Copyright Law And Music Piracy

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015 Last Modified: 14 Apr 2017

In order to understand what music piracy is one must first define it. According to Piracy (2001), music piracy is when a person utilizes copyrighted music without either purchasing it, or petitioning the songwriter, or singer for permission to use the music. In the late 20th and early years of the 21st century, this has most often occurred over the internet when a person downloads an MP3 off of the internet off of a website that does not charge the user for music downloads. Prior to the music industry and the Recording Industry, and Artists of America (RIAA) choosing to prosecute internet users who download pirated music this most frequently occurred on sites such as Napster and Kazaa (both of whom now charge for downloads). Sites such as the ITunes store that have always charged for music and video downloads have remained free of prosecution as they pay a fee to the record companies for use of the songs.

The music industry has chosen several different routes in their attempts to control music piracy and copyright law violation. First, they have chosen to sue file sharing websites such as Kazaa and Napster in order to ensure that these sites are charging for music downloads. The second method they have used to stop music piracy has been to monitor internet users, and prosecute those users that download pirated music. Finally, many record companies have begun to release copyright protected music that cannot be uploaded onto computers, or file sharing networks.

Literature Review

Accordng to Wade (2004) the file sharing revolution began in 1999 when Shawn Fanning began the website that would come to known as Napster. This website would be shut down by court order in 2001, only to be reopened as a site that allowed one to download music for a fee. However, the revolution did not end there. For every site that the FCC and the RIAA have managed to shut down 2-3 more, file sharing sites pop up. Wade (2004) states that the recording industry looks at this music piracy as little better than copyright violation and theft. Industry statistics have estimated that music piracy has cost the music industry more than 2.5 billion dollars in lost sales. RIAA statistics estimate that 2.6 million pirated songs are downloaded every month. These statistics show that over the last 10 years music piracy has become rampant amongst music lovers everywhere. Another fact that is indicated by these statistics is that many people have stopped purchasing music in CD format, and have moved on to purchasing their music (when they obtain music legally at all) in MP3 format as well.

The population that is largely responsible for music piracy is college students. Many members of the college community have access to the type of high-speed internet access that is required to download illegal MP3 files, and they have limited budgets to spend upon entertainment on a monthly basis. According to Wade (2004), many colleges and universities are now educating students about the illegality of music piracy, and attempting to limit student access to illegal download sites through the school computer networks. This can only be positive as in many cases the RIAA has pursued legal cases against internet providers as well as those who download music illegally.

Many of the people who have been prosecuted by the RIAA for music piracy have come up with a rather unique defense. This defense is that of fair use, and the main case behind this is that of the RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc. In this case, the RIAA sued Diamond Multimedia Systems, a producer of a digital MP3 player due to the fact that many of its users downloaded illegally pirated MP3 music onto the systems rather than purchasing legally from sites such as the ITunes store. Das (2000) states that the RIAA could not sue Diamond Multimedia Systems since their MP3 player was not in fact a digital music recorder but a digital music player that only held transferred files from a computer.

The California State Court of Appeals also decided that since the files were transferred from the computer hard drive to a MP3 device solely for being listened to and not sold, that this constituted a fair use under Federal Copyright Laws. The main reasoning of the Court was that people had been downloading music for personal rather than commercial use. This is the base upon which most Fair Use laws have been based, and to copy something with the intent of personal use only has not in recent years been considered copyright infringement by the courts.

Another major legal issue that the RIAA has brought up in recent years is the prosecution of people who sell bootleg, and import recordings of music that is not currently available in the United States. According to Blunt (1999) the Universal Copyrights Convention was created to allow the international community help the recording industry to deal with bootlegs that are increasingly difficult to tell apart from legitimate recordings due to continuously evolving digital recording technology.

Another international law that has been created to help deal with bootleggers is the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property. These conventions deal with international copyright infringement as well as allowing the recording industries of various countries to pursue legal action against bootleggers and other music pirates.

Blunt (1999) states that there are several other international copyright laws on the books that have been set up to help the international recording industry to deal with issues of music piracy. However, with the advancement of computer technology and the proliferation of file sharing sites on the Internet enforcing these laws has become difficult. This difficulty in stopping bootlegging and music piracy has created difficulties for the international recording industry. In many countries such as China music piracy runs rampant, and it is frequently left up to the countries themselves to try and stop people from illegally downloading, or purchasing bootlegged music.

This has created a desperate situation for the music industry since if they sue the people who download music off of file sharing sites, they get hit with the Fair Use Lawsuits, and many who sell bootlegged CD's are almost impossible to catch.

According to the computer industry magazine Internet Week (2006) in 2006 the recording industry filed more than 8,000 different lawsuits in 17 different countries in an industry wide attempt to stop the illegal sale of bootlegged CDs, and the proliferation of illegal MP3 file sharing websites. These lawsuits have been filed both against the internet file sharing sites themselves as well as individuals that are responsible for downloading pirated music off of the internet. Some individuals have paid the international recording industry settlements of up to 3,000.00$ for the use of illegally downloaded MP3 files.

Many questions have been raised in regards to what exactly can be done about music piracy. The main problem is the fact that lawsuits do not seem to be scaring the people who frequent free internet file sharing websites. Many of the people who frequent these sites are college students, and many are not educated as to the intricacies of copyright law, and software and music piracy. Many colleges have attempted to address this issue by requiring students to take classes in computer or legal ethics that address these issues, or by requiring incoming freshmen to take seminars on the illegality of downloading music without paying for it.

