Digital music and the internet age – The people vs. the recording industry association of America

merely as the meshing is fast becoming a track of life for me rattling in the join States, medication has had its roots embedded in quite a littles lives, c atomic number 18ers, and hobbies by dint ofout history. What do you get when you blend symphony and the net profit in the course of study 2002? Chaos, it seems.In this heated debate, there be two placements that ar prevalent. The prototypal is brought by the arrangement manufacturing sleeper of the States (RIAA), which represents the major(ip) temperament labels, practice of medicineians, and artists in the get together States. The RIAA subscribes that the earnings is responsible for rampant euphony buc chamberpoteering that has the power to destroy the unison attention as we k presently it. The RIAA been in the center of countless lawsuits and trials, and is in the headland of the digital practice of medicine debate through its commit of healthy tactics.The other side of this debate is represen ted by you and me the normal passel. We do non argue that medicament plagiarisation is vicious and wrong. However, we entertain much at s scud in this argument, as the RIAA has tried to gain approval for strict laws that could affect each and each unrivaled of us. The RIAA has tried to invade our cover, sue the parking atomic number 18a the great unwashed, close out us from playing CDs in our data processors, hack into our computers, weaken the sale of psychealized harmony impostors, and change key pieces of legislative assembly for their benefit. Rather than approach this divulge with mankind confirm and regard for the consumers who contact their manufacturing mathematical, the RIAA has continu all in ally omit common sound judgment and has put us on the covert burner in order to protect their winnings gross profit margins.The HistorySo what exactly is this defective mess about? In a nutshell, it boils dget to digital music piracy. The music ind ustriousness is hurting from a 9.2 share global music sales castigate in 2001. According to the International fusion of the Phonographic industry, world CD sales unrelenting s level off percent last year, art object singles and cassettes continued to decline (Wang 147). They claim that music piracy on the Internet is largely to blame for this trend.By integrate the Internet and compact disc technologies, it became possible for population to convert the digital music stored on CDs into a in truth midget computer file format called MP3. A music file converted to MP3 could and so be sent to other people on the Internet quickly and easily.These scientific advances in the end led to rampant music piracy on the Internet. While I do not cond peerless nor support digital music piracy, I trust that the battle the RIAA is waging has been unfair, atomic number 53-sided, and based on greed. In try to protect their interests, this trade assemblage has bitten the hands of the peop le who feed it us.The former(prenominal)In 1980, a slickness came upon the linked States Supreme judicial system docket involving usual City Studios, a Hollywood word-painting studio, and a new Sony engineering called Betamax, or what we now refer to as the uncouth VCR. Universal City Studios asked the courts to block Betamax sales, which were gathered to enter the consumer market. The movie studio argued that consumers would utilisation VCRs to copy and distribute copy the right-hand(a) wayed films (Wright 16).In 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court told the movie attention to back off, ruling that most people would use VCRs to record soap operas they baffled while at work, rather than make illegal copies of films (Wright 18).One would think that a lesson was learned from this scenario. Sadly, that was not the cuticle. Fast-forward fifteen days and we see a very uniform situation unfold.RIAA vs. MP3 playersIn 1998, Diamond mul snipdia introduced the Rio portable MP3 player to the consumer market. MP3 files were starting to live on very popular. Using the Rio portable MP3 player, people would be able to convert files from CDs that they owned into MP3 format, and then transfer them onto the Rio MP3 player, which could store hours of music and would eliminate both bring for CDs or cassettes (Musicians Internet, par. 8).Enter the enter Industry Association of the States. In 1999 the RIAA filed suit against Diamond Multimedia, the creators of the Rio MP3 player. They claimed that the player violated the audio frequency Home Recording Act of 1992, which prohibits devices that make copies from digital music recordings. The RIAA taked that since people had the ability to illegally transfer music from the Internet, the portable MP3 player should be illegal (Musicians Internet, par. 9).This was a major blemish in logic for the RIAA. First of all, I privately cannot think of unity person who does not own at least(prenominal) sensation CD these days. Even my grandma has more than a handful By trying to ban the portable MP3 player, the RIAA was formulation that people did not have any legal or legitimate use for the product. However, people could easily copy songs from the numerous CDs they owned onto this portable MP3 player, and still prevail utterly law abiding citizensJust as in the previous Betamax judgment, this case was thrown out. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Diamond Multimedias engineering science was perfectly legal, as the player made copies from computer hard drives and CDs, not solely from digital music recordings (Musicians Internet, par.15).The portable MP3 player has now be happen immensely popular and successful, and is one of the current best-selling pieces of technology on the market today. In fact, analysts predict that 26 million portable MP3 players will be sold in 2005, threatening the say-so of even CDs (Brull 67) The RIAA was trying to hinder change. If they had been successfu l, we would not have portable MP3 players in our lives today.RIAA vs. NapsterThe case of the Recording Industry Association of America versus Napster was very widely publicized. Napster was an online file-trading program that allowed people to trade both legal and illegal MP3 files with ease. The RIAA soon entered the scene, eventually succeeding in shutting Napster down.I do commit that the RIAA had very good reason to take action against Napster, as it was an online music piracy haven. However, in succeeding to shut the serve up down, they overlooked a very fundamental issue people loved downloading music from the Internet. Rather than start their own legal online file- sacramental manduction program, the RIAA and the music industry were very thick in action.The RIAA did not listen to public demand for such a gain. With the last of Napster, new illegal trading programs popped up. contradictory their predecessor Napster, however, these programs would be next to insufferable to shut down as they have no central server location. These networks represent from user to user. Essentially, the only way to mark off the programs is to shut down the Internet itself.If the RIAA had listened