Music Downloading

Is downloading music the same as stealing? Music has always been a creation of borrowing. Folk music has been a result of lyrics being handed down and musicians changing or substituting the tune of words to their own situations. Unlike the current artists folk family, these artists have been introduced to two technologies “publishing rights”, writing and printing; and also “master rights”, sound recording, allowing a company to claim it as their property. These 2 kinds of musical property are mirror images in today’s copyright law. You now need legal right when you use a part of someone else’s material from the publisher and an “ok to go” from the owner of that recording. And a mess is stirred up when someone records without this permission. Taking from another piece of artwork will now lead you to court. However, if these current copyright laws existed back in the day, hip-hop and Pop Art music may not have ever taken rise the way the do today.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) claims to drop $4.2 billion in sales each year due to this online piracy. According to the Association, piracy is defined as illegal duplication of music. Research on the users who download music and the sales in the stores suggest that these music fans are still buying the CD’s of their favorite tunes, regardless of downloading them online. “Far from damaging the music industry, downloading music from the Internet can be a useful and significant marketing tool” (Johnston, File Sharing=Money Making). Advertising music over the Internet has the advantage of album sales increasing. 87% in a survey taken with 500 consumer down loaders, 13-45 years old, say they still continue to buy albums although they listen to it first online. 34% of the “heavy down loaders”, the individuals who download more than 100 tracks, mention that they are still buying more music than ever before and 28% say that downloading music has absolutely no affect to the number of CD’s they purchase throughout a year. Also, two economists to test whether one had an effect on the other had conducted directly observed activity on file sharing and music buying. Although the study showed close to no correlation, others dispute that it is not supported by solid evidence. Other a 17-week period, the two economists evaluated direct data of the study with music downloaders to those of music purchases. "It would take 5,000 downloads to reduce the sales of an album by 1 copy" (Professor Oberholzer-Gee, The New York Times "A Heretical View of File-Sharing").

Refutes debated about this study that was done was based on the 2 sets of data that were being studied. Saying that it does not track individual behavior. Because it has not been peer-reviewed it is not consistent, but on the basis of sales vs. downloads in whole, there does not seem to be any effect.

The music industry has recently confirmed file-sharing a threat. The intellectual-property task force introduced by the Justice Department intends to step up criminal punishment of copyright violation. There are several different web sites, which offer downloading networks such as “BearShare”, “Lime Wire” and many others. Websites such as “Napster” which allows individuals to exchange music files online, is one of the music industry‘s focal point on catching users. Another music program that is a big threat is “Kazaa”. A reason that explains illegal downloading between these 2 networks is that the user has access to new releases of the artists’ songs, up to 2 months before they are out in stores. And of those 87% in the survey with 500 people, consumers said that once the music is profitable in the stores, they would still buy the album.

Consumers have their comments on file sharing. Some see it as a threat while others disregard these laws. A nurse quotes “…it means that when you go down to your local record store you have a better idea of what to look for.” Others comment

Record companies are detecting ways to destroy the computers of people who download this copyright music. From attacking their Internet connections to overpowering the networks that are file sharing. If these ideas are passed under the State and Federal laws, they will be the most destructive attempts yet sought out by record companies. Two of the few different developments that are being considered are “freeze”, which would lock up the users computer, and also “silence”, which could scan a computer’s hard drive and search for pirated music downloads and would make an effort to delete those files. Marc Morgenstern, chief executive of a technology business created to produce counter piracy methods, say that there are a lot of approaches that can be down. It all depends on whether their attempts are legitimate or not.

Aside from these aggressive attempts, the anti-piracy efforts have also included filing lawsuits. The music industry continues the threat to sue hundreds of individual users who illegally share music files online. The RIAA states that there are significant sale declines and are going after these individuals who offer a mass amount of these music file collections. These users are the “heavy down loaders”. The RIAA President, Carey Sherman, warns that after these lawsuits are issued, Internet users of file-sharing software will confront themselves to “the real risk of having to face the music” (Sherman, Music Industry vows to sue online music sharers). For each song provided illegally on a person’s computer, the U.S. copyright laws will file $750-$150,000 in damage.

