Difference between revisions of "Music piracy"

Revision as of 23:17, 14 April 2019

Music piracy is a type of copyright infringement defined by activities involving illegal downloading, copying, and distribution of music. Music piracy effectively circumvents the standard process of legally acquiring music released by artists through an official platform like iTunes or Spotify. Consumers are able to obtain the music they want without having to be dependent on the authorized music distributors themselves, and consequently the industry experiences harm in the form of revenues, wages, taxes, and jobs.^[1] Music piracy has remained a contentious battle between the music industry and consumers since the early stages of musical documentation. While it is widely known as a "victimless crime", music piracy is a point of ethical concern regarding anonymity, plagiarism, online virtues, and more.

History

Music piracy is a phenomenon and has been observed before the invention of the Internet, . 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.^[3] This insurgency prompted in the United States a copyright policy change during the 1970s.

During the 1990s, 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.^[4] 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.^[5] 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 smuggling 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 RNS around the turn of the century, most of which came from this North Carolina plant.^[6] Artists such as Jay Z, Eminem, Mary J Blige, Kanye West, and Mariah Carey had their music leaked on RNS 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”^[7] 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,^[8] 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.'^[9]

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”^[10], 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.

Sound Recording Act of 1971

Sound recordings remained unprotected until the "Sound Recording Act of 1971", which extended federal protection to prohibit piracy of phonograms.^[11] As amendments to the Copyright Act, the Sound Recording Act of 1971 included sound recordings (any work that resulted from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds) as copyrightable works^[12] The act also legally clarified the difference between original works and reproductions of those works, stating that only the copyright holder had the authority and right to reproduce and distribute the sound recordings. Despite the efforts of the act to protect the sound recordings or the collection of sounds stored on a reproduction, the Sound Recording Act of 1971 was broad in scope and permitted certain loopholes.^[12] In 1973, the "Goldenstein v. California" Supreme Court case, in effect, ruled that beyond federal policy, states maintained the right to expand copyright protection of sound recordings through their own anti-piracy laws.^[13]

Copyright Act of 1976

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.^[14] The "Copyright Act of 1976" also put in place a static 75-year protection. This law, serving as Title 17 of the United States Code,^[15] 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.^[16]

Online Piracy Act

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). Proponents of SOSA argued that it would "protect IP and industry, jobs, and revenue" and was necessary to improve copyright law enforcement, especially with respect to foreign companies and websites, citing the examples of the influence of illegal websites by search engines based in the United States. The bill received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives and the Senate, in addition to other Associations and Legislatures. Opposition to the bill included arguments that the threat to free speech allowed law enforcement to Unconstitutionally block access to Internet domains due to infringement of copyright by content. In addition, opponents mentioned that SOPA would bypass "safe harbor" protections from liability, which is protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in addition to pushback from library Associations. The bill was never passed after receiving widespread public backlash in the form of online protest from companies like Google and English Wikipedia.^[17]

Social Media

YouTube's Music Policy for the song YMCA by Village People

New social media platforms that allow for audio and video creation and dissemination by everyday people have opened up a pandora's box of music copyright problems. Because anyone can upload a video to YouTube, Facebook, or Instagram, and people tend to include music in their videos, these platforms have been forced to create policy to protect copyright laws.

YouTube has an entire music policy of its own that details the policies on individual songs. For example, the use of certain songs in videos can cause the videos to be blocked in certain countries, or can cause the video to generate ads. This policy also reserves the right of any artist to take action on a video that includes their music.

Instagram has been known to stop live video streams due to copyrighted music being played in the background.

Facebook When uploading a video to Facebook, Facebook will take several seconds to scan for illegal music. Similarly to Instagram, they will not post the video of there are copyright issues with the background music.

There are many websites that recommend ways to circumvent the flagging or removal of content with copyrighted music on social media. The most common recommendation is to adjust the audio, such as changing the pitch, so that the audio is not recognized by the platform's algorithm.

