Illegal Music DownloadingEssay Preview: Illegal Music DownloadingReport this essayEver 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 CDs or that the artists wont 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 answer. However, I believe that it should be considered illegal.
>Illegal Music DownloadingEssay Preview:
Illegal Music DownloadingReport this essayIt was inevitable that the term illegale became a derogatory word, which was used to denote certain people who would not give fair play to any law enforcement official, either in their own country or abroad, including at large local and international law enforcement agencies. There are certain circumstances on which that term refers, namely (1) if the album was on a legal download of a single (i.e. a music package); (2) if the album was purchased from one of the many non-licensees, who were a party to the sale; and (3) if the album was sold. But there are, among other things, many legal methods that can prevent people from selling to illegal individuals, such as: (1) by publishing all the songs it contains on the Internet (e.g., on iTunes and Soundcloud); (2) by giving them to people who are not technically suspected of doing so (e.g. by selling the illegal music only on the Web); and (3) by allowing people to download pirated music. All of these kinds of methods are often not available for other illegal musicians to do the same to others.
http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29186928/IllegalMusic_Analysis.rtfIllegal download and downloading has led to all sorts of different sorts of problems.
The most commonly accepted method of illegal download is the use of one of two things: (1) copyright infringement at the copyright level or in some other way. This is commonly called ‘defamatory downloading’. (2) public domain. But both are illegal, and the former involves someone distributing a copyrighted work. In this case, the copyright infringement is usually made on the software that created the work. The infringement is caused even if the copyright doesn’t already exist on the original works, so it’s an intentional copyright infringement, or not at all.
With the release of the U.S. Open Music Treaty in 2013, the U.S. government decided not to limit the type or extent of such infringements. But with respect to this, in some situations there has been an actual copyright infringement. This isn’t the first time this has occurred, but many times the cases have been handled improperly. For example, in 1995, a lawsuit was brought by a couple who were trying to sell a vinyl version of an anti-piracy album entitled “Under the Milky Way” which was originally intended to be used in concert. In 1995, another lawsuit was brought by a couple who were trying to sell a vinyl copy of the book “The Godfather” which was originally intended as a film version and was later sold at film festivals. In 1997, the United States Supreme Court ruled that copyright infringement could be prosecuted by a private defense attorney. In both cases the parties were held liable for using the copyrighted work for commercial or social purpose.
Many people still consider downloading copyright infringements a form of copyright infringement because that’s something that must be removed or taken down before the work can be considered an infringement. But there are many other ways of doing things that infringe on your choice of music. It is a way to use copyrighted works, but also for something that you wouldn’t expect to be
After recording companies experienced record losses over the last few years, contributed largely to this controversial practice, the record industry has made its position clear. They commenced to “take legal action against thousands of people for illegally sharing music files”. They view this as the fist step to encouraging file-sharers to stop illegally downloading music. According to the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), over “2.6 billion song files are unlawfully downloaded each month.” While the RIAA had substantial losses, they are not the only parties potentially harmed by illegal file-sharing. The artists who work to produce these albums, arguably short-changed from the beginning, are losing money as well. Recording artist Dave Matthews feels that “if you dig an artist that much, then you should want to help keep that artist alive by purchasing the actual recording.” As a matter of moral and financial significance, file-sharing is a considered a large threat to the entertainment industry. So, while the RIAA and many recording artists stand staunchly opposed to illegal downloading, people continue to download every day.
Making music more affordable and accessible to listeners in a way that people have grown accustomed seems to be the main problem. 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 downloaders are likely to continue the activity. Even with new, inexpensive and available means
The Copyright Act of 1978
The Copyright Act of 1978 is a non-trivial and costly way of expanding copyright infringement in the United States. Although the DMCA is a highly effective legal tool against unauthorized access to copyrighted works, legal decisions have often been decided in a technical-minded way. However, a successful legal victory over the DMCA is important for future copyright infringements and for establishing a greater appreciation of legitimate copyright.
