Copyright Law Blog

Is Downloading Music For Free a Bad Thing?

August 2nd, 2009 at 12:35am Under copyright act

Many people listen to free music by downloading it through various means and the main reasons for doing this have always been convenience, speed and cost. It is true that it is cheaper to buy a digital track from an online vendor than a CD single but most believe that music is still simply too expensive.
People have been complaining about the price of CDs since they were invented and although the record industry has now embraced the idea of selling digital music tracks, they still insist on charging high prices for the privilege.
They want people to believe that the prices they charge per track are a good deal, but buying 10 or 15 tracks for download is often the same as the CD equivalent and the quality is inferior. Not to mention the fact that they have no reproduction, packaging, or distribution costs.
It is primarily because people have repeatedly been disappointed for so many years that they want to download and listen to fee music first before deciding whether to buy it or not. This is why the P2P culture has blossomed in the way it has and people are able to choose more wisely because of it.
The general opinion on music file sharing from the aspect of the record companies and their representatives is that it is something which will ultimately destroy the industry if it isn’t stopped. They want us to think every time someone downloads a track, they have lost revenue and this will lead to reduced investment resulting in poorer music and fewer new artists.
But there is more new music emerging now than ever, really good bands and artists from a wide variety of genres that contradicts what the record industry says will happen if you listen to free music. This supports the opinion that file sharing serves as a free global distribution channel helping bands reach a wider audience and build a larger fan base.
As a result they can spend less on marketing, sell more concert tickets and merchandise, and be in more demand for interviews and appearances on TV or radio. It is also likely that they will sell more albums too as it has been shown time and time again that file sharers not only listen to free music but buy more than any other group.
Quite a few recording artists, mostly independent, have been experimenting with various downloading technologies and have completely embraced the distribution capability that it gives them, so they want you to listen to free music. Many worry in fact that courtroom success in shutting down these networks by agencies such as the RIAA and BPI will eliminate the very technologies that are providing them with a more level playing field.
If the record companies looked at the bigger picture they might see that every time a track is shared it is the popularity of that artist and therefore their overall value that has increased. Marketing through file sharing takes full advantage of the viral nature of the Internet and allows an artist to be more independent, benefiting more from their work. But the record companies don’t want you to listen to free music, they want complete control of it all and how it is distributed.
And don’t forget that if you purchase a track from iTunes, eMusic or any other downloading site, you will not have the right to sell it in the future like you do with a CD or DVD.
Laws such as the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), the proposed IPPA Intellectual Property Protection Act) in America, and DRM (Digital Rights Management) on legally downloaded files seem to show the rights of the big companies are increasing while the rights of the individual diminish, which is the exact opposite of why copyright law was originally introduced.
It is traditional however that the entertainment industry will try to fight off anything new and oppose innovation. The most recent examples include the fight against VCRs, CDs, and MP3 players. Every time though they come to realise the value of these technologies for themselves and magically start to embrace them. So just do what you think is right, you don’t always get what you pay for.

Music and Movies Download Sites – are They a Scam?

July 25th, 2009 at 06:41pm Under music copyright

Surfing the Internet, looking for music and movies to download, you will find a lot of so called music and movie download sites These sites do not provide you with music, or movies to download, no, they provide you with file sharing soft ware you can use to search for, and download music, movies and games. Most of them also provide you with cd burning soft ware and they have a helpdesk for those members who run in to problems with their downloading.

These sites are under attack.

First of all there is the entertainment industry that wants to shut them down. They claim that these file sharing programs are used to download copy right protected materials.

This is true of course, but lots of people download and trade files legally on file-sharing networks.You can, for example, legally download music from hundreds of bands and thousands live concerts, as well as multiple software titles and games. File sharing has enabled music fans from around the world to build the largest library of recorded music in history. File sharing is not illegal as long as you obey and comply with all relevant copyright laws. Sharing copyrighted material without permission could be illegal in your country.

In America the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are leading the fight against the sharing of copyrighted music. Others, like Hollywood’s MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) are also starting to get involved and are taking legal action against the music and movie download sites.

It will not be easy to shut down these download sites. Especially since the Internet has no borders, it will be an almost impossible task, to get all the countries in the world to agree on how to legislate Internet downloading.

Another attack on music and movies download sites comes from, what I call, seasoned Internet users. They claim these download sites are a scam, because they charge for something you can get for free.

Well, you could get it for free, that is true. These download sites provide you with soft ware to search for and download files from the Internet. They provide you with software to burn these files on a cd should you wish to do so.

All this software is available for free on the Internet, but for an Internet novice it could be a daunting task to look for this kind of soft ware, to decide which soft ware to use, how to use it.On top of that they have to make sure that they do not download spy ware, ad ware or what ever. Joining a download site and have all the info in one place is not a bad option for most of them. Another advantage is the fact that these download sites provide a help desk for their members.