Ethical Implications

The Polarization

A Pirate's Justification

Music consumers today frequently download their music illegally despite the serious legal consequences currently in place to penalize music piracy, with some justifying their actions by citing their 1st amendment rights.^[18] Some have also claimed to pirate music to chase the addictive "rush" it provides, rather than for an actual monetary necessity.^[6] A common conception of music piracy considers the offense to be more comparable to trespassing than theft since piracy does not prevent others from accessing the music, solely circumventing the legal process to redefine who has access to music.^[19]

The legal consequences following music piracy are also widely criticized due to its unnecessarily intense nature, where defendants with minimal violations have been made examples of and forced to pay enormous fines.^[20]

An Artist's Defense

In defense of the artists, some consider music piracy to be far from a victimless crime and have played vocal roles in their opposition. Since the 90s, the RIAA has been serving as a leading opponent, following the introduction of P2P MP3 file sharing, and has been taking consistent legal actions against this malpractice. While 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, essentially making their work free. People who hold this perspective widely consider music piracy and unofficial music leaks as theft of an artist's property, as well as their control over their works. <still needs citations>

Implications of Technological Advancement

Professor of Intellectual and Moral Philosophy James Moor states that as technology expands and advances, so does its ethical implications and impact.^[21] In the case of music piracy, the ease, and frequency to which music can be illegally recorded, copied, and/or distributed is positively correlated the abilities and accessibility of current technology. For example, the rise of computers as a common household object in the 1990's led way to the emergence of P2P MP3 file sharing, which in turn developed an entirely new set of ethical implications. The technological advancement leading to an expansion of user capabilities 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,^[22] 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

Shannon Vallor emphasizes in her paper Social Networking Virtues, personal values are often obscured in an online context.^[23] 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.

Profit Deducting Plagiarism

The unauthorized distribution of pirated work through an online file sharing systems, such as BitTorrent and Napster (1999-2001), are environments in which the grounds for copyright infringement of expression is not a deception. The distributor of the original file is aware of the act of redistributing the original content under their permission and the recipient is also aware that the source of the file is not from the original creator. This form of plagiarism on the ground of directly benefiting from the source of the original content while harming the creator of the content through economic means.^[24]

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 individuals gain access to it.

See Also

References

1. ↑ Kalken, E., "Piracy and Innovation in the Media Industries", July 2016
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. ↑ “Bootleg Recording.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 8 Feb. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg_recording.
4. ↑ Harris, Mark. “The History of Napster: Yes, It's Still Around.” Lifewire, Lifewire, 23 Jan. 2019, www.lifewire.com/history-of-napster-2438592.
5. ↑ “Napster.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster.
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1} 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.
7. ↑ Music Consumer Insight Report 2018. International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), 2018, pp. 8–8, Music Consumer Insight Report 2018.
8. ↑ 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.
9. ↑ 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.
10. ↑ U.S. Constitution. Art./Amend. XIII, Sec. 8.
11. ↑ “Sound Recording Act of 1971.” The IT Law Wiki, itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Sound_Recording_Act_of_1971.
12. ↑ ^{12.0 12.1} Halpern, M., "Sound Recording Act of 1971: An End to Piracy on the High C's", 1971
13. ↑ “Goldstein v. California.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Oct. 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldstein_v._California.
14. ↑ “Copyright Act of 1976.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 3 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976.
15. ↑ “Copyright Law of the United States.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 14 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States.
16. ↑ “About Piracy.” RIAA, www.riaa.com/resources-learning/about-piracy/.
17. ↑ “Stop Online Piracy Act.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 7 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act.
18. ↑ “The Ethics of Piracy.” Stanford Computer Science, cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/1999-00/software-piracy/ethical.html.
19. ↑ 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.
20. ↑ 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/.
21. ↑ Moor, J.H. Ethics Inf Technol (2005) 7: 111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-006-0008-0
22. ↑ Wallace, K.A. Ethics and Information Technology (1999) 1: 21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010066509278
23. ↑ Vallor, S. Ethics Inf Technol (2010) 12: 157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9202-1
24. ↑ “The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics - The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics.” Wiley Online Library, onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470281819.