Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Intellectual property rights music
Music piracy is a threat to digital distribution
Intellectual property rights music
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Intellectual property rights music
Ethical Dilemma of Napster
The ethical dilemma of computer downloads, namely music downloads, has been under great scrutiny in the last few years. Napster, if any one symbolizes the new technology, was the front runner in developing the new digital trading. The ethical issues seem to revolve around the all mighty dollar. Some particular musicians, namely Lars Ulrich from Metallica and Dr. Dre (rap star), have had some serious issues with Napster. Their claims have merit, but so do the claims of the creator and users of Napster.
Napster was created in 1999 by a college dropout named Sean Fanning. Napster allows users to swap digital song files over the internet easily and most of all free. Millions of people used Napster to retrieve almost any song a person could think of, for example, songs that are current number one hits to the other songs from the "one-hit-wonders." Napster created a way for people world wide to exchange or share music files quickly and easily. This causes the ethical dilemma on whether trademark rights are being infringed or is "sharing" the music files legal and ethical.
In 1984, the Supreme Court allowed the public to use the VCR to record televisions shows as long as it was not intended for commercial use. In 1992, "the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 made it clear that you can use a digital audio tape player or other similar gadgets to record digital music for personal, noncommercial use. So there's plenty of precedent for song swapping." This is a major part in the creation and use of Napster. These acts state everything the Mr. Fanning needs to know he thought. The musicians thought otherwise.
The previously mentioned artists are highly upset about the sharing software. Lars Ulrich is the drummer for the band Metallica. He seems to be the spokesman for the pending law suits. Ulrich says,"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives, we take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy -- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) wants to let the public know that this file sharing that is going on is illegal. The only way to stop this is to start lawsuits. The RIAA has been making attempts for a couple years to inform the public that file sharing is illegal, but now that nothing has happened appropriate action needs to take place (RIAA 1).
Napster is a virtual community, which consists of music news and chat-rooms, the main feature it offers is an easy way to download MP3's (music files). This controversial service has brought the lawsuit to Napster. Napster allows its subscribers to download the music files without charge. It is not however, from Napster that the subscribers get these files. It is from each other. The users share their hard drives so that other users can download any of their music files that they want.
According to the text A Gift of Fire, Napster “opened on the Web in 1999 as a service that allowed its users to copy songs in MP3 files from the hard disks of other users” (Baase, 2013, p. 192, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The Napster Case). Napster was, however, “copying and distributing most of the songs they traded without authorization” (A Gift of Fire, Section 4.1.6 Sharing Music: The Napster Case). This unauthorized file sharing resulted in a lawsuit - “eighteen record companies sued for contributory infringement claiming that Napster users were blatantly infringing copyrights by digitally reproducing and distributing music without a license” (Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints and the Modern Media, 2011, p. 359).
An “analyst” was quoted in the case (in 2002) as saying that “people will pay for music on the Internet, eventually.” This person was skeptical of the willingness of consumers to pay for
In the lawsuit, RIAA states that Lime Wire allows its users to share unauthorized copies of their sound recordings. They do this by conducting searches for the requested recordings and making them available to their users. They purposefully did not turn
Imagine you are driving down the road, listening to the radio, and a new song begins to play that catches your attention. You decide, after listening to this song, that you enjoy it, so you listen carefully to the DJ to hear what the name of the song is and whom it is by. When you get home, you log on to your favorite music-downloading site and download the song that you heard earlier in the day. Would you consider yourself stealing and disobeying copyright laws? Many artists believe that people who are downloading their music are stealing from them and they are striving to stop it. On the other hand, many artists and music lovers are happy with the new technology of music downloading. I believe that there is a way to reach a happy medium in-between these two groups to solve this problem. With a few website modifications, along with some minor changes in the music world, we will be able to leave this problem behind us.
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.
Exposition. A peer-to-peer file sharing service called Napster is brought to court on charges of copyright infringements by all members of the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA. The RIAA filed an order to restrain Napster from allowing the exchange of songs through its service. The claims brought against Napster included direct, contributory, and vicarious infringements. Napster concocted a defense against the charges, citing the Audio Home Recording Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s safe harbor clause, fair use, and that the case was being used to suppress new technologies. The case questions whether Napster acted morally and ethically when knowingly allowing users to violate copyright laws despite a business having nothing to do with ethics as the Myth of Amoral Business suggests.
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 interesting arguments that supported Napster, was that it actually helped many artist, for example the band Radiohead - who had never previously reached near the Top 20 in the US, released their album Kid A, which was available on Napster for 3 months prior to its actual release. When it was officially released, the album reached at the top of the Billboard Top 200, and greatly helped the band show their work off as a huge success. However, the industry realized the large threat that Napster was, well-known artists Metallica and Dr.Dre both filed lawsuits, and disclosed the usernames of thousands of users to federal courts (nerdist), however both lawsuits were eventually settled, but that did not mean that Napster would be left alone. In 2000, the Recording Industry Association of America also sued Napster under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act for “contributory and vicarious copyright infringement”. Further, in 2001 the US Supreme Court ruled that free music downloading (from programs like Napster) was illegal and violated the musicians and labels
In 2000, Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster and won. As a result, Napster banned about 300,000 of its users who were sharing Metallica songs. Soon after, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) filed a suit against Napster and the file-sharing server was forced to shut down. [1]
Spotify, the music streaming application, has gained a large amount of publicity on the subject of how they pay the artists whose music Spotify distributes. Some artists, such as Taylor Swift, have refused to participate in the distribution of their music, citing low royalties as a complaint. These concerns raised by artists have, not surprisingly, recently turned into a number of class action lawsuits against Spotify. However, instead of taking issue with the low royalties paid to artists, those taking legal action are claiming that Spotify is failing to pay royalties to thousands of artists whose copyrighted music the app still distributes. Spotify operates as a streaming service where artists’ music is distributed.
It is really easy for anyone to download music without paying or paying not very much. Which has the music industry losing money. One reason is because as long as you have internet access you can download or transfer a song without paying for it. Still people don't know that if they get a song for free you are hurting the music industry because they are not getting money they are actually losing money. You might think that they will be able to get there money back
The problem is that copyright law hasn’t caught up with the way the music industry has been. The music business has never been completely united on any industry change, and digital platforms and streaming services are no exception. There is a new generation of artists who are not being treated or compensated fairly. It’s imperative for companies that generate enormous revenues to support musicians and artists who have made the platform what it is today. Few industries understand the need to evolve more than music.
For example Beyonce’s album Lemonade was “2016’s third biggest album” (Billboard) and it was only available on itunes. Artist are making it available only on certain places because, although they love making music it is not fair to them when they are not making the money they deserve to be making. Musician Joe Elliott gives more of an explanation of how he feels when someone is stealing his songs, “somebody taking our music for free is no different than walking out of someone's house with their tv set” (Ian) these artist are making music to entertain people all over the world but the listeners are not giving anything in return by stealing their music. As this continues to happen, people still steal, no seems to care this could hurt the artist career. Jans Ian explains, “that the industry (and its artists) are being harmed by free downloading” , this could and is hurting some artist because they are not making the money they are suppose to