cases aimed at educating the public about the threat file-sharing poses to the intellectual property industries.” People know that it is illegal to download and share music files but they just damn care about it. Music piracy is just like photocopying the pages of reference books taken from the library. It is a type of “stealing” not considered theft as is generally the case. People who criticize music piracy need to find the difference between “It’s against the law,” and “It’s wrong” (Moore, “Is Music Piracy Stealing?”). Action against Music Piracy In the battle against piracy, stakeholders of music industry such as International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and Music Industry Piracy Investigations (MIPI) have come together to fight against piracy by identifying and shutting down websites found hosting illegal copies of sound recordings in Australia and its global affiliates worldwide. The unsanctioned file-sharers are contacted via instant messages and litigation (MIPI, “Internet Piracy”). Legal action is sought by stakeholder organizations by gaining proof of infringement of copyright in sound recording presented to audiences by the websites. Notice is served to website functionaries and service providers in writing, warning them of legal actions of their unlawful hosting so that they stop offering the infringing copies on their sites (MIPI, “Internet Piracy”). A software program, called the Digital File Check (DFC), a free-to-download program helps those who want to remain on the safe side by not allowing their computers to become the medium of illegal file-swapping of copyrighted music and movies. The DFC is a simple guidance tool for computer users helping them and their family & friends in entertaining themselves without affecting and breaking the law. DFC deletes or hinders the undesired “file-sharing” programs employed to circulate copyrighted material illegally; users can delete the copyrighted music and video files from the “shared folders” from where they are exchanged illegally through the internet. The program i.e. DFC passes through all the saved copies of music, movies, and picture files on the user’s computer. Important thing is that the software is not meant to tip-off anti-piracy organizations (MIPI, “Internet Piracy”). The stakeholder organizations are awakening the conscience of people by creating awareness by educating them that illegal downloading of music is theft like any other theft. It affects the monetary interests of artists, composers, and future of music industry. They are paying the cost of others’ illegal theft of their compositions. Reduced industry earnings affect the quality of music, as very little remains to be reinvested in talent hunt (MIPI, “Internet Piracy”). Another tool used in the fight for the $60 billion music industry by Amazon.com is a layer of the software called the Digital Rights Management (DRM), used to put limits on users’ freedom to make as many files as desired. For example, a song from Apple’s iTunes Media Store comes with Apple’s DRM software but I find it highly unfair that FairPlay, the software is obstructing my path, and who is Apple to decide where I should hold myself when I have paid for its music (Grossman, “The Battle over Music Piracy,” par. 2). It is as if retailers like Apple are treating us as potential copyright criminals. The retailers transfer the blame on labels and in return, labels find fault with us for music pirating. Amazon is ready to sell DRM free tracks at higher value but cannot equal the melody of iTune stores. All this debate does not provide the answer to the problems of the industry. Industry does not trust the consumers, which is the root cause of the problem. Once the music industry puts faith in consumers, it need not repent; people have been purchasing music without DRM for years, in the form of CDs. There was no DRM attached to CDs. I feel that the DRM is a dragon waiting to attack the asteroid. The music industry should stop assuming that we are all criminals. Actually, no one is clean; to some extent we are all thieves as we own some stolen music but it is good in some way as by ripping an audio of Shin’s Phantom Limb off a YouTube video, I got inspired to purchase two albums of Shins and attended a concert of Shins as well. The legal market supports the black market (Grossman, “The Battle over Music Piracy,” par. 6). DRM is going to have little impact on music piracy. The music purchased from iTunes promotes Apple’s semi-monopoly, as it plays on Apple’s products only – a side-effect of Apple’s FairPlay. It is better in the interest of all stakeholders of the industry that Apple gets rid of DRM to level the field for other players to give competition to iPod so that Zunes, Sansas, and other digital gadgets also play the songs from iTunes (Grossman, , “The Battle over Music Piracy,” par. 7). If we say that the theft of intellectual property i.e. intangible resources is the theft of the serious type and asking for imposing penalties on this count to the committers of this type of offence, which is somewhat philosophical in nature unlike the theft of physical property; it needs to make a value decision. Some decisions are taken in letter while some decisions require spirit. In the context of this phrase of “letter and spirit,” the copyright law is increasingly becoming irrelevant in practicality. Stakeholders of the music industry can never get control over the so called illegal duplicating and distribution of intellectual property irrespective of the legal proceedings they make in the court of law or get favorable responses from the Congress (Moore, “Is Music Piracy Stealing?”). In my opinion, finally the war against piracy is not going to succeed whatever legal and ethical considerations are made against music piracy. At the most, a numbered people could be held culprits and sentenced but it won’t impress upon the need to totally curb the stealing tendencies in the intellectual property arena. Even if it happens as desired, I think it will be not in the interest of freedom of speech and expression and information give & take. Works Cited Grossman, Lev. “The Battle over Music Piracy,” 24 May 2007. Technoculture. 1 December 2010. Indian Music Industry. “What is Piracy,” 2010. Indian Music Industry. 1 December 2010. < http://www.indianmi.org/whatispiracy.htm> MIPI. “Internet Piracy,” 2010. Music Industry Piracy Investigations. 1 December 2010. http://www.mipi.com Moore, Charles W. “Is Music Piracy Stealing?” 8 August 2003. Moore’s Views and Reviews. 1 December 2010. RIAA. “Piracy: Online and on the Street,” 2010. 1 December 2010. http://www.riaa.com Walton, Taylor. “Golden Age of Free Music vs. Copying is Stealing.” 6 August 2003. Music and Media. 1 December 2010. Read More