Music Industry And The Internet Essay Research

The major controversy started on December 7, 1999, when the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America, www.RIAA.org) filed a lawsuit against Napster Inc., a California-based Internet company that allowed users to download MP3’s for free from their free program. The RIAA says that the unautherized copies of these songs being given away lessens music sales and violates copyrights. In July 2000, a San Francisco court ruled in favor of a temporary ban on Napster. (Music & Internet, 323) Several days later though, Napster’s legal defense team appealed this, and Napster was allowed to continue working. Later Metallica, a well-known rock group, sued Napster on April 13, 2000 for “copyright infringement and racketeering”. Many fans were angry with the band, and even claimed that the rock group was merely “driven by hunger for profit”, and weren’t fighting for any kind of copyright infringement. (Music & Internet, 324) Napster isn’t the only company to be sued. Record companies such as BMG, Time-Warner, EMI Group PLC, Sony and Universal all filed lawsuits against MP3.com for violating copyright laws by posting songs without permission. EMI, BMG, and Time-Warner have all reached agreements to allow muic to be downloaded for a fee. Scour.com was another company to be sued by the RIAA. Many are looking away from the RIAA for answers, because they feel that they aren’t fairly making decisions that serve everyone equally. The RIAA is a “special interest group” that is supposed to join together on the behalf of the musicians, but is ran and funded by the major record companies themselves. Many feel that it is impossible to make the represent to completely different points of view, from two completely different businesses. One major worry is what will happen if the RIAA is given the job of collecting and distributing the royalties of the songs played on the web. This would be a large amount of money, and it would be up to the major labels themselves (who run the RIAA) to distribute the money to the musicians, and amongst themselves. The Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) was an attempt by the RIAA to gather together PC manufacturers, electronics manufacturers, and record labels to “develop a copyright-enabled alternative to the MP3 format.” Many see this as a “desperate scramble” to monopolize, and “maintain their stranglehold… of distribution through the application of a standardized encryption or watermarking program.” The FMO (Future of Music Organization) believes that “the RIAA simply cannot be trusted to serve two distinct masters.” Those who download this music each day feel very differently. Many say that varieties are better online, than in stores, and more music is made available to them on the internet. It’s felt by many that the people who are trading the most music are the people who are buying it the most anyways. Also, new artists find this to be a way to get their music out there and listened to, so hopefully someday they may be discovered. Metallica, for example, once encouraged fans to to make bootlegs of their concerts, and trade them. Many say this was the foundation to their career, and it helped them build recognition to the public. Fans argue that this is very similar to trading MP3’s, and therefore they should allow it to go on for future beginners. Metallica states that they believe in trading music, but only by the choice of the artists. They say, that in the case with Napster, they weren’t given a choice. (www.riaa.org)”Well established” performers also use these sites to get greater financial rewards. Roger McGuinn, leader of the 60’s band the Byrds, uses MP3.com to market his new music. He says that releasing his music online has been much more profitable than the money he made going through record labels. He even defended the on-line music industry in court in July of 2000. (Music & Internet, 327) Many people are just happy to save a few bucks, instead of being weighed down by the heavy, overpriced costs of CD’s today. It is said that the cost of making a CD today has declined greatly through the years due to technology advances. In July 1996, a lawsuit was filed against the recording industry, saying that CD’s cost only 1$ to make compared to the costs in 1983 of $3. Which, dispite the savings by record companies, the price still stands to be $15 a CD, and no savings is passed to the customer. Investigations by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) showed that major labels used illegal “price-fixing” (agreeing not to lower prices) to keep high prices and profits. As a result, American consumers were over-charged by $500 over a five year period. It is said that the popularity of online trading is due to this inflation of Cd prices. (Music & Internet, 326) Legal experts are also accusing the recording industry of breaking anti-trust laws. Some believe that these companies are trying to slow the growth of on-line competitors. According to David Boies, one of Napsters attorneys, they are trying to stall these sights from “developing further”. (Music & Internet, 327) It is argued that it can’t be resonable to ban file sharing programs all together, because not all things done on them are questionable. Some load Cd’s they bought onto their home computers, and use Napster to access it, and many bands just want their songs accessed for free, as advertising. Either way, the fight continues. Several new copyright laws have been created. One of these is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), which protects copyrights on-line, but still has many exemptions for change and shared information on the internet. Internet service providers are exempt from legal action under one law of the DMCA, because they are just information transmitters. This creates problems in the Napster trial, because Napster claims themselves as just transmitters of info, and not the direct source of the songs. They say it’s the people who are trading, not them. Others say that the idea is similar to VCR’s. It was once said that revenue would be lost due to the copying of movies from television, but later decided that it was only going to be illegal if the copys were used to make profit. Some say Napster is the same idea. As long as no proffits are made, it should be legal to copy. Many though, argue that since these songs can reach such a wide audience, it is far different and endangering than VCR’s. (Music & Internet, 328) The AHRA is another copyright law which means “Audio Home Recording Act. This law which allows people to make copies of music for non-commercial purposes, was passed in 1992. This was made basically so friends and family could share movies and music, and not be punished for copyright infringement. It also protected manufacterors from being sued about their recording devices and equipment. (Future of Music.org)While some feel that these programs could endanger rights and radically decrease new music and works if allowed to continue, others believe it is beneficial to new artists, and at the time being, harmless to established artists. They say that if these programs are banned, then major labels would be given a better chance to monopolize the industry, under the excuse of keeping up with copyright laws. Some say that labels, artists, and fans can all bebefit from the convenience of online trading, even with slight control. It is beleived that the SDMI (Secure Digital Music Initiative) may offer a compromise. It is an effort made by the recording industry to regulate how files are traded on the internet, while making it hard for music to be duplicated and distributed online. (Music & Internet, 328)