Should People Be Penalized for Downloading and Unauthorized Copy of a Song or Movie

One reason why I think people should be prosecuted to an extent is because it is a harmless crime. People in the world have gotten a lesser charge for things that are worst than piracy. Some of the crimes actually can involve hurting others yet they get a lesser crime. On a website

According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded between 2004 and 2009. Even with sites like iTunes and Rhapsody offering legal downloads, peer-to-peer file sharing still exists. Illegally downloading music has had a significant impact on the music industry resulting in a loss of profits and jobs, and changing how music is delivered to the masses. (Adkins, n.d.) Showing that even having the ethically correct option P2P sharing of illegal media is still thriving. The RIAA reports that music sales in the United States have dropped

Online Piracy is a federal crime and should be prosecuted as so. The FBI shows warnings to constantly remind people about the consequences of piracy. For example, "Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by federal law enforcement agencies and is punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine of $250,000" (12), People for piracy say as well that because everyone is doing it, it's okay. But as the author of a musicians rant says, "last time I checked, when something is wrong, it's wrong. Period."(13). No matter what, Piracy is stealing and stealing is a crime that should be punished as so.

Due to the increasing popularity of online file sharing, record labels lose money whether they protect their music or not. The book 2000s Music, written by author David Larkins and musician Greg Wilson, states., after Napster was sued, illegal file sharing grew even more popular as opposed to less (Larkins 1). The popularity of free digital music harms musicians for obvious reasons, a loss of revenue. Since the internet cannot control illegal downloads, the pay musicians receive is negatively affected. J.J. Arias, a Georgian University Professor of Economics stated in his academic journal, the enforcement of copyright laws in the digital realm proves to be a costly venture (Arias 124). Illegal file sharing networks are mostly ignored since it often costs more to find and remove file sharing than it is to ignore it. Because of this,

This paper examines the role of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in protecting the intellectual copyright of recordings from illegal downloading, which continues to be a major problem for the recording industry despite repeated efforts to stop this practice by consumers. This role of the RIAA relates to the business and economic aspects of the recording industry and illegal downloads from online platforms. The RIAA’s role in addressing illegal downloading has involved lobbying governments for enforcement of copyrights, litigation against private parties (individuals and organizations), engaged in illegal downloads, and marketing campaigns encouraging customers to refrain from engaging in illegal downloads. The paper begins with a background on how the technological developments led to the problem of illegal downloads before examining the role of the RIAA in curbing this practice. The analysis then concludes with the finding that the RIAA has been deficient in curbing this practice, resulting in significant losses in sales, revenues, and profits for the recording industry.

had touched on how people are making a hobby of illegally downloading music. I found an article by Amy Adkins titled How Does Illegally Downloading Music Impact the Music Industry. She touches on a few subjects of how illegally downloading music directly affects the music industry. She opens up the article stating that 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded between 2004 and 2009 which is a staggering statistic. Napster came out in 1999 and was a free file sharing website where people were getting music illegally. The music industry has loss $12.5 billion due to the availability of free music. Some people have been taken to court for being found downloading illegally. In her article Adkins reveals that due to the illegal downloading of music

The question then became “Just because we can get the music we want without paying for it, should we?” (Tyson, 2000, p.1). This issue of illegal downloads, which is also referred to as piracy, has been a hot topic ever since the introduction of Napster. According to Recording Industry Association of America “In the decade since peer-to-peer (p2p) file-sharing site Napster emerged in 1999, music sales in the U.S. have dropped 47 percent, from $14.6 billion to $7.7 billion” (RIAA, 2014).

Napster, a free online file sharing network, allowed peers to share digital files directly with each other by way of connections through its software and system. The no cost peer-to-peer sharing gained popularity, particularly with trendy music. A&M Records took notice of the free digital music downloads and brought suit against Napster for direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringements (Washington University School of Law, 2013).

Downloading music from the internet, especially illegally, is one of the leading topics in the world today, mainly here in America. Almost every home in this country has a computer, and some, more than others, making it even easier to have access to the internet. Because of this, people seem to stay at home more and do everything from the computer like shopping for clothes, looking for a new car, or what most people are doing today, downloading music and/or other media. This topic becomes more serious every single day. Everyone who uses this method of getting music or other types of media, don’t realize what they are doing and what’s at risk. People see an easy way of doing something for free and they are ready and willing to do it

    Abstract:  file-sharing violates existing copyright law by facilitating the widespread and illegal distribution of copyrighted material.  This paper examines the case against file-sharing, by looking at how the players bear responsibility for the illegal acts currently made possible by this new technology.  Finally, it suggests some remedies for file-sharing companies to reform themselves and become a potentially powerful and revolutionary company while still acting in compliance with the law.

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.

Amidst the hot debate about whether or not music should be free, are ethical and moral considerations as well. The emergence of digital entertainment, whether MP3, peer-to-peer (P2P) applications, video streaming, or audio books, has caused an inevitable shift in the entertainment market (Weiss, 2006). Napster rapidly became a success when it started allowing its customers to download MP3 music free of charge. In fact, Napster’s form of file-sharing shifted the entertainment market from a commodity base to a service base by eliminating cost to the customer. This paper will discuss the major issues in this case study, who the key stakeholders are and how they have changed since Napster’s beginning, what the stakes were for the different

Companies such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) regularly post revenue statistics that include income from CDs, streaming, downloads, cassettes, SoundExchange, and every other profitable area of the business. What they show is shocking; revenue has decreased by more than 50 percent, from around $15 billion to just under $7 billion. When sites pay miniscule amounts, such as .006 to .0084 cents (Spotify) or .000017 cents (Pandora) per stream, the total revenue

Recently, there has been a series of copyright infringement litigations against Internet businesses that are involved with unauthorized distribution of music files. The US recording industry claims to lose three million dollars per year because of piracy. A report predicted an estimated 16 percent of all US music sales, or 985 million dollars would be lost due to online piracy by 2002 (Foege, 2000; cited from McCourt & Burkart, 2003) Even though this claim has to be taken with caution, as it is based on false assumption that if copyright laws were strictly enforced, audio pirates would become buyers, it is apparent that audio piracy grew to a worrisome level for the record industry. (Gayer

Ever since the start of illegal music downloading there has been an ongoing debate. As with any controversy, there are those whose positions stand at one end of the spectrum or the other and also those who are moderate or nonchalant. Many believe that downloading a song without paying for it is not only illegal, but also immoral. None-the less, people continue to download songs, rationalizing that the record companies are getting what they deserve after years of overpriced CD's or that the artists won't really miss the money. Some people are not sure what to make of the situation, sympathizing in some respects with either side. There are several proposed solutions to this problem, but it has become obvious that there is not easy or clear