Mp3s and Copyright Infringement

MP3s and Copyright Infringement

The downloading of MP3s is one of the most controversial issues pertaining to the popular usage of the Internet. The Internet and its abusive ability to distribute MP3's & free music effectively & easily is a controversial issue that has created a huge stir in the music industry. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is furious at the fact that millions of people around the world are downloading MP3s off the Internet, and creating their own music CDs. They believe that this is the main cause of the decrease in album sales of the past few years. CD sales fell five percent in 2001. (Powel 2003) Michael Green, president of National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, made a statement at the 2002 Grammy Awards. He warned of a worldwide threat, pervasive, out of control, and oh so criminal. He implored the audience to embrace this life and death issue. He was talking about the illegal downloading of music on the Internet. (Hoffman 2001)

If you look at the back of a CD you will find a copyright number and date. Copyright is defined as the exclusive right to publication, production, or sale of the rights to a musical work. It also says the period of copyright in the United States is twenty-eight years and a chance for renewal for another twenty-eight years. (Wikipedia 2006) Sharing a multitude of MP3s on one program would constitute a copyright infringement. Because it is a federal law, copyright laws pertain to every person in the United States. People who download copyrighted materials are stealing. But there are conflicting signals about file sharing. There has been confusion about what is allowed under copyright law and what is not. Some people don't obey laws they don't believe in. They try to comply with what they believe the law to say. If they don't believe the law says what it in fact does say, they won't obey it. The fundamental base of copyright law has been the attempt to find a balance between the necessity of protecting the rights of authors in order to encourage production of intellectual works, and providing public access to work in order to maintain an educated society. (Hoffman 2001) According to the book The Constitution and Its Amendments, there is a limitation on copyrighted rights. In carrying out the constitutional goal of promoting knowledge, modern copyright and patent laws limit the right of authors and inventors in important ways. When their term of protection ends, creative products enter the public domain. Under certain conditions, anyone may use protected products without permission from the copyright or patent holder, even during the term or protection. (Newman 1999) So, if these certain conditions pertain to free music software or sites, the program and its actions are not illegal. Only the courts can say for sure what is legal and illegal. As the world becomes more technologically advanced, greater access is available to other people's ideas. It is this access that has made the protection of intellectual property and the laws governing this protection controversial.

On October 12, 1998 US Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. President Clinton signed the act into law on October 28. It addresses issues created by the Internet. It discourages copying of copyrighted materials. The law also shields online service providers from liability when customers transmit or post copyrighted data. (Hoffman 2001) The recording industry lobbied and celebrated its passing.

Napster is an online music sharing service. It was the first major program that allowed users to share and download music. Napster uses a central server to maintain a list of connected systems; therefore it is not a true peer-to-peer service. It had a major impact on how people used the Internet. Napster's program lead to the music industry's accusations of major copyright violations. (Wikipedia 2006) There also are many bands that are against the idea of downloading free music on the Internet. The band Metallica was the first one to complain. Napster complied with Metallica's request to remove their songs from the system and banned users who were sharing the music. In December 1999 the RIAA sued Napster for violating intellectual property rights. This trial gave Napster lots of publicity and users flocked to the site. Napster claimed that Audio Home Recording Act permits copying of material for personal use. They also claimed immunity by defining the company as an ISP under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Subsection 512(a). Their argument was that they posted or stored no music on servers, had no control over content traded, but facilitated transfers initiated and controlled. They provided none of the content; rather they supplied a directory service. They also had posted a policy on their terms of service that anyone who infringes a copyright will be terminated. They claimed they had the compliance policy as early as October 1999, but admitted they did not document or notify users until February 2000. (Litman 2000) A federal district judge ordered the music sharing service to cease their operations. Napster appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court and lost. The court ruled that Napster was not protected under Subsection 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They also stated that Napster did not adequately implement a policy for terminating users. An injunction was issued on March 5, 2001 ordering them to shut down their entire network. On September 24, 2001 the case was partially settled. They agreed to pay music creators and copyright owners a $26 million settlement for past, unauthorized uses of music, as well as an advance against future licensing royalties of $10 million. (Wikipedia 2006) Napster attempted to convert their site to a pay service. They had problems attaining licenses to distribute major-label music. Napster announced that a German firm Bertelsmann would acquire the assets. They filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but the judged blocked the sale and forced Napster to liquidate its assets. Napster's brand and logo was purchased by Roxio at a bankruptcy auction and resumed as a pay-service.

Meanwhile new services started to appear. Some of these new services used decentralized networks, making them harder to pursue in courts. The recording companies are trying to do what they did to Napster and shut them down. In a memo leaked by RIAA's legal team, they acknowledged that this claim is not as strong as it was against Napster. The decentralized networks have little control over what they created and cannot tell what is being downloaded. (Hoffman 2001)

Grokster is one of those sites. MGM Studios, Inc. sued Grokster, Ltd. for copyright infringement. This case has been called the most important intellectual