Piracy is defined as "unauthorized duplication on a commercial scale of copyrighted work with the intention to defraud the rights holder". By this definition, music piracy is the large-scale, unauthorized duplication of recorded music with the intent to defraud the copyright holder of his/her royalties; this includes the composers, lyricists and performing artists.
Although this definition would not apply to an individual making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works for their own use, individuals making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works are still guilty of copyright infringement. Unuathorized copies are frequently referred to as bootleg.
Music piracy has existed since the tape recorder - concert-goers would surreptitiously record a concert (and sometimes sell the tape). This led Paul McCartney to release Unplugged - The Official Bootleg in an attempt to counter sales of bootleg tapes. Music piracy became extremely common as digital recording became popular because there was no loss in clarity from the original to second and third generation copies.
We've reached a turning point in the epic saga of digital music downloading and piracy over peer-to-peer networks on the Internet.
It's a combination of two major developments last week: the new copyright infringement lawsuits filed by the Recording Industry Association of America against more than 200 everyday people, and news from Apple that its iTunes Music Store had sold its 10 millionth song since the service started in late April.
The music industry gave plenty of warning that the lawsuits were coming, and the RIAA was quick to parade its first settlement in front of the media, a 12-year-old girl from New York and her mother who settled their case for $2,000.
The success of Apple's iTunes service shows that when done right, people are willing to pay for high-quality digital downloads that they can burn to a blank CD or transfer to a portable MP3 player like the Apple iPod.
"We understand now that file-sharing the music was illegal," says a statement from Sylvia Torres, the mother of Brianna Lahara, who made more than 1,000 songs available for downloading on the family's computer. "You can be sure Brianna won't be doing it anymore."
[“Days of music piracy are waning: Lawsuits, services that offer music for fee help deter theft” by Stanley Miller II (Last Updated: Sept. 15, 2003) http://www.jsonline.com/bym/tech/news/sep03/169914.asp ]Australia's first criminal trial for online music piracy has ended with two students each receiving suspended 18-month jail sentences.
Charles Kok Hau Ng, 20, and Peter Tran, 19, ran a music-swapping site called MPW3/WMA Land. Available for download were 390 CDs, some 1,800 tracks. The pair charged no money for their service, but were responsible for big losses to the record companies. According to the Prosecution, the losses to piracy attributable to the site was AUS$60m. According to the Australian music industry the loss was somewhat higher - AUS$200m. Hmm. Not very scientific, is it?
The assumption is, of course, that each illegal music download is a sale lost. Such an assumption can be more safely be made in the case of, say, Office XP, illegally downloaded by a business. But it simply does not hold water, in the case of music. People consume music for free - through the radio, through CD swaps, through samples. Much more rarely do they pay for it, although often enough to bankroll a multi-billion dollar music industry.
A third defendant, Tommy Le, 21 was sentenced to 200 community service. His crime was to upload four compilations in which he showed off his DJing skills.
["Aussie students escape jail for online music piracy" by Drew Cullen (Posted: 19/11/2003 at 10:48 GMT) http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/34074.html]In 1992, Congress passed the Audio Home Recording Act ("AHRA"), an amendment to the federal copyright law. Under the AHRA, all digital recording devices must incorporate a Serial Copy Management System ("SCMS"). This system allows digital recorders to make a first-generation copy of a digitally recorded work, but does not allow a second-generation copy to be made from the first copy (users may still make as many first-generation copies as they want). The AHRA also provides for a royalty tax of up to $8 per new digital recording machine and 3 percent of the price of all digital audiotapes or discs. This tax is paid by the manufacturers of digital media devices and distributed to the copyright owners whose music is presumably being copied. In consideration of this tax, copyright owners agree to forever waive the right to claim copyright infringement against consumers using audio recording devices in their homes. This is commensurate with the fair use exception to copyright law, which allows consumers to make copies of copyrighted music for non-commercial purposes. The SCMS and royalty requirements apply only to digital audio recording devices. Because computers are not digital audio recording devices, they are not required to comply with Serial Copy Management System requirement.
It is clear from the language of the AHRA, and subsequent judicial interpretations of the statute, that Congress did not anticipate ten years ago that the SCMS would be inadequate to contain the impending home digital recording explosion that was galvanized by the Internet. However, the CBDTPA bill and the new anti-piracy technologies appear to be the music industry’s effort at making an end run around the AHRA. Instead of passing this new legislation, it would be more appropriate for Congress to amend the AHRA, which strikes an appropriate, albeit outdated, balance between music distributors, electronics manufacturers and consumers.
[http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2002dltr0023.html]| Total | |
|---|---|
| I think that most people copy commercialsoftware instead of buying it. | 68% |
| I think that most students copy commercial software instead of buying it. | 78% |
| I think that most professors copy commercial software instead of buying it. | 39% |
| I think that most administrators copy commercial software instead of buying it. | 36% |
| I have copied commercial software instead of buying it. | 54% |
| I think it is okay: | Total |
|---|---|
| for people such as myself to copy commercial software instead of buying it. | 66% |
| for people such as myself to copy commercial software instead of buying it when we use it for educational purposes. | 74% |
| for employees to copy commercial software to evaluate it for possible purchase. | 54% |
| I think it is okay: | Total |
|---|---|
| to download music from the Internet | 82% |
| to download music from the Internet if the musicians say it's OK | 84% |
The Industry has been fighting back on a number of legal fronts. The U. S.
Government is prosecuting violators that they find using the Audio Home Recording Act
when it is relevant. They are also pushing legislation that prohibits bootlegging of
recordings using computer equipment, not covered under this act:
While music copyright owners are taking action to protect
their content, the United States Senate is considering controversial legislation that
would require IT manufacturers to implement safeguards against
unauthorized copying of music. In March of 2002, Senator Ernest Hollings,
D-S.C., Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, introduced the Consumer
Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act ("CBDTPA"). This proposed
legislation, which is heavily supported by music industry lobbies such as
the Recording Industry Association of America, would require all new
digital media devices to be encoded with security technology to prevent
unauthorized copying of copyrighted works.
The drafters of this bill cite a negative cycle in the market for digital
content as being the impetus for this legislation. They find that there is
a lack of high-quality digital content available for sale to the general
public, which leads many consumers to pirate digital music. This piracy
threat makes content owners reluctant to place their copyrighted material
in the marketplace. This accounts for the lack of content for sale, thus
completing the cycle and creating a need for legislated content security
measures. The drafters contend that such measures will create a situation
where copyright owners are comfortable placing more content in the
marketplace, thereby reducing the consumer’s need to make pirated copies.
There are and have been several efforts to make it more desirable to buy music in digital form than to steal it. EMusic and Applcs’s iTunes allow buyers to pay 99 cents per song (and Apple charges $9.99 per album). Both sites are designed to be easy enough to use that there is little incentive to download bootleg copies instead.
Tom Petty made a song on his web site available for download in 1999; there were 150,000 downloads in 2 days; it did not adversely affect album sales. Creed made put a single from their album “Human Clay” available for download; the album went to number one on the Billboard charts. Clearly, downloading did not hurt sales; this challenges what was the conventional wisdom (free downloads hurt album sales).
Some groups are willing to give away the music in one form or another and make their money on follow-up services. The best example is the Grateful Dead, who encourage their fans to record their concerts and make their money and concert ticket sales, memorabilia and studio album sales.
Another effort being made by the recording industry is to come up with copy protection schemes not always that different from what the software industry did in the 1980s and early 1990s. These include: