Music Industry And How Serious The Music Piracy

This case with the A & M Records vs. Napster, Inc. stated that record companies and music producers are filing a lawsuit against Napster. Napster is an online media source that serves the consumers for downloading music to their tablets, I phone’s, MP3 players, to where the consumers must have access to the Napster system to receive files and data. The A & M records are suing for the copyrights that the Napster is taking advantage from the music industry that the company had no rights to give permission over to Napster to transfer through servers. The A & M Records must have evidence that shows the ownership of the material and the copyright.

The case of A&M Records Inc. v. Napster Inc., record companies brought infringement action against Napster for the unfair use of copyrighted work and harmed the potentiality of music within the market (239 F3d 1004, 2001). With the burgeoning of the internet age, musicians and artists were faced with the threat of in home piracy, via file sharing programs like Napster, or Grokster.

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.

For many years illegal file sharing and music swapping has been going on. Two very popular cases are the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster case and the A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster case. Both cases differ in many ways however they also have similarities. A lot of music and other sorts of entertainment are being distributed for free all over the internet. What some people do not think of are the consequences that will be faced if they get caught. Not only is the distributor at risk for getting caught but those of us that download the software illegally can be charged.

According to the New York Time article, Major Record Labels Settle Suit With LimeWire written by Ben Sisario, the settlement for this suit was $105 million which was far from the $1.4 billion the labels had sought as a maximum penalty. This article also explains that the companies are hoping that the case will act as a deterrent (2). The damage LimeWire created negatively affected the artist community.

The question of law before the court was whether or not LimeWire should be held accountable for copyright infringement. The court ruled in the Recording Industry Association of America’s favor and the verdict stood that LimeWire was liable of copyright infringement. The RIAA sought up to $150,000 per copyright violation, claiming “ninety-three percent of the program was unauthorized copyright material.” (“LimeWire Crushed in RIAA Infringement Lawsuit”). Mr. Judge Wood of the United States District Court in Manhattan stated in a synopsis that LimeWire and its designer, Mark Gorton, had perpetrated copyright infringement, joined in inequitable rivalry and influenced others to enact copyright infringement. LimeWire highly disagreed with the ruling and declared that they intended to stay in business.

Facts: Grokster, Ltd. and another company, StreamCast Networks Inc, created software that allowed users to share electronic files through a series of peer-to-peer networks on computers without using a central server. This software allowed users to share any type of digital file, but most people used the software to share and distribute copyright music and video files without permission of the copyright holders, which was encouraged by the software companies. As a response a group of movie studies and other copyright holders sued Grokster and StreamCast for the infringement on their copyrights, arguing that the software companies were knowingly and intentionally using their software

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that peer to peer file sharing is copyright infringement. Millions of people illegally copied and shared copyrighted music, films, and software over the internet that directly infringed MGM’s copyright. Copyright violations were knowingly caused by the defendant by promoting the

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.

We all know that downloading pirated music and films is illegal, but what exactly is it? The term piracy refers to the copying and selling of music, films and other media illegally; in other words you are copying and selling copyrighted media without the permission of the original owner (NiDirect, n.d.). With the massive growth of the internet and its ability to store and capture vast amounts of data, we have become much more reliable on information systems in all aspects of life, but it does not come without the risk of information technology being used unethically. With the number of IT breakthroughs in recent years “the importance of ethics and human values has been underemphasised” often resulting in various consequences. Not surprisingly one of the many public concerns about the ethical use of IT is that “millions of people have downloaded music and movies at no charge and in apparent violation of copyright laws at tremendous expense to the owners of those copyrights” (Reynolds, Ethics in Information Technology, 2015). This essay covers the ethical issues of downloading pirated music and films and the impact it has on music corporations and recording and film companies.

“Before the days of YouTube and the Internet, a band 's chances of striking it big depended on record companies. If a band was lucky enough to get a record deal, it gained access to a label 's vast resources and connections. The company paid for the band 's studio time, … and got its music played on the radio, reaching millions of record buying Americans” (Majerol, 1). Now, anyone with talent can post a video of themselves and become an internet sensation, only to then receive a deal with a label to continue growing their career. The issue is, with the Internet came digital downloading, and with the growing popularity of digital downloading came illegal downloading, known as Digital Piracy, which has affected the music industry greatly. This issue affects everyone involved in the Music Industry. From the small CD store owner to the Artist on stage, everyone has and continues to be affected by the growing popularity of digital downloading services. Artists, producers, and songwriters lose an estimated 12.5 Billion USD every year to illegal digital music services. Further, the economic impact from [digital downloading] is an estimated loss of 2+ Billion USD (Storrs, 1). This money affects the “little guys” in the industry and the average worker within the industry.

A&M Records v. Napster is a landmark case in which the application of intellectual property laws has forever impacted contemporary culture with regards to digital works. The legal issues and applicable laws presented in the instant case resulted in a holding, which set forth a precedent that has influence the mode and means of digital works distribution. The outcome of Napster affects both businesses and individuals.

Due to the sharp growth of economic and the huge scale of music market in China, the importance of China’s music industry catches the attention. Although the China’s music industry still cannot shake off some issues such as governmental control, political influence, copyright and so on (Montgomery 2010), the innovation of information technology bring an enormous change to this industry. Indeed, from 2000, this dramatically change attracted more international music companies to enter China’s music market. It is complicated to study on an underdevelopment music industry in China.

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.