The Internet. It is a vast network of millions of users, surfing and sharing billions of files, all day, every day. To individuals holding copyrights on intellectual property, this is a frightening proposition. After all, there is virtually no protection for these copyright holders from the misuse of their property. But, as Scott Sullivan, writer for The FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin stated, “as history has proven, technological and societal advances usually come with a price.” The price society is paying for the Internet is a loss of copyright protection by laws for their intellectual material.
Napster is a good example of how these intellectual property rights are being compromised on the Internet. Napster is a simple, yet sophisticated program created by a young college student named Shawn Fanning that enables users to anonymously swap and share audio files known as MP3s. During its infancy, Napster only had approximately 3,000 users. At that time, Napster could probably have been protected by the Audio Home Recording Act, “which gives consumers the right to create and transfer digital music for noncommercial purposes” (Gurly). Since that time, according to Chris Sherman, writer for the magazine Online, “Napster has become the most successful new Web technology ever by gaining more than 25 million registered users in just over a year or existence.” At this point, however, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is quite unhappy with Napster’s existence and its service. They believe “the fact that millions of users can share songs with one another is a violation of copyright and constitutes outright ‘theft’ of intellectual property” (Sherman). The RIAA won a lawsuit under this argument against Napster in early 2001, so the program may go offline unless a compromise is reached.
If the final ruling is made to stop Napster’s service, doing so will not be difficult because it is a centralized service. However, “file sharing, a mainstay of Web activity that’s considered almost a ‘right’ by many users, is too popular to stomp out in one fell swoop” (Sherman). The technology under which Napster operates, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), has been in use since 1971. It would be as difficult to destroy this technology as it would music itself. Nonetheless, as with many other technologies that threaten to freely distribute copyrighted music, the RIAA is attempting to stop the file sharing movement in its tracks. Alex Torralbas, who has worked in the recording industry, states, “in the 1980s they (the RIAA) effectively killed the digital audio tape, and in the ‘70s, albums and tapes bore skull-and-crossbones stickers warning buyers against taping the music on cassettes.
The RIAA believe that Napster has helped users infringe copyright. The threat of the lawsuit has been around since the conception of Napster and was actually filed four months after Napster went on line. The case is not as clear-cut as it first appears. RIAA argues that most of the MP3's on Napster's site are mainly pirated. Therefore, by Napster allowing and actually making it easier for users to download MP3's this means that they are assisting Copyright infringement.
Chapter six of Blown to Bits by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis focuses on the availability of bits via the internet and how easily they can be stolen. They discuss how companies attempt to combat this issue and potential issues that this can present. Throughout the chapter, the authors contemplate the effects that the internet has had on copyright infringement and legislation surrounding that. They discuss authorized use and rulings surrounding it. The overarching theme of the chapter seems to be that the internet was made to share information, however; in that process, information can be stolen easily, and that issue is not easy to combat.
Over the past decade the societal view of creative society has greatly changed due to advances in computer technology and the Internet. In 1995, aware of the beginning of this change, two authors wrote articles in Wired Magazine expressing diametrically opposed views on how this technological change would take form, and how it would affect copyright law. In the article "The Emperor's Clothes Still Fit Just Fine" Lance Rose hypothesized that the criminal nature of copyright infringement would prevent it from developing into a socially acceptable practice. Thus, he wrote, we would not need to revise copyright law to prevent copyright infringement. In another article, Entitled "Intellectual Value", Esther Dyson presented a completely different view of the copyright issue. She based many her arguments on the belief that mainstream copyright infringement would proliferate in the following years, causing a radical revision of American ideas and laws towards intellectual property. What has happened since then? Who was right? This paper analyzes the situation then and now, with the knowledge that these trends are still in a state of transformation. As new software and hardware innovations make it easier to create, copy, alter, and disseminate original digital content, this discussion will be come even more critical.
The Internet has most publicly impacted Copyright legislation and thus this essay will focus on it specifically. Copyrights are ìoriginal works of authorship in any tangible medium of expression, Öfrom which the work can be perceived, reproduced or otherwise communicated, either directly or withÖ aidî (Bird, p.86). Not only has its existence and understanding been heightened by the general public, but violations against it have ìincreased on the Internet as far as its use and what is being used.î (Medieval Romance, p.1) ìNever before has it been so easy to violate a copyright ownerís exclusive right to copy.î (Bird, p.86) The Internet has increased piracy, it has changed legislation for both creators and infringers, it is been the precursor for harsher punishments to violators, and it has clouded jurisdiction principles.
