Use of the Internet as a Tool for Piracy Essay

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.

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

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.

Napster was a music sharing software that was shut down because of copying and distributing unauthorized MP3 files that violated the United States and foreign copyright laws. One of the major reasons why Napster was shutdown is

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.

For over a decade now music piracy has threatened the music industry by costing it money, and stealing from it. Peer-to-peer file sharing has been somewhat of a red flag for the music industry ever since Napster, a once highly used file swapping network, came into the picture. Napster and the websites similar to it made it possible for people to trade files downloaded onto their computer through the internet for free. What that means is that someone who had downloaded the new NSYNC album could give it away to however many people could access it and no one had to pay a penny. The big deal about that is the fact that the artists who worked for months to make that album did not get paid. The only money they saw was from the people who actually went out and physically paid for the CD.

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).

The popularity of Napster happened quickly with 15 million registered users in less than one year, according to company sources. Napster had the attention of the Record Industry Association of America (RIAA), and their concerns of Copyright infringement. About a year after its launch, it was sued by the RIAA, which represented major recording companies such as Universal Music, BMG, Sony Music, and Warner Music Group. They claimed that by allowing users to swap free music recordings, Napster’s service violated Copyright laws. Eventually, the judge ruled against Napster forcing them to shut down operations and liquidate its assets [3].

The first massive strike on the record industry (RIAA) reports that music sales in the United States have dropped 47 percent since Napster came out in 1999. The availability of free music has cost the music industry $12.5 billion in economic losses. To regain some of these losses, the record industry has filed lawsuits against individuals who have been found to own downloaded music files. In some cases, some of those individuals have been sued for thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to Northwestern University

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).

How can traditional (or old media) enterprises such as film, television and music overcome the threat of online piracy and file sharing?

Digitalization, data compression, and the internet have affected the music industry significantly. These technologies have shifted the recording industries from hard-copy recordings to digital music distribution. This has made it easier for consumers to enter the music market through copying. Consumers have access to copying technology that allows them to obtain music without paying the record label. The situations clipped high in 1999 when Napster, a file-sharing service was launched. The service facilitated music file sharing on a wider scale. The consumers just download the music and transfer it to a digital music device. This has negatively affected the trade value of music sales, for instance in

The area of Atlanta contains millions of people, and each person owns personal electronic devices. Common electronic devices may include: laptops, phones, music players, etc. Every household contains at least one of each device. From the IFPI in a BBC article, ninety-five percent of music is downloaded online illegally (“Legal Downloads Swamped”). The population of Atlanta’s area is almost 5.5 million in 2009(“About Atlanta”). Based on the statistics given, it is calculated that 5,225,000 music files for a particular song would have been downloaded from the internet in this city alone, and each file for a song costs almost a dollar. That is more than five million dollars lost for a single song in Atlanta. The example only shows only a

About 5 years ago Napster, a network software application, was being used to download music files. The network was growing faster than anybody who ever started it would have imagined. When artists, songwriters, and all of the other people involved in making CD's realized that this wasn't going to slow down any time soon, they decided that they needed to stop Napster. Little by little, Napster was being less used and it became harder to find the songs wanted until nobody used it anymore. When all of this was happening, other applications were made available. Kazaa and Grokster are probably the two most used Peer to Peer, or P2P file sharing networks you can find, although there are many others.

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.