Siegfried (2005) surveyed 224 students from several small state and private colleges in New York State. According to Siegfried (2005), more than 50% of the students surveyed indicated that they had downloaded and used pirated software and music in the past, and that they did not perceive this as either being ethically wrong, or as being theft. Many students went so far as to suggest that in their eyes such behavior was tacitly approved of by their schools, and that they saw professors and administrators as being equally guilty of pirating software and music from the internet.

Siegfried (2005) indicates that there are several reasons behind why students pirate software and music off of the internet. First, they do not see that the person who created the music or the software is losing out monetarily. Second, they mistakenly assume that all items available over the internet fall under laws of public domain, and therefore it is okay to download music or software. Finally, they assume that all material downloaded off of the internet falls under laws of fair use, and that they should be free to do what they want with the material including re-selling the software, or music. These attitudes indicate that students are poorly educated about not only copyright and public domain laws but they are also poorly educated when it comes to basic ethics.

According to Siegfried (2005), there are several possible solutions for changing these attitudes about music and software piracy in high school and college aged students. One of the major factors is providing young adults with sufficient education in ethics and proper information on acceptable behaviors when downloading information off of the internet. One of the greatest difficulties continues to be the fact that many young adults will still continue this illegal behavior despite being educated as to the illegality of downloading music and software off of the internet without paying for it.

D' Astous et al (2005) has addressed this dilemma and argues that people who pirate music and software off of the internet are aware of the consequences of their actions. However, they feel that the benefits of free music far outweigh the costs to the recording industry, or themselves in the unlikely circumstance that they end up being caught for their actions. D' Astous et al (2005) hypothesized that there is a strong correlation between the attitudes of oneself and others in regards to whether or not a person will participate in music piracy, or not. D' Astous (2005) also hypothesized that people who see downloading MP3 music off of free file sharing sites on the internet as being acceptable behavior are more likely to download pirated music than those with negative attitudes towards this behavior.

D' Astous et al (2005) studied 139 participants via a survey of internet consumers and found that people with a negative attitude towards music piracy were much less likely to download music off of file sharing sites that did not charge at least a minimal fee for their services. However, some participants indicated that it was their right to download music for free, and that they were not hurting anyone by doing so. These participants were much more likely to download music off of free file sharing sites, and less likely to download off of fee for service sites such as the ITunes store.

Much has been done by the RIAA in order to bring music download sites such as Napster, Morpheus and Kazaa into the fold. Although new free MP3 sites pop up every day, many sites now charge fees in order to download music. In many cases the fees are minimal such as Morpheus that allows you unlimited downloads for around 15$ per month but these fees now go to cover copyright permissions and royalties for the artists who create the music.

According to Sherman (2001), many in the music industry including many artists such as David Bowie and U2 see music download sites such as ITunes amongst others as a publicity tool. The idea is that every time someone downloads a song from music download sites it is free publicity for both the musician and the record company. Many people download songs off of ITunes and go on to either purchase the CD, or the full record in MP3 format.

Although in some ways the MP3 revolution has had a negative effect on the recording industry in other areas the effects have been positive. Sherman (2001) states that sites such as this have allowed many new artists much needed publicity in order to gain recording contracts with larger record labels. Sites such as ITunes have also allowed the recording industry to publicize its artists at a much lesser cost than providing thousands of free recordings to radio stations and club DJ's once did.

When used legally music download sites can be beneficial to the record industry by providing cost efficient publicity and recognition for new artists. However, Sherman (2001) states that there truly is no need to implement newer and stronger copyright laws. However, it is necessary to educate people about copyright law, and how these laws apply to music and software that are downloaded off of the intent. Sherman (2001) states that education is key in making people understand that to download pirated music is illegal. Suing people teaches them nothing except for the fact that they will have to pay out the same amount of money that they would had they just purchased the music to begin with.

Sherman (2001) states that although downloading from free file sharing is illegal according to international copyright laws the music industry should take this in stride and work to develop partnerships with sites that have always been fee for service such as ITunes, and ones that became fee for service sites after being sued by the RIAA. This would still allow them to charge users for access to the music but, would allow them to access it in a form that meets current technological standards rather than forcing them to use soon to be outdated technology such as, cassette tapes, or CD's .

Conclusion

Music Piracy is a serious offence however, the music industry has turned away listeners and potential purchasers of their music by prosecuting those listeners who have chosen to download music off of formerly free file sharing sites such as Napster. Rather than choosing to legally pursue the developers and administrators of these websites, they have violated the trust of music fans at an international level.

The music industry must learn to accept new technology such as digital music downloads and to use this as a means of selling and publicizing their music. The increasingly advanced technology that is available to the recording industry has not been utilized the its fullest. They must also seek to educate the consumer, as many people are unaware of what internet materials are covered under current copyright laws, and what information falls under the terms of public domain.

The music industry must understand that in the digital age many of the old means of selling and publicizing their music must fall by the wayside if they are to remain competitive. MP3 and MP4 formatted music is the wave of the future and record companies that do not take advantage of this fact will no longer be successful. Artists must also come to realize that digital music and file sharing are merely another means by which they can gain publicity and respect from fans. In conclusion, the success of sites such as the ITunes store has demonstrated that file sharing and music downloading can be done in a successful cost effective manner for both the consumer and the recording industry. However, it is clear that the music industry must still fight to make illegal music piracy sites to either become fee for service sites and conform to international copyright laws, or shut down.