Is it a scam if you provide info that people could get for free elsewhere?

Consider this.

You are looking for a telephone number, so you look it up in the phone book.

Say you do not have the right phone book, you can go out looking for it.

You probably can find this free info in the library.

You can also pick up the phone and ring an information service.

They will provide you with this free info and they will charge you for it.

So, is this information service a scam?

I do not think so, and I also do not think that the music and movies download sites are a scam.

Provided of course that they tell you what you can expect from them before you sign up with them, and that they deliver on this promise

If you want to join a download site, chose one that gives a guaranty that you can have your money back if not satisfied.

Once you have joined, test out everything, especially their helpdesk.

If you have no questions, ask them a few things you know already, just to test their response.

And last but not least, do not hesitate to charge back your money if you are not completely satisfied.

Is Downloading From Youtube Copyright Infringement?

July 19th, 2009 at 04:28pm Under copyright infringement

I undertsand what copyright infringement is, but how bout the music studios that put the music up? or in a easier question ,what type of downloads is not copyright infringment on Youtube?

Pro/cons Of Illegally Downloading Intellectual Property?

July 16th, 2009 at 04:27pm Under intellectual property

I have to write a short essay about the pros/cons of downloading intellectual property ie: music, games, software.
The cons are easy; however, I am having trouble coming up with substantial pros to the situation. I do not download music or anything so I am not familiar with this process. Thank you for any help!

End music copyright

July 8th, 2009 at 12:41pm Under music copyright

We need to end music copyright. I have written about this before but following many debates with people I have written a full list of the reasons why we must end music copyright and why downloading unlicenced music should be allowed.

Although the industry would have you believe something different, downloading music is not the same as stealing. One has to concede that although there are similarities it is fundementally different from stealing. If I steal your car you no longer have your car. If I download music, I have the music and so does the original bearer.

It is perfectly easy to understand that if someone downloads music it does not mean that if they didn’t have the means to download it for free they definitely would have bought it instead.

Record companies and musicians are very violent. They lobby our government to take people from their homes, kidnap them in state prisons, and saction stealing your property or money in compensation for their alleged loss. This is unacceptable.

The ability to upload and download music accross the Internet has radically changed the music reproduction industry. Change is change. It can can be bad for some but history is clear that change is good overall. Change does not neccessarily mean that something should be reversed. The music industry as it stands will likely be damaged but that is no justification to continue as we are. Things change. A lot of people would have jobs digging our roads but no longer do it because we have mechanical diggers.

Let’s be clear about exactly what we mean by music. Only in the last few decades has music also meant something entirely different than its meaning through all of history. Music is the sound of people singing or playing instruments. This has always been true and is still true. Today it also covers the results of audio reproduction.

Governments shouldn’t play such a key role in creating so many millionaires. Protecting the music industry is probably the single most blatant action the government does to create huge inequality. Inequality exists elsewhere in society but is not so reliant on government.

Changing copyright law does not in anyway affect the ability of a musician to make an excellent living given they can charge money for live concerts. It’s up to you how you get into a secured music venue but buying a ticket is the easiest. I’ve already covered that musicians can already make a lot more money charging for concerts if they charge the optimum price using an online auction in this post on ticket touts and gig ticket prices.

Music celebrities are rarely good role models. We don’t need to make immoral people so powerful.

Intellectual property is a difficult subject. It’s a lot easier to justify allowing inventors to reap the rewards of their creations through patents considering what they have given society. It’s not so easy to justify it for music.

There are other ways for musicians to make money. Let’s not pretend music is some sacred art and consider placing sponsored adverts into the lyrics. It’s how others earn a living.

The vast majority of music is simply a rehash of other music that went before anyway. The lines of who really deserves the rewards for a lot of music is extremely blurred. It’s a strange concept to create enforcable rights simply for the reason that it is a creation of a human. New words, sometimes slang, are creations of people yet we do not create enforcable rights based on these.

What’s really ridiculous is that a lot of these millionaire musicians are still not happy even with the existing laws! They want an extension to the 50-year royalties period to make even more money! Unbelievable.

Music fans are dedicated people and they know they can get the music for free if they want it yet seem to be happy to give the muscians on a voluntary basis as Radiohead showed.

Record companies use unfair practices to distort the free market by lobbying government to ban parallel imports. My post on parallel importing of CDs goes into more detail on this travesty.

Copyright rules can still be enforced between complicit parties without laws. Musicians and other parties can still agree contracts regulated by 3rd parties to manage disputes and infringments. For example, rival broadcasters could agree to enforce copyright between themselves.

All this keeps the money in the pockets of the people who can spend it to create more justifiable parts of an economy. There is no danger of music itself being harmed by the end of music copyright. Some people’s careers will be ended by this but that’s starts the story in the middle because these laws should never have been created or enforced in the first place.