peer-to-peer filing software. source: www.downloadmoz.com
One of the first file sharing sites. Source: cnet.com
Could streaming stop online piracy? Source: vh1.com
Works Cited
Bilton, Nick. "NEWS ANALYSIS; Internet Pirates Will Always Win." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Koh, Byungwan, and Srinivasan Raghunathan. Shift in Demand for Music: Causal Effect of Online Music Piracy and Digital Music on Album Sales. Dallas: University of Texas, Nov. 2010. PDF.
Gross, Grant. "House Committee Appears Headed Toward Approving SOPA."PCWorld. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.
Mokey, Nick. "Music, Movie and Software Piracy: What's Your Chance of Getting Caught?" Digital Trends. N.p., 23 Oct. 2009. Web. 31 May
Hu, Jim. "Bertelsmann to Buy Napster for a Song - CNET News." CNET News. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.
Sisario, Ben. "As Music Streaming Grows, Artists’ Royalties Slow to a Trickle." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 May 2013.
Sudler, Hasshi. "Effectiveness of anti-piracy technology: Finding appropriate solutions for evolving online piracy," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 149-157.
"Viacom International, Inc. Et Al v. Youtube, Inc. Et Al, 1:07-cv-02103, No. 452 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2013)." Docketalarm. Www.docketalarm.com, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 28 May 2013.
Nikko Noble
5/12/2013
Consequences of Copyright Law and Alternatives to Distribute of New Media
Ever since the 1990s, online piracy has always been a serious issue for the future of the internet. Online piracy has cut major profits from companies due to consumers illegally downloading their products. The simplest solution from a company's perspective is to enforce United States copyright laws and have the media be taken down. However, these copyright laws can inhibit free thinking and creativity on the internet. The openness of the internet is arguably why it has been so successful in connecting and communicating to the entire world. What is a fair solution for both parties so that companies can receive their profits while also maintaining peoples creativity? Big business now have to compete with free, and the only logical solution would be to create a better medium of distributing media than what peer-to-peer websites already provide. Companies need to embrace alternative forms of distributing media rather than further pursuing and enforcing copyright laws to discourage and stop online piracy.
Companies that try to sue consumers for piracy are fighting a fruitless battle due to the fact that the majority of people are pirating media online. Pirating movies, video games, and different types of music are a very accessible practice that only requires an internet connection and a torrenting software. It’s not a surprise with these tools that a majority of Americans take part in pirating media. Thirty-six Million Americans admitted in 2005 of illegaling downloading music and movies. This statistic jumped to 42 million, or 15% of Americans in 2008. However, Companies tried to pursue a small amount of people. From 2003 to 2008, a reported “28,000 individuals have faced lawsuits, either threatened, filed, or settled.” (Mokey). Most lawsuits ended up with consumers paying a large fee for pirating digital content. An example of this would be Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages for her theft of 24 songs. American copyright laws allow courts to assign a value of between $750 and $150,000 per song. (Hasshi). Most consumers will never be able to pay for these fines in twice their lifetimes, which makes it pointless for companies to put effort into these types of lawsuits. If companies are trying to send a message about what they own on the internet, it can be overshadowed by their fruitless results.
5/12/2013
Consequences of Copyright Law and Alternatives to Distribute of New Media
Ever since the 1990s, online piracy has always been a serious issue for the future of the internet. Online piracy has cut major profits from companies due to consumers illegally downloading their products. The simplest solution from a company's perspective is to enforce United States copyright laws and have the media be taken down. However, these copyright laws can inhibit free thinking and creativity on the internet. The openness of the internet is arguably why it has been so successful in connecting and communicating to the entire world. What is a fair solution for both parties so that companies can receive their profits while also maintaining peoples creativity? Big business now have to compete with free, and the only logical solution would be to create a better medium of distributing media than what peer-to-peer websites already provide. Companies need to embrace alternative forms of distributing media rather than further pursuing and enforcing copyright laws to discourage and stop online piracy.