The DMCA should be used in three key ways. First, as an effective, non-trivial, but very effective means of defending copyright infringement:
First, as a means of making music more accessible to consumers, and a way of making music more accessible to users on the “Internet” as we know it;
Second, as a means of fighting the unlawful distribution of copyrighted music in the United States, which would include non-profit organizations, and for organizations that receive money from the sale of songs, and for organizations that provide music, and support legal legal services, including the enforcement of the DMCA;
Third, as a tool for the enforcement of copyright claims in the United States by organizations that are non-profit organizations, by groups that are not merely law enforcement entities;
In short, DMCA-less and non-profit musical production has significant financial costs in both business and legal terms:
In the past, musical production costs of music companies often were used as incentives to sell merchandise that wouldn’t exist without them, thus increasing the likelihood of paying copyright infringers what amounts to legal fees. However, these sales became increasingly unsustainable by the late 1970s as the public consciousness changed. Music production companies have always been able to provide better music that can be played as well as purchased that people will benefit from under a traditional business model. As a consequence, these companies have become relatively profitable. But, as with all economic endeavors, there is a long way in which consumers and businesses can be successful in trying to win back copyright. Many companies and individuals have started providing music to pay for licenses, either directly or through services as intermediaries. While no one company is perfect, they are certainly some of the most successful companies. In fact, two of the most successful “Music Distributors” and nine of the first 10 “Licensees” are companies directly or via services that utilize legal legal services.
In order for both an individual and a specific benefit to be granted that company can have a reasonable opportunity to make an operating profit over the life or death of the legal business model.[1] In 2012, Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:EA) announced that it has reached an agreement with an individual for a 5-year royalty rate at a loss. The partnership is expected to be the first of many to open across the entertainment sector, and it will allow them to
The Copyright Act of 1978
The Copyright Act of 1978 is a non-trivial and costly way of expanding copyright infringement in the United States. Although the DMCA is a highly effective legal tool against unauthorized access to copyrighted works, legal decisions have often been decided in a technical-minded way. However, a successful legal victory over the DMCA is important for future copyright infringements and for establishing a greater appreciation of legitimate copyright.
The DMCA should be used in three key ways. First, as an effective, non-trivial, but very effective means of defending copyright infringement:
First, as a means of making music more accessible to consumers, and a way of making music more accessible to users on the “Internet” as we know it;
Second, as a means of fighting the unlawful distribution of copyrighted music in the United States, which would include non-profit organizations, and for organizations that receive money from the sale of songs, and for organizations that provide music, and support legal legal services, including the enforcement of the DMCA;
Third, as a tool for the enforcement of copyright claims in the United States by organizations that are non-profit organizations, by groups that are not merely law enforcement entities;
In short, DMCA-less and non-profit musical production has significant financial costs in both business and legal terms:
In the past, musical production costs of music companies often were used as incentives to sell merchandise that wouldn’t exist without them, thus increasing the likelihood of paying copyright infringers what amounts to legal fees. However, these sales became increasingly unsustainable by the late 1970s as the public consciousness changed. Music production companies have always been able to provide better music that can be played as well as purchased that people will benefit from under a traditional business model. As a consequence, these companies have become relatively profitable. But, as with all economic endeavors, there is a long way in which consumers and businesses can be successful in trying to win back copyright. Many companies and individuals have started providing music to pay for licenses, either directly or through services as intermediaries. While no one company is perfect, they are certainly some of the most successful companies. In fact, two of the most successful “Music Distributors” and nine of the first 10 “Licensees” are companies directly or via services that utilize legal legal services.
In order for both an individual and a specific benefit to be granted that company can have a reasonable opportunity to make an operating profit over the life or death of the legal business model.[1] In 2012, Electronic Arts (NASDAQ:EA) announced that it has reached an agreement with an individual for a 5-year royalty rate at a loss. The partnership is expected to be the first of many to open across the entertainment sector, and it will allow them to