Students believe that the RIAA is being a little theatrical. There have been researches and surveys conducted on the sales of CD‘s that show no sale declines. To stop these down loaders there are other procedures. With the availability of these programs and with more than enough people downloading, the RIAA will not stop all of them. The RIAA needs to monitor the use of individuals. Freshman Katherine Billington of FSC stated that “They (the RIAA) is spending more money making lawsuits and finding all the criminals than they lost with the illegal downloading”, Freshman Dan Warfield adds “If they made CD’s cheaper, they may have an argument, but $15 for a CD is ridiculous”.

The Recording Industry is going after college students as their #1 target. Subpoenas have already been sent to Universities and Internet Service Providers. Teaming up with campus administration, the Recording Industry plans to help teach students about this law and the outcomes that follow. The RIAA is leading the fight for these lawsuits.

In a CNN article, “Why suing college students for illegal music downloading is right”, illegal downloading is compared to shoplifting. The consumer knows that what they are doing is wrong; however, it is the carefree risk that they are taking that stimulates them. Instead of locking up every piece of merchandise the store has on display to prevent shoplifting, the store and the officials use the alternative approach- Monitoring and Warning. By posting signs they are warning the consumers of the possible consequences of shoplifting. Once caught, then they press charges and do what they need to do. And just like loss and prevention in retail stores, the record companies will need to deal with losses from unidentified sales, if that was the cause.

The verbal threats that the RIAA is handing out are not intimidating to most of the students. From research and personal experience, I’ve learned that students will continue to download copyright music until their classmates, or they themselves get caught. One reason behind this believing is those outrageous prices of CD’s and also the availability of this software. “I download music because I honestly cannot afford to buy CD’s” (Jenn McHugh, FSC Student”). And when a user sees an opportunity across their computer screen to download music free, what is the chance that they’ll get caught?

According to SoundScan, the top 10 selling albums have been a steady downfall since 2000. In the year 2000, 60 million units were sold, 2001, 40 million units, 2002, 34 million, and 2003, 33 million units. If it is not the downloading on the computer, what do these decreases account for? Other factors that play a role to the decline in sales include the slow economy, not as many releases, and a merging of radio stations that results in a fewer selection on the airwaves.

"MLA Copyright for music librarians" has a website that offers a variety of information pertaining to the music industry. It has active links for "FAQ's", "Current Issues", "Guidelines", "Resource", and "About Us". The MLA's web page in continuously updating their information on legislation and other legal matters that circulates in the music industry.

It is a remarkable site that has over 30 periodicals offered also as links. These periodicals are available for anyone to read. This idea helps to expand on this web site and has the answers one may ask. For example, "Copyright", "Art and Law" and "Media" are just a few.
At the top of the website (the "Home"), there is a Site Search. When I typed in "Music Downloading" 2 results were shown after it searched through 123 documents. When I typed in "Copyright", 39 were displayed. Of the 2 results that were shown for "Music Downloading", they were titled "Fair Use for Educational MultiMedia", and also "Digital Excerpts".

Basically these 2 results explain the fair use of copyrighted work. It goes through to explain the limitations, Educational Use, and gives examples of when permission is required.

Copyright was intended to help in the growth in the borrowing of ideas but ended up in lawsuits against stealing. The RIAA considers Pirate Recordings, Counterfeit Recordings, Bootleg Recordings, and Online Piracy the four types of piracy that are illegal. With the RIAA effort of suing close to 400 individuals for downloading copyright music online, the amount of Americans who download music online has been cut, as indicated by a report released on January 4, 2004. Although the RIAA can demand $150,000 per song, most of the settlements were between $2,500 and $7,500. Whether there is clear and sufficient evidence or not, and whatever the reason for the drop in album sales is, the record company takes this lawsuit seriously. If you do not have enough money to buy a CD because it is so expensive so you turn to downloading the song online, how do you have enough money to pay for the fine? I think that downloading someone else’s music online is wrong. Without permission or a purpose I would not do it. Downloaders ought to think twice next time about the consequences that follow them. You live and you learn, in this case, some may have to learn the expensive way.