Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Some effects of piracy on music industry
An essay about piracy
An essay about piracy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Some effects of piracy on music industry
Corruption, Conscience, and Copyright:
The Current State of Intellectual Property and the Future of the Music Industry
“Today’s pirates operate not on the high seas but on the Internet, in illegal CD factories, distribution centers, and on the street. The pirate’s credo is still the same--why pay for it when it’s so easy to steal? The credo is as wrong as it ever was. Stealing is still illegal, unethical, and all too frequent in today’s digital age. That is why RIAA [Recording Industry Association of America] continues to fight music piracy.” – RIAA.com
The human conscience is a powerful tool. And if you are like most Americans, you probably consider yourself to be a rather moral person, at least based upon your own morality, your own conscience. Chances are, however, that you have engaged in some form of illegal activity during your life: speeding down a familiar road, jaywalking across an empty street, driving with a broken blinker. Assuming you consider yourself to be of high moral stature, how does your conscience reconcile this? The answer: the unlawful does not always imply the unethical, and that which is illegal is not necessarily immoral.
Since the digital revolution in the 1990’s, the downloading of copyrighted music has skyrocketed. The Recording Industry Association of America, RIAA, has denounced music piracy, claiming that it is both illegal and immoral. And they drive a hard bargain, arguing the following:
1. Downloading music is against the law.
2. Downloading music betrays the songwriters and recording artists who create it.
3. Downloading music stifles the careers of new artists and up-and-coming bands.
4. Downloading music threatens the livelihood of the thousands of working people who are em...
... middle of paper ...
...ec_39_00000201----000-.html
Blackburn, David. On-line Piracy and Recorded Music Sales. Dec. 2004. http://www.katallaxi.se/grejer/blackburn/blackburn_fs.pdf
CD Baby. Who/What are we? http://cdbaby.com/about
Holahan, Catherine. Downloading Music’s New Deal. Business Week Online. Oct. 31, 2006. p8-8, 1p.
Leach, Eric and Henslee, Bill. Follow the Money: Who's Really Making the Dough? Nov. 1, 2001. http://emusician.com/mag/emusic_follow_money_whos/index.html
Lessig, Lawrence. The Limits of Copyright. June 19, 2000. http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,16071,00.html
McCourt, Tom, and Burkart, Patrick. When Creators, Corporations and Consumers Collide: Napster and the Development of On-line Music Distribution. 2003. Sage Publications.
Music United. Why You Shouldn't Do It. http://www.musicunited.org/4_shouldntdoit.html
Singers and songwriters need to make a living somehow. They know that downloading music is a way to get their voice heard, but they also know that it is significantly hurting the business. "When your product is being regularly stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action," said RIAA president Cary Sherman (RIAA 1). There are a lot of people involved in the music scheme when it comes to who needs to get paid by the revenue. From the sale of one CD, singers get one small fraction of the cost, another fraction goes to song writers, musicians also get some of the profit along with retailers, engineers, technicians, warehouse working, and ever...
We have all watched over the last year and a half as the controversy over the digital music provider Napster has clogged our television screens and lined our floors in the forms of newspaper articles. We are also well aware of the implications and revenue losses that the service either directly or indirectly causes. What I am going to investigate more in-depth in this article is, more specifically, the effect that Napster has on the operations of record stores worldwide. I am going to try to describe the most profound effects that Napster has on this industry.
COURSEWORK FOR CONTRACT LAW (MUSIC*) *On what basis does the inclusion of samples of a recording made by *Pink Floyd constitute an infringement of copyright? In civil law regarding copyright, there are two types of infringement; primary and secondary. Primary is concerned with the unauthorised use of copyrighted works and secondary would involve the dealing or making commercial use of such infringing copies. In the music industry, an infringement of copyright often consists of an existing piece of music being used by an artist without permission from the person or company who own the rights to the original music or recorded sound. This is exactly what has happened with Alexei Duff. He has used two samples from two Pink Floyd tracks and did not get permission from the appropriate copyright owners. If found guilty in court, this would be regarded as primary infringement. There is a lot of confusion about sampling in the music industry. Several think that if only a small fraction of a piece of music is sampled, whether it is a few notes or a few seconds, then it does not need to be cleared for use however this is not the case. The 1988 Copyright Act says that for an infringement of copyright to have taken place, the sample used must be of a substantial part. This means that it is the quality rather than the quantity of the sample used which determines if an infringement of copyright has occurred. In the case of Alexie Duff, one of his tracks uses a ten second sample extracted from the song “Dark side of the moon” and the sample is looped throughout the track entire. This means that the sample substantially contributes to the overall piece of music created by the artist and as the sample has not been cleared, an infringement of ...
...cation, after all why would we face both conscience and consequence when there is a choice between the two. Therefore it seems that if there are situations where we are legally justified in breaking the law then at those times we must also have found moral justification to do this as well.
“It is estimated that such illegal product costs the music industry more than 300 million dollars a year domestically.” This is why the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is taking a strong stance against MP3 piracy. The damage done to the recording industry in lost profits, increased prices, and lost jobs is overwhelming. In an attempt to put a damper on file swapping, and recapture lost revenue the RIAA has been suing people ...
