Difference between revisions of "Music piracy"

Revision as of 13:59, 4 April 2019

Music piracy is a type of copyright infringement defined by activities involving illegal downloading, copying, and distribution of music. This genre of piracy implies the absence of consent from the owner as music piracy effectively circumvents the standard process of legally acquiring music released by artists through a form of payment via an official platform like iTunes or Spotify. It is widely known as a "victimless crime" and has existed as a contentious battle between the music industry and consumers since the early stages of musical documentation.

Legality

While the US Constitution explicitly states intentions “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”^[1], music was not originally considered a product that warranted protection under this copyright umbrella for almost half a century. The running list of copyright protected products in the U.S. (which originally contained books, maps, and charts) failed to include music until 1831, and sound recordings until 1972.^[2] With the Copyright Act of 1909, published work became ‘protected’ and composers/musicians earned a flat rate royalty payment when their music was recorded. During this time, reproducing specific musical compositions (similar to creating covers) without the consent of the original composer remained legal. Additionally, sound recordings remained unprotected until the "Sound Recording Act of 1971", which extended federal protection to prohibit piracy of phonograms.^[3] In 1973, the "Goldenstein v. California" Supreme Court case, in effect, ruled that beyond federal policy, states maintained the right to expand copyright protection through their own anti-piracy laws.^[4] In 1976, the "Copyright Act of 1976" explicitly laid out copyright protections and terms of fair use, successfully replacing its 1909 counterpart. Most notably, this act extended the length of protection to cover the life of the author plus an additional 50 years.^[5] The "Copyright Act of 1976" also put in place a static 75-year protection. This, in addition to Title 17 of the United States Code,^[6] remains as the basis of American copyright laws today.

Since the late 90’s the criminalization of music piracy has intensified. Now, depending on the severity of the violation, the case can be handled as a civil lawsuit (resulting in thousands of dollars in fines), or result in criminal charges which could leave the defendant with a felony record, up to 5 years of jail time, and/or up to $250,000 in fines.^[7] In 2011, the "Stop Online Piracy Act" (SOPA) was introduced by U.S. Representative Lamar S. Smith (R-TX) with intent to combat online piracy and counterfeit trafficking with higher intensity, with strong support from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The bill was never passed after receiving widespread public backlash in the form of online protest from companies like Google and English Wikipedia.^[8]

History

Music piracy is not a recently developed phenomenon and has been observed before the invention of the Internet, although it is usually envisioned in a digital context. During the first half of the 20th century, piracy was ubiquitous but hidden from the public eye. Due to lack of federal protection over sound recording until 1973, bootleggers recorded live performances and redistributed recordings in a manner that was technically not illegal.^[2] Music piracy born from sound recordings became a larger commonality during the rock counterculture era of the 1960s. Famous bootleg rock albums include Bob Dylan’s "Great White Wonder" (1969) which featured high-quality recordings of unreleased songs, and The Rolling Stones’ "Live’r Than You’ll Ever Be" (1969), from an audience recording of their concert in Oakland, CA.^[9] This insurgency prompted in the United States a copyright policy change during the 1970s.

During the 90s, the United States observed the extreme extent to which piracy could impact the music industry. Coinciding with increased mainstream computer usage, music piracy in the form of peer-to-peer (P2P) MP3 file-sharing platforms became incredibly easy and accessible for anyone with basic computer skills. Napster, a notable P2P technology, was created in 1999 by Shawn Fanning and Sean Parker, and reportedly reached 80 million registered users.^[10] Despite its popularity, Napster quickly received legal backlash; the RIAA and musicians Dr. Dre and Metallica sued Napster and won. Though it still exists today, Napster was acquired by Rhapsody from Best Buy in 2011 and now provides on-demand music to brands like iHeartRadio.^[11] Beyond basic MP3 file sharing, P2P sites were also utilized to leak albums before they were officially released to the public. Bennie Lydell “Dell” Glover, an employee at a CD manufacturing plant in North Carolina became notorious for single handedly smuggled hundreds of pop and rap CDs from the factory and sharing them on the P2P file-sharing site Rabid Neurosis (RNS). It is estimated that nearly 2,000 albums were leaked on RMS around the turn of the century, most of which came from this North Carolina plant.^[12] Artists such as Jay Z, Eminem, Mary J Blige, Kanye West, and Mariah Carey had their music leaked on RMS on behalf of Glover’s actions.

In more recent history, the Music Consumer Insight Report of 2018 reflects the prevalence of music piracy in the modern era. The report revealed that “38% (of those surveyed) consume music through copyright infringement”^[13] and found that the majority download their music through stream-ripping, cyberlockers, or P2P. However, the present system for acquiring music through legal constraints is not necessarily without critique. Spotify, with 87 million paid subscribers,^[14] has been accused of being a legal version of what Napster and the like once were, the argument being that with minimal fees for unlimited music consumption, the price of music is ‘free.'^[15]