Companies that try to sue consumers for piracy are fighting a fruitless battle due to the fact that the majority of people are pirating media online. Pirating movies, video games, and different types of music are a very accessible practice that only requires an internet connection and a torrenting software. It’s not a surprise with these tools that a majority of Americans take part in pirating media. Thirty-six Million Americans admitted in 2005 of illegaling downloading music and movies. This statistic jumped to 42 million, or 15% of Americans in 2008. However, Companies tried to pursue a small amount of people. From 2003 to 2008, a reported “28,000 individuals have faced lawsuits, either threatened, filed, or settled.” (Mokey). Most lawsuits ended up with consumers paying a large fee for pirating digital content. An example of this would be Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages for her theft of 24 songs. American copyright laws allow courts to assign a value of between $750 and $150,000 per song. (Hasshi). Most consumers will never be able to pay for these fines in twice their lifetimes, which makes it pointless for companies to put effort into these types of lawsuits. If companies are trying to send a message about what they own on the internet, it can be overshadowed by their fruitless results.
One of the first file sharing sites. Source: cnet.com
COPYRIGHT HISTORY
Big businesses that try to push for harder copyright laws could also face a negative public reaction and outcry. Over the past half decade, many senators have pushed for and endorsed bills that try to extend copyright laws over the internet. This has received a lot of criticism from the public. However, most people don’t realize how far this issue goes back. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 was one of the first major bills passed that started to enforce copyright laws on the internet. This was one of the reasons why the website Napster was taken down in 2001. Napster, at its peak, received 2.1 billion downloads a month. The site also garnered 80 million accounts in the year 2000 (Byungwan, Raghunathan). The site provided mp3 files of songs without any form of payment to the artists. This was great for creating publicity for unexposed musicians and spreading new songs through word of mouth. However, the straw that broke the camel’s back was when an unreleased Metallica song, named “I Disappear”, made it onto the site without the band’s knowledge. (Jones) The band’s front runner and drummer, Lars Ulrich, filed a lawsuit against the website. It was stated by Christopher Jones of Wired that “It was ruled that Napster violated three laws; copyright infringement, unlawful use of a digital audio interface device, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”. These together were the basis for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After the incident, Napster filed for bankruptcy and was later sold to a German multinational mass media corporation for 80 million dollars. Today, Napster is a pay to listen mp3-site, and has succumed to the burdens of lawsuits and copyright laws to the extent that it is no longer a popular or powerful website that it was during the late 90’s and early 2000’s (Hu).
The outcome of internet copyright laws has become so mixed that it isn’t worth a companies investment and time to pursue. Some have been successful in passing through the house, and some have received so much negative publicity that they have been shot down by the public. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was a bill that was ahead of its time, considering how controversial and debatable the topic of internet piracy is today. Over the past decade, the act has come into play in a lot of major court cases in America. One of the most notable was the Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. In this court case, Viacom, one of the largest multimedia conglomerates in the world, sued YouTube for $1 billion dollars for allowing users to upload and share videos that had many copyrighted material owned by Viacom in them. These clips ranged from kids T.V shows such as Spongebob Squarepants, to late night political satire such as the The Daily Show. In April of 2013, a court decision was made in the favor of YouTube, saying that YouTube “did not have the ‘right and ability to control’ infringing activity because "there is no evidence that YouTube induced its users to submit infringing videos, provided users with detailed instructions about what content to upload or edited their content, prescreened submissions for quality, steered users to infringing videos, or otherwise interacted with infringing users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their activity." (Docketalarm.com) Another bill that created many protests was the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA for short. This bill tried to fight online piracy by blocking piracy websites, such as the Pirate Bay, in the United States. However this bill would have caused other consequences, such as removing videos and created content that had copyright material in it. In response, major networking websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit, Youtube, and others tried to raise awareness by changing their websites black, which received a lot of publicity. (Butler) One of the most notable was the wikipedia’s “blackout”, which turned the whole website black, stopped users from entering any other page, and said the words “imagine a world without free knowledge.” This alone caused much of the support to get the billed rejected in the senate. It was reported that on “the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Darrell Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and internet providers.” (Gross) This shows the lengths that people will go through to protect their rights, creativity, and free speech on the internet.