Throughout time, people have resorted to stealing in order to obtain items instead of buying them. It became a problem so consequences were made. Even dating back to the Ten Commandments there were laws against stealing. Recently, theft has become a problem over the internet. Musicians and music companies have lost millions in revenue. Websites such as Napster, The Pirate Bay, and Pandora have made it extremely easy for people, specifically teens, to illegally download and or listen to music for free. Pirating music has become a problem especially because “91 percent of all new music was downloaded illegally over the Internet instead of purchased,” says Logan Lynn from Huffington Post (Lynn). Many, such as the RIAA claim that music piracy is “an ongoing and evolving challenge,” (Who) while others suggest that it is “keeping the music industry alive,” (Issacson).
Recently, there has been a series of copyright infringement litigations against Internet businesses that are involved with unauthorized distribution of music files. The US recording industry claims to lose three million dollars per year because of piracy. A report predicted an estimated 16 percent of all US music sales, or 985 million dollars would be lost due to online piracy by 2002 (Foege, 2000; cited from McCourt & Burkart, 2003) Even though this claim has to be taken with caution, as it is based on false assumption that if copyright laws were strictly enforced, audio pirates would become buyers, it is apparent that audio piracy grew to a worrisome level for the record industry. (Gayer & Shy, 2003)
People have been finding alternative ways to access their music since technology evolved, whether it was recording songs off the radio onto a cassette tape or borrowing your friend’s CD in order to ‘burn’ it, No one played by the rules, legally. This piece will discuss illegally downloading music and the political theories and concepts it represents. What are the social norms and attitudes that drive this behaviour? and what is the solution, if there is one?
Before the 1990’s, if people want to listen to music, they just visit a music store and pick up a CD and then put it into a stereo equipment. However, the development of MP3 file format gradually changed the way people listen to music. This format lets everyone download music easily and it can be converted to CD as well. But, there is still a problem: searching MP3 files on the internet is maddening and people seldom can find the music they want. Therefore, the birth of Napster solved this problem, creating a virtual music community in which music fans could use the Web as a “swap meet” for music files. More importantly, Napster is easy to use and it’s free, which expands the range of audience in age. Bandwidth also contributed to Napster’s success. The greater the bandwidth, the faster the file can be transferred. So, Napster really changed the way people listen to music, discover music and interact with music.
The story really begins with Napster and its free software that allowed users to swap music across the Internet for free using peer-to-peer networks. While Shawn Fanning was attending Northeastern University in Boston, he wanted an easier method of finding music than by searching IRC or Lycos. John Fanning of Hull, Massachusetts, who is Shawn's uncle, struck an agreement which gave Shawn 30% control of the company, with the rest going to his uncle. Napster began to build an office and executive team in San Mateo, California, in September of 1999. Napster was the first of the massively popular peer-to-peer file sharing systems, although it was not fully peer-to-peer since it used central servers to maintain lists of connected systems and the files they provideddirectories, effectivelywhile actual transactions were conducted directly between machines. Although there were already media which facilitated the sharing of files across the Internet, such as IRC, Hotline, and USENET, Napster specialized exclusively in music in the form of MP3 files and presented a user-friendly interface. The result was a system whose popularity generated an enormous selection of music to download. Napster became the launching pad for the explosive growth of the MP3 format and the proliferation of unlicensed copyrights.
The music industry impacts the lives of people from around the world. With the implementation of technology, the influence of the music industry has spread to affect anyone with access to technology. Streaming services have contributed to the increased popularity of music. While there are positive effects to being able to stream music and have multiple ways of listening to it, the music industry suffers from the lack of revenue and illegal activity associated with technology. Technology has had both positive and negative effects on the music industry by affecting how people access music and how music is produced
Is important for anyone who has created any intellectual property to protect it. In the music industry, in order for someone to protect their work, they must obtain a copyright. Music has been around before anyone could obtain a copyright and when the invention of the computer came along it made it easier for someone to steal another artist's intellectual property with the help of the internet. This paper will cover what events have taken a big role in copyright protection for artist, the consequences if someone was to break the rules of a copyright which is called copyright infringement, and how will a copyright hold in the future. Were copyrights enacted without the thought of life changing technology, and how can some music companies surpass copyright infringement and make a profit from the artist? Can a copyright really make that much of a difference in the world we know today?
Physical piracy-the copying and illegal sale of hard-copy CDs, videotapes, and DVDs-costs the music industry over $4 billion a year worldwide and the movie industry more than $3.5 billion. These numbers do not factor in the growing (and difficult to measure) problem of Internet piracy, in which music and movies are transferred to digital format and copies are made of the resulting computer file. Journalist Charles C. Mann explains why Internet piracy has the potential to be vastly more damaging to copyright industr...
Moreover, hackers came up with new ways to remove the digital copyrights so the same as before one downloads music and distributes them around. The industry gets its revenue from selling this content, whether it’s online or in stores, this funds new projects and allows for better products in the future. The public should be aware of this, downloading the content for free, and not buying it will decrease revenue for the companies, stopping them from undertaking future projects. “Production companies should lower the price on their products, I can’t buy music for at least 20$ per album and DVDs for 30$, I only make 200$ per month,” said George Issa, a music fan who spends most of his nights downloading music from the internet, “when there is an album or movie that I really like, I try to buy it legally, I don’t think I am doing anything wrong, they are wrong making money off our backs,” he added.
Music piracy is a developing problem that it affects the music industry in many different ways including being responsible for the unemployment of 750,000 workers, as well as a loss of $2,5 billion; therefore, I want to explore ‘To what extent has music piracy affected the music industry market in the United States over the last 10 years?’