Internet Music Sharing and the RIAA Essay

After the period elapses, any person can use, print, publish, and distribute the original work. The music industry has been in dispute for many years in respect to music piracy. It went after software and website developers, as well as consumers in the courts (Easley, 2005, p.163). As a result, this may be why governing the expansion of the music industry towards later benefits for the industry; however, not toward those who pirate from them (Easley, 2005, p.163). There is clear evidence of a willingness to pay for online music in general through legal download services such as iTunes (Easley, 2005, p.163). It is clear that some new markets are emerging; for example, services such as 4G LTE combine music with other services. These markets may provide both better margins and better copyright protection to the music industry. Nevertheless, some forms of music piracy may ultimately come to be seen as an effective marketing channel for those services (Easley, 2005, p.163). Clearly the industry is adapting piracy issues.

After the start of the suit in 2006, they launched a paying service named Limewire Store. This pacified some labels but given the overwhelming number of illegal downloads still happening, the majority of labels didn’t seem satisfied. The executives involved in the suit also said that the company should pay more than 1 billion dollars in damages for their copyright violations.

Peer-to-Peer file sharing is a more unorthodox way of obtaining files because instead of going through a web browser to get files, computer users use software such as Limewire and Vuze to access the files on other user’s computers. These file sharing software find as many computers as they can with the files that they are looking for, divide up the information necessary among the computers, and download a fraction of information from each computer. Each computer is given the title “peer” if it is utilized in the

LimeWire, as many know, was a free peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing program. In August of 2006, LimeWire found themselves in some major legal trouble when the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) demanded LimeWire be ceased for good. In the suit, the RIAA accused LimeWire of operating a web service ““devoted essentially” to piracy by allowing users to upload and download songs without permission.” (“Major Record Labels Settle Suit with LimeWire”).

For the past 15 years, tech companies have created websites and apps that are convenient for people to consume music. The music industry has been very defensive about streaming companies using music. What makes the music industry hostile against tech is the not only the lack of knowledge, but the process of paying for the use of copyrighted music. Regulations in the past have helped in protecting copyrighted work and the way other parties pay to owners, but it has been changed to solve the copyrighted problem for streaming music on the internet. The proposal to give publishers opt-out options is a big step in solving the piracy issue that has impact one of the music industry’s important source of income

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.

The issues that will be slugged out in federal district court in San Francisco sound a little too pop culture to be all that serious. How many music CDs are people buying these days in record stores throughout the nation because of Napster? Is the technology that Napster uses legal? Napster is, of course, the wildly popular file-sharing service whose 20 million users have downloaded some half a billion songs--most copyrighted for free. The technology that Napster has brought to music listeners across the globe has allowed the freedom of obtaining music for free and should not be shut down by the entertainment industry's argument in federal court.

Once upon a time a website provided free music through peer-to-peer file sharing. This was a new technology for the public for a several reasons. The price of home computers had declines dramatically and many people could now afford one. Because of the affordability, many people who had never used a computer suddenly found themselves enmeshed in the new media. Not only could people do their e-mail, do paperwork, play games and use all the different applications they now could also share their files with others. Of course, they wanted to share one of our most valued pleasures, our love of music. The public was not aware that this type of file sharing was illegal because it was not clear on the website disclaimer. Most people did not

Producers of musical content cannot undo the adverse effects that piracy has had on the industry. Because of the internet and the way individuals have manipulated it to obtain music, many people are unwilling to change their habits. Here lies the issue between the producer and the consumer. Acts like the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and PROTECT Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) work against the incentive of many consumers by telling them that they cannot do what maximizes their utility. Producers are thus working against the likings of the consumer. This is wrong.

            By far and away, the largest problem in dealing with a case like Napster is determining all of who is involved, and what actions and interactions they contribute to the core issues at hand.  Since Napster's primary focus is the distribution of digital music, we must look at the producers, the distributors, and the consumers of the music.  First, we have the artists, who create the music, and who also are split on the issue of Napster.  Emerging artists tend to favor Napster, for it acts as a major distribution and advertising engine for artists not under the protection of a major label.  However, established artists, whose livelihood depends on the royalties they receive from their copyrighted work, tend to be opposed to a distribution engine that deprives them of such royalties,

Ever since 18-year-old Shawn Fanning created Napster in his Northeastern University dorm room in 1999, downloading and sharing music online has become one of the most popular things to do on the Internet today. But why wouldn't it? Getting all your favorite songs from all your favorite artists for free, who wouldn't want to start sharing music? The answer to that question are the people who feel that stealing from the music industry is not morally right, because that is exactly what every person who shares music is doing. People who download music think it's something they can get away with but now it might be payback time to a lot of those people.

The internet is seeing a new model against piracy forcing some artists to opt out of electronic sales. The government laws have made music very freely available but most artists are suggesting the government will go over these laws again to bring music back to the level of importance that it is.

Technology is constantly changing and reinventing itself. With every new invention there will be controversy on how it affects the industry it is within. There will also be those who exploit the new technology is some way or form. MP3’s is an example of a controversial break through in technology. The question arises should the music industry embrace the opportunities MP3’s can offer or fight it.

Companies like Apple, have decided that it is best to get in with the downloading business. However, an end to the illegal downloading conflict remains to be realized. The RIAA and associated artists continue to wage war against illegal downloaders while computer savvy audiences persist in sharing music files online every day. While it is undoubtedly true that downloading music is a crime, it remains to be proven that it is wrong. Without establishing this principle, most downloader's are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means of downloading files, they can still be shared for free online. The rift must be repaired between music lovers who feel that they have been taken advantage of in the past and recording companies and artists who worry about their future livelihood.

The Internet was made for sharing. Whether it be sharing facts about new discoveries in science, helping people in other parts of the world understand your culture, or simply sharing the human experience with new and old friends alike, the Internet cannot survive without the spread of information. One form of information that humans have been creating since the dawn of existence found a perfect home on the Internet: music. Users across the world began listening to styles and genres that they could have never imagined, by artists that they had never heard of. Before music was shared on the Internet, it was only able to be owned in a physical platform such as vinyl, cassette tape, or compact disk. The Internet allows music to be downloaded