Copyright Law Blog

Download Free Music Without a Mess

July 22nd, 2009 at 06:42am Under music copyright

Is it possible to download free music and create a mess? Yes, indeed and it is all due to an obstinate little acronym known in the music biz as DRM. DRM, for those of you who are newbies in the music biz parlance, means digital rights management. And DRM happens to be a double-bladed sword that will dictate how you download free music without a mess or with a big splashy mess that can leave you bankrupt.

DRM means that the original creators and owners of a piece of digital data (like a music file) have the rights to restrict access to and ownership over their original product. People who believe in DRM say that this helps artists benefit from a continuous revenue stream due to sales of their original product over the years. This sounds fair, doesn’t it? Ah, but there are ironically people who don’t believe in DRM. These devil’s advocates believe that DRM stands in the way of improving the level of competition in the music industry and helping the public benefit from increased open access to copyrighted music.

How can you then download free music without a mess? That is the sticky part of the dilemma – at the rate data copying technologies are being advanced, promoted and disseminated to the public, it is becoming harder and harder for the original creators and owners of copyrighted music to exert control over who can get ownership over their original product. And if these original creators and owners cannot control access they also cannot control their profits.

Next question then is: do these original creators and owners of original copyrighted material have any right to more royalties over their original music creations when more people acquire more copies of the original products? DRM advocates say yes of course, that is the whole point of having rights over your original creation in the first place. DRM opponents say no, because it does not create a level playing field and makes some people (ie. the artists and the music labels) richer in the process. By rights, the DRM opponents say, such rich people should not get richer from future sales of their own products.

As you can see, the problem hinges on perception. From the perception of an artist who slaved for years to perfect his skills in music so he can come up with a great product, he has every right in the world to benefit from continuous sales of his music file through the years from anyone who cares to use that music in any form whatsoever. From the perception of a music label, the music company has the right to profit from the distribution of that music product in agreement with the original owner (the artist) because it took a risk by opting to distribute the music product for the artist. But, from the perception of a music-hungry public that wants free music (like getting to eat its cake yet enjoy it forever anyway), these artists and music labels have no rights to their music product which only “oppress the poor public.”

As you can see, it is very hard to download free music without a mess. It makes more ethical sense to simply pay for the CD or music download then take good care of your purchase for the rest of your life. That is what ethical business is all about. If you do intend to download free music without a mess, it better be from the authorized source of the music label and the original artist. Otherwise, it is better not to try to download free music without a mess.

New Way to Search for Free Music on the Net

July 16th, 2009 at 06:42pm Under music copyright

One new way to search for free music on the net is to use the music search engines. Three examples of music search engines are Skreemr, Sonqza, and SeeqPod. These three search engines function as a new way to search for free music on the net by indexing the World Wide Web to scout around for specific music files uploaded to certain servers. You can use this new way to search for free music on the net by either identifying a song title, or a name of an artist, as your search parameters.

However, there is an element of legal uncertainty with use of music search engines because most music search engines do not pay any royalties for the music you can get through them. So though they are the new way to search for free music on the net, the existence of these music search engines may be founded on shaky legal ground as they operate now. Think copyright infringement.

So if these music search engines seem guilty of copyright infringement in nearly each and every case where they dish up music to Internet users, why is it they are still allowed to operate anyway? The problem lies in the fact that current interpretation of copyright law happens to favor search engines to a great extent. Since music search engines do not host the music themselves but instead tap into other servers that host the music files, the culpability of the music search engines seems to be zero. According to Google counsel Andrew Bridges, it is highly possible that music search engines can be found guiltier of contributory infringement instead. But that type of charge against music search engines is also problematic to pursue because there has not been a definitive case for contributory infringement to set a legal precedent yet.

Provided the music search engine never stores the actual music files on its own server, at present it cannot be sued for copyright infringement and it is highly unlikely it will be sued for contributory infringement either. To make a case against a music search engine that tries to function as the new way to search for free music on the net, you would need to prove that there was motivation and intent to defraud the music creators of their royalties that come with every sale of their music product. And to make that charge stick would mean being able to trace the entire process from initiating a search for an artist or a music title to being able to download the actual music into your own PC. In a virtual world where prowess in technology means that you can change data at will, that is pretty hard to achieve.

There are actually websites which tread on the safe side of the law (such as Imeem.com) where you can give you legally-acquired music files when and how you need them. If you are seeking a legal yet new way to search for free music on the net, it is generally advisable to rely on these more law-abiding sites instead.

Your #1 Music Search Engine

July 13th, 2009 at 06:42pm Under music copyright

Think about it for awhile: which search engine happens to be your #1 music search engine? Is it SeeqPod? Well, why is that music search engine your favorite? Is it because it relies on torrents file sharing so that you get access to hordes of music files from different servers without having to worry about a silly little thing like copyright? Well, sorry kiddies, but that search engine is now in hot water because it does work like that.

SeeqPod (based in Emeryville, California) has been slapped with a copyright infringement lawsuit by one of the Big Four music labels, namely Warner Music. Warner Music alleges in its case against Seeqpod that SeeqPod targets its search efforts at music products that definitely have copyright ownership but which have been illegally placed on sites without authorization from the owner. Warner Music further says that SeeqPod will agree to look for the links to such sites for the user, then play the copyrighted music even if authorization has not been given by the real owners. Furthermore, SeeqPod will then integrate the illegally acquired music file into the playlist collection of the user, and even inform the user where he can go himself to find more illegally acquired music files of that same name. Lastly, to round out the copyright infringement transgressions of SeeqPod against Warner Music, Warner Music alleges that SeeqPod places the same link for acquiring illegal copies of music on social networking sites which is more damaging because then more people can be seduced into the copyright infringement cycle as well.

In case you think your #1 music search engine SeeqPod has been unfairly singled out among a host of copyright infringement suspects, actually the rest of the Big Four music labels had already filed similar lawsuits against other music search engines. The 2008 filing of a case against SeeqPod by Warner Music seems to be just the latest in a series of lawsuits where Big Four music labels are fighting back against copyright infringement criminals to protect their artists and themselves from loss of profits that are righteously theirs.

If you were an attorney for your #1 music search engine, how would you argue a case for SeeqPod that would relieve it from the burden of paying penalties for copyright infringement and for having to pay royalties henceforth after judgement has been rendered? One argument you might choose is that SeeqPod helps artists gain much-needed exposure for their music titles even if SeeqPod does not pay royalties for allowing users to play songs on its own website. Another argument you could select to get your #1 music search engine out of legal trouble is that even obscure songs and artists may gain exposure because of the Discover function of SeeqPod where SeeqPod users can see what titles are similar to the titles they were looking for and like. Lastly, you could backtrack to the DCMA safe harbors ruling that many search engines have sought cover behind when pursued by royalty-based music labels and legitimate artists.

How Should I Proceed In Order To Make An Album With Jazz Standards Without Breaking Any Copyright Law?

July 11th, 2009 at 04:24pm Under copyright law

I’m from Brazil and I want to record an album with jazz standards. How should I proceed in order to make it legal? I do not want to break any copyright law.Ricardo

How Do I Get Music Copyright Permission In Canada For American Jazz Songs?

July 9th, 2009 at 04:26am Under music copyright

I live in Canada. I want to record a cd with music jazz standards like Fever, Misty, Skylark, etc, how do I pay for the permission of copyrighted songs. Why is it so difficult to figure this out?