Big businesses that try to push for harder copyright laws could also face a negative public reaction and outcry. Over the past half decade, many senators have pushed for and endorsed bills that try to extend copyright laws over the internet. This has received a lot of criticism from the public. However, most people don’t realize how far this issue goes back. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 was one of the first major bills passed that started to enforce copyright laws on the internet. This was one of the reasons why the website Napster was taken down in 2001. Napster, at its peak, received 2.1 billion downloads a month. The site also garnered 80 million accounts in the year 2000 (Byungwan, Raghunathan). The site provided mp3 files of songs without any form of payment to the artists. This was great for creating publicity for unexposed musicians and spreading new songs through word of mouth. However, the straw that broke the camel’s back was when an unreleased Metallica song, named “I Disappear”, made it onto the site without the band’s knowledge. (Jones) The band’s front runner and drummer, Lars Ulrich, filed a lawsuit against the website. It was stated by Christopher Jones of Wired that “It was ruled that Napster violated three laws; copyright infringement, unlawful use of a digital audio interface device, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”. These together were the basis for the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After the incident, Napster filed for bankruptcy and was later sold to a German multinational mass media corporation for 80 million dollars. Today, Napster is a pay to listen mp3-site, and has succumed to the burdens of lawsuits and copyright laws to the extent that it is no longer a popular or powerful website that it was during the late 90’s and early 2000’s (Hu).
The outcome of internet copyright laws has become so mixed that it isn’t worth a companies investment and time to pursue. Some have been successful in passing through the house, and some have received so much negative publicity that they have been shot down by the public. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was a bill that was ahead of its time, considering how controversial and debatable the topic of internet piracy is today. Over the past decade, the act has come into play in a lot of major court cases in America. One of the most notable was the Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. In this court case, Viacom, one of the largest multimedia conglomerates in the world, sued YouTube for $1 billion dollars for allowing users to upload and share videos that had many copyrighted material owned by Viacom in them. These clips ranged from kids T.V shows such as Spongebob Squarepants, to late night political satire such as the The Daily Show. In April of 2013, a court decision was made in the favor of YouTube, saying that YouTube “did not have the ‘right and ability to control’ infringing activity because "there is no evidence that YouTube induced its users to submit infringing videos, provided users with detailed instructions about what content to upload or edited their content, prescreened submissions for quality, steered users to infringing videos, or otherwise interacted with infringing users to a point where it might be said to have participated in their activity." (Docketalarm.com) Another bill that created many protests was the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA for short. This bill tried to fight online piracy by blocking piracy websites, such as the Pirate Bay, in the United States. However this bill would have caused other consequences, such as removing videos and created content that had copyright material in it. In response, major networking websites such as Wikipedia, Reddit, Youtube, and others tried to raise awareness by changing their websites black, which received a lot of publicity. (Butler) One of the most notable was the wikipedia’s “blackout”, which turned the whole website black, stopped users from entering any other page, and said the words “imagine a world without free knowledge.” This alone caused much of the support to get the billed rejected in the senate. It was reported that on “the first day of the hearing, more than 20 amendments had been rejected, including one by Darrell Issa which would have stripped provisions targeting search engines and internet providers.” (Gross) This shows the lengths that people will go through to protect their rights, creativity, and free speech on the internet.
Could streaming stop online piracy? Source: vh1.com
A NEW APPROACH
The best solution that companies can take to fight online piracy is to distribute media through a better medium than what piracy sites already provide. After showing the negative reactions and consequences of pursuing digital copyright laws, the most logical solution would be to seek alternatives while still allowing companies to profit. Embracing streaming platforms such as Spotify, Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, and others would be beneficial in stopping internet piracy. The reasoning behind this can be conceptual and also mathematical. For example, if a band releases an album and it’s available to buy in a store, they will make a profit from someone who bought it with their money. However, the band cannot make any more money no matter how many times that person listens to that album. In a digital world, the artist can continue making money each time that listener steams their album. This allows for musicians to profit from more than just one record sale. However there are a lot of reports that the money made from streaming on Spotify is extremely low. In 2011, Zoe Keating, an independent musician from Northern California, stated that after 131,000 plays on Spotify, she received $547.71 dollars for the whole year. (Sisario) Although this amount seems small, putting into the perspective that she is independent musician that has a very small fanbase, is quite a big deal. If Zoe Keating tried to sell her album in a record store, consumers would have to buy it first, and most people wouldn't take that risk when it comes to an unknown artist. Since it was on a streaming platform, she gained more fans and attention if not done otherwise. However, there won’t be a change in salary for artists if we don’t embrace this model, and allow companies other than Spotify to do this type of distribution. If there were more legal streaming services other than Spotify, then they could possibly offer competitive rates to artists to have their albums exclusively steaming with them, creating larger profits for artists. Although at this moment, this type of model doesn’t provide enough for artists to make a living off. Companies need to at least experiment with the idea of streaming, instead of putting out the spark before it’s even a flame.