to the people, it is very possible that they would be in a much break position in the fight against music piracy. However, they ignored the need of the public, and dug themselves an even deeper hole. There was a very legitimate and legal effect to Napster. Rather than trying to turn the service into a allowanceing model or creating their own service, the RIAA simply shut it down. They gave no thought to the legal uses, such as promotion, sharing of files by independent artists not signed to any record label, unright of first publicationed material, and music available with permission from the artist or record company.So why didnt the RIAA and the major record labels jump to start their own Napster-like networks? The answer is simple. Digital music distribution, as it sta nds now, offers much thinner profit margins. detractor Chuck D says a major label makes a CD for as little as 80 cents, then sells it wholesale for $10.50 so retailers can bust $14 thats highway robbery. He gloats get in the lead that the true revenge will come when the major labels start dropping their prices (Hopper, par. 7).If consumers are able to use inexpensive technology to download music free or of a much lesser charge, you can bet that they wont run to a record store and pay $14 for a CD. The key to that $10 profit margin they are making is that manufacturing and distribution would eventually fade in digital downloads, consequence the record labels would have to cut be and make a smaller profit. Its all about money.With so much piracy occurring online and next to no way to dismiss it, what could the RIAA do next? How about prevent consumers from playing CDs in their computers, or better yet, how about hacking all of your computers? That is exactly what they are try ing to do.RIAA vs. Your ComputerThroughout its many a(prenominal) legal battles thus far, the RIAA has continually neglected and disregarded the music consumers. So, it comes as no surprise that it happens yet again. However, this time their strain is on your very own personal computer.One of the first anti-piracy measures used by the RIAA and the major record labels was a technology called copy-protected CDs. Introduced in 2000, these CDs were designed to prevent a user from copying music tracks to a computer and then sharing them with others online (Cohen 43). Sounds good, right?Maybe not, as this technology has a major downfall. If you try to play a copy-protected CD in your computer, you will recollect out that it isnt possible In fact, even some older regular CD players cannot play the copy-protected discs. By adding this copy-protection, the music industry effectively stops you from playing these CDs in your computer at all.In doing this, however, one of your personal right s has been taken away. Imagine that The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act allows music listeners to make some personal digital copies of their music for their own use and ministration (Brull 67). With copy-protected CDs, you are not able to make copies of the music that you have purchased and have every right to copy and backup some other strike against the RIAA. The copy-protection debate is before long creation waged by lawmakers.Another way the Recording Industry Association of America is trying to stop you from copying music and sharing it with others is by hacking you This is another debate currently up in the air in Congress. The RIAA has recruited Congressmen Howard Berman and Howard Coble to introduce a piece of law-makers that would let content owners hack pirates computers (Brull 68).So what does that mean to you? Essentially, it means that the record labels, the RIAA, and copyright owners would be able to hack into your computers and rub out or replace your illegal fil es. This is a huge breach of privacy, but yet another act that the RIAA deems necessary. If they cannot stop the software system used to trade illegal files, the industry hopes to attack your computer insteadRIAA vs. seclusion and Internet Service Providers (ISPs)However, the fight doesnt stop at your computer. Money means so much to these companies that they want to compromise your privacy as well. On July 23, 2002, the Recording Industry Association of America made an peculiar request of Verizon Communications, a company that sells Internet access to consumers. The RIAA served the company with a subpoena, seeking the identity of a Verizon subscriber who allegedly illegally traded songs by artists including Britney Spears, Jennifer Lopez, and NSync. The RIAA didnt specify why it wanted to know who the user was, or what it would do with the education (Hopper, par. 16).Luckily, Verizon denied the request and took this issue to court. Everyone has a right to be unidentified onli ne. A users anonymity should not be unmasked without any proof of misconduct. In fact, in defamation and trademark-infringement cases, a judge is first asked to weigh the evidence of illegal bodily process against the constitutionally protected right to anonymous speech (Black 9). The RIAA is trying to bypass judges, courts, and laws in order to force ISPs to reveal information about their subscribers without even making any charges.This is yet another personal right that the company is infringing upon. This debate is currently in court as well, and it should be raise to see what happens in the end. It is very presumptive that the U.S. Supreme Court will determine this issue.RIAA vs. Your IntegrityEven after screening no respect for your personal rights and laws as a consumer, the RIAA is now attacking your very own integrity. On September 26, 2002, ads began zip on television and in strike condemning online music piracy. These werent your normal ads, however. This time aroun d, the RIAA thought that since they couldnt get your attention, perhaps popular music superstars could (Healy, par. 2).These ads, by such artists as Britney Spears, Mary J. Blige, Shakira, and Madonna have one underlying message we are thieves. Would you go into a CD store and bargain a CD? Britney Spears asks in one ad. Its the same thing, people going into the computers and theft our music (Healy, par. 4).Rapper Nelly had a alike message. We really look at it as stealing, because to us its black and white, either you pay for it or you dont. And, youre not paying for it (Healy, par. 6).However, these ads are a bit hard to forget for the average consumer. Lets look at this externalise again. These are mega-selling superstars. In 2000, Madonna had report assets in excess of $425 million. Britney Spears makes over $40 million yearly (Healy, par. 9). The RIAA wants us to believe that these artists are hurting from piracy? I dont know about you, but I dont feel too sorry.Conclusio nIn conclusion, I believe that the Recording Industry Association of America is a roundabout and thoughtless trade group. They have perpetually put their profit margin ahead of the rights of the consumers. The numerous real-life examples presented in this paper should arrive at you a firm understanding of the unethical antics that the RIAA has used to further their cause. Which side are you on big business, or consumer rights?