EDITOR'S NOTE: Start from Ethical Implications

Ethical Implications

The Polarization

A Pirate's Justification

Despite the serious legal consequences currently in place to penalize music piracy, many music consumers today still download music illegally. Some justify the practice because of the addictive ‘rush’ it provides, rather than an actual monetary necessity to do so,^[12] while others cite their 1st amendment rights.^[16] Though most understand that it is a crime, the polarization stems from how serious one considers the offense. For instance, many consider the offense to be more comparable to trespassing, rather than actual theft, because piracy does not prevent others from accessing music; it solely circumvents the legal process to redefine who has access to music.^[17] Similarly, the intensity of the legal consequences of music piracy is widely criticized. In recent decades, pirates with relatively minimal violations have been made examples and forced to pay enormous fines.^[18]

An Artist's Defense

However, others consider music piracy to be far from a victimless crime, and have played vocal roles in the opposition. Namely, the RIAA has served as a leading opponent since the 90s era introduction of P2P MP3 file sharing, and has taken consistent legal action against the practice. Though the extent to which music piracy affects established musicians is up for debate, many musicians argue that this illegal sharing of music devalues their art, and essentially makes their work free. In this sense it is considered stealing. Likewise, music leaks clearly undermines an artist’s control over their work.<(still) need source>

Implications of Technological Advancement

In congruence with a popular sentiment voiced by James Moor, as technology expands and advances, so does its ethical implications and impact.^[19] In the case of music piracy, the ease and frequency to which music has been illegally recorded, copied, and/or distributed is entirely defined by the abilities and accessibility of current technology. For example, as computers became more of a household object in the 90's, the ability to illegally share music via P2P MP3 files emerged, and with it, an entire new set of ethical implications. Because technological advancement tends to expand a user's capabilities, it often warrants an updated ethical evaluation.

Impact of Online Anonymity

Often, pirates successfully remain anonymous, and hence, avoid legal consequences because their crime is not tied to them in an obvious way. As Wallace discusses in Online Anonymity,^[20] the ability for an online agent to maintain their anonymity can lessen their degree of accountability. Further, with a reduced sense of personal accountability, individuals become more willing to justify operating outside of legal constraints and are still able to maintain a clear conscience. In theory, if a given crime is not associated with the criminal (for lack of a better word), then the crime cannot reflect poorly on them.

Reflection of Online Virtues

As Shannon Vallor emphasizes in Social Networking Virtues, personal values are often obscured in an online context.^[21] Technology can provide a platform to fully embody, contradict, or fabricate one's personal values such as honesty and empathy. Though most music pirates likely would not consider themselves "thieves" or "criminals," the disconnect that an online context brings, in effect, distances the perpetrators from their offense. The current era of online music piracy with countless P2P file sharing sites, provides a platform for individuals to act in contradiction to their values, for better or for worse.

Ultimately, the contentious and timeless battle of music piracy comes down to the idea of ownership: Who owns art, who has the right to share it, and how can one gain access to it?

References

1. ↑ U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIII, Sec. 8.
2. ↑ ^{2.0 2.1} Cummings, Alex Sayf. “The Long History of Music Piracy.” Learn Liberty, 20 Apr. 2017, www.learnliberty.org/blog/the-long-history-of-music-piracy/.
3. ↑ “Sound Recording Act of 1971.” The IT Law Wiki, itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Sound_Recording_Act_of_1971.
4. ↑ “Goldstein v. California.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Oct. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstein_v._California.
5. ↑ “Copyright Act of 1976.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976.
6. ↑ “Copyright Law of the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States.
7. ↑ “About Piracy.” RIAA, www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/.
8. ↑ “Stop Online Piracy Act.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.
9. ↑ “Bootleg Recording.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg_recording.
10. ↑ Harris, Mark. “The History of Napster: Yes, It's Still Around.” Lifewire, Lifewire, 23 Jan. 2019, www.lifewire.com/history-of-napster-2438592.
11. ↑ “Napster.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster.
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1} Empire, Kitty. “Stephen Witt: 'Music Piracy Is Illegal – but Morally, Is It Wrong?'.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 7 June 2015, www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jun/07/filesharing-stephen-witt-how-music-got-free-interview.
13. ↑ Music Consumer Insight Report 2018. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), 2018, pp. 8–8, Music Consumer Insight Report 2018.
14. ↑ Gartenberg, Chaim. “Spotify Hits 87 Million Paid Subscribers.” The Verge, 1 Nov. 2018, www.theverge.com/2018/11/1/18051658/spotify-paid-subscribers-q3-earnings-update-87-million.
15. ↑ Quora. “Is Music Piracy Still A Problem?” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 Dec. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/12/03/is-music-piracy-still-a-problem/#d57665c76104.
16. ↑ “The Ethics of Piracy.” Stanford Computer Science, cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1999-00/software-piracy/ethical.html.
17. ↑ Barry, Christian. “Is Downloading Really Stealing? The Ethics of Digital Piracy.” The Conversation, 25 Feb. 2019, theconversation.com/is-downloading-really-stealing-the-ethics-of-digital-piracy-39930.
18. ↑ Rolling Stone. “Minnesota Woman Ordered to Pay $222,000 in Music Piracy Case.” Rolling Stone, 12 Sept. 2012, www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/minnesota-woman-ordered-to-pay-222000-in-music-piracy-case-236366/.
19. ↑ Moor, J.H. Ethics Inf Technol (2005) 7: 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0008-0
20. ↑ Wallace, K.A. Ethics and Information Technology (1999) 1: 21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010066509278
21. ↑ Vallor, S. Ethics Inf Technol (2010) 12: 157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9202-1