The idea of using different ways to distribute media is still relatively new to people, and people overall don’t like the concept of change. However, companies that keep perusing internet copyright laws, will face negative public protest and piracy. Piracy is still a large problem going forward with internet creativity and freedom of speech. The solution can’t be solved in a years time. It will take a long process of getting used to streaming media, for corporations to set up competition for a streaming model, and allow television shows, artists, and video game developers to receive profits. Companies need to embrace alternative forms of distributing media rather than further pursuing and enforcing copyright laws to discourage and stop online piracy. We need to see where this platform will take consumers, and see if it’s actually a solution for internet piracy.
The best solution that companies can take to fight online piracy is to distribute media through a better medium than what piracy sites already provide. After showing the negative reactions and consequences of pursuing digital copyright laws, the most logical solution would be to seek alternatives while still allowing companies to profit. Embracing streaming platforms such as Spotify, Hulu, Pandora, Netflix, and others would be beneficial in stopping internet piracy. The reasoning behind this can be conceptual and also mathematical. For example, if a band releases an album and it’s available to buy in a store, they will make a profit from someone who bought it with their money. However, the band cannot make any more money no matter how many times that person listens to that album. In a digital world, the artist can continue making money each time that listener steams their album. This allows for musicians to profit from more than just one record sale. However there are a lot of reports that the money made from streaming on Spotify is extremely low. In 2011, Zoe Keating, an independent musician from Northern California, stated that after 131,000 plays on Spotify, she received $547.71 dollars for the whole year. (Sisario) Although this amount seems small, putting into the perspective that she is independent musician that has a very small fanbase, is quite a big deal. If Zoe Keating tried to sell her album in a record store, consumers would have to buy it first, and most people wouldn't take that risk when it comes to an unknown artist. Since it was on a streaming platform, she gained more fans and attention if not done otherwise. However, there won’t be a change in salary for artists if we don’t embrace this model, and allow companies other than Spotify to do this type of distribution. If there were more legal streaming services other than Spotify, then they could possibly offer competitive rates to artists to have their albums exclusively steaming with them, creating larger profits for artists. Although at this moment, this type of model doesn’t provide enough for artists to make a living off. Companies need to at least experiment with the idea of streaming, instead of putting out the spark before it’s even a flame.
The idea of using different ways to distribute media is still relatively new to people, and people overall don’t like the concept of change. However, companies that keep perusing internet copyright laws, will face negative public protest and piracy. Piracy is still a large problem going forward with internet creativity and freedom of speech. The solution can’t be solved in a years time. It will take a long process of getting used to streaming media, for corporations to set up competition for a streaming model, and allow television shows, artists, and video game developers to receive profits. Companies need to embrace alternative forms of distributing media rather than further pursuing and enforcing copyright laws to discourage and stop online piracy. We need to see where this platform will take consumers, and see if it’s actually a solution for internet piracy.
Works Cited
Bilton, Nick. "NEWS ANALYSIS; Internet Pirates Will Always Win." The New York Times. The New York Times, 05 Aug. 2012. Web. 30 Apr. 2013.
Koh, Byungwan, and Srinivasan Raghunathan. Shift in Demand for Music: Causal Effect of Online Music Piracy and Digital Music on Album Sales. Dallas: University of Texas, Nov. 2010. PDF.
Gross, Grant. "House Committee Appears Headed Toward Approving SOPA."PCWorld. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.
Mokey, Nick. "Music, Movie and Software Piracy: What's Your Chance of Getting Caught?" Digital Trends. N.p., 23 Oct. 2009. Web. 31 May
Hu, Jim. "Bertelsmann to Buy Napster for a Song - CNET News." CNET News. CBS Interactive, n.d. Web. 31 May 2013.
Sisario, Ben. "As Music Streaming Grows, Artists’ Royalties Slow to a Trickle." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 Jan. 2013. Web. 01 May 2013.
Sudler, Hasshi. "Effectiveness of anti-piracy technology: Finding appropriate solutions for evolving online piracy," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 149-157.
"Viacom International, Inc. Et Al v. Youtube, Inc. Et Al, 1:07-cv-02103, No. 452 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 18, 2013)." Docketalarm. Www.docketalarm.com, 18 Apr. 2013. Web. 28 May 2013.