Richard Simmons, the lead singer of the rock band KISS, has been cited (should “as” be here? Not sure.) speaking out in a distasteful and informal manner against illegal file sharing with the following quote: “It’s only their (you should define who “they” are before this. Seems a little out of context. It seems like you are still addressing file sharing, which is what you introduce the quote as being about, but in reality, he is addressing the people who allow it, whoever they may be) fault for letting foxes get into the henhouse and then wondering why there’s no eggs or chickens. Every little college kid, every freshly-scrubbed little kid’s face should have been sued off the face of the earth. They should have taken their houses and cars and nipped it right there in the beginning”(Source). In his statement, Richard encapsulates the indignation many musicians feel towards people who steal music through file sharing (also known as music piracy). This anger is warranted by the morally accepted viewpoint that stealing is unethical. Music piracy is not measly pilfering, either. “As a consequence of global and U.S.-based piracy of sound recordings, the U.S. economy loses $12.5 billion in total output annually”(Source). However, what if the unhappiness that Richard and other artists feel from illegal file sharing also caused millions of people to be happy? Would the wrongs (that) stealing music caused be morally justified by the prodigious quantity of pleasure generated by music piracy? This is a question similar to one that the founder of a philosophy known as utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, asked himself. Through the question, Bentham concluded that “[t]he highest principle of morality is to maximize happiness, the overall balance of...
There is an abundance of information out there on the Internet that it seems unlikely that any one company or even a country like the U.S. could ever monopolize this vast data network. By the nature of how the Internet works and how information is stored and shared on the network, it is true that a monopoly cannot be held over the intellectual information stored within the Internet. At this point, I will accede to the original author’s claim that intellectual endeavors cannot be monopolized, but this is vastly different from the issue that stands before Microsoft and the U.S. Department of Justice. The question that must be distinguished is not if Microsoft will gain a monopoly over the Internet, but if it will acquire a monopoly on how people access the Internet. These two are wholly separate issues.
Amy Harmon and John Schwartz’s article, “The Problem With Sharing”, published in the November 17 issue of New York Times Upfront, discusses problems with downloading files from the Internet.
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.
Piracy is starting to take over the music industry but not all of the artist agree with it. Some make money either way while others are losing money of it.lady gaga said she makes up to 50 million of one tour. While other has has sued piracy company this shows how artist don't all agree on piracy this shows how all artist don't agree with piracy. In this essay i will talk about how musicians are are happy and unhappy with the music industry and how piracy makes the debate more complicated.
Along with the development of a file format (MP3) to store digital audio recordings, came one of the new millennium’s most continuous debates – peer-to-peer piracy – file sharing. Internet companies such as Napster and Grokster became involved in notable legal cases in regards to copyright laws in cyberspace. These two cases are similar in nature, yet decidedly different. In order to understand the differences and similarities, one should have an understanding of each case as well as the court’s ruling.
Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the integrity of artists copyrights in the age of MP3. Prince has now filed a motion in New York federal court aimed at shutting down several websites offering free downloads of the Artist's songs." (http://www.mtv.com…19990304/prince.jhtml) In addition, in recent music news, "Nine Inch Nails lead man Trent Reznor copyright infringement suit was dismissed. Another artist claimed that the Reznor had stolen material for his last album." (http://www.mtv.com…19991202/nine_inch_nails.jhtml) The copyright law has become an important legal aspect to know our music generation.
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.
One of the most recent examples of ethics and technology conflicts in the United States are privacy issues and how we cite, distribute and publish intellectual property on the internet. For instance, many corporations and people take advantage of the open access of the internet and the lack of legislation governing the right to post and upload information to the internet. Today, nearly every household in the United States has a computer with int...
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...
The first reason why downloading and uploading copyrighted materials from the Internet should be legal is that downloading copyrighted materials positively affects the economy. The European Commission Joint Research Center reported that the profits of music companies would be 2% lower if uploading and downloading copyrighted materials were banned. However, music companies are able to acquire more profits despite illegal downloading because many people tend to purchase CDs or DVDs after watching or listening to copyrighted materials for free. Moreover, the research showed that people who download music illegally spent more money to buy music than people who did not download illegally. In addition, research conducted by the Swiss government informed that one-third of Swiss people downloaded copyrighted materials from the Internet because personal use of copyrighted materials is legal in Switzerland. Even though there is a fact that many people can download copyrighted materials from the Internet legally in Switzerland, the amount of money that people spend to buy copyrighted materials is not f...