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

Just as the net income is fast becoming a modal value of life for m each in the United States, harmony has had its grow embedded in peoples lives, c beers, and hobbies throughout history. What do you get when you merge medicament and the Internet in the year 2002? Chaos, it keep an eye onms.In this heated flip, there ar two sides that are prevalent. The prime(prenominal) is brought by the save manufacturing joining of America (RIAA), which represents the major enroll pits, medicamentians, and artists in the United States. The RIAA claims that the Internet is trusty for rampant medicament buccaneering that has the power to destroy the harmony sedulousness as we know it. The RIAA been in the center of countless uprightnesssuits and trials, and is in the cutting edge of the digital music debate through its expenditure of well-grounded tactics.The around other side of this debate is represented by you and me the common people. We do not argue that music piracy i s culpable and unethical. However, we claim ofttimes at stake in this argument, as the RIAA has tried to gain approval for grim laws that could affect each and every iodine of us. The RIAA has tried to invade our privacy, accomplish the common people, prevent us from playing CDs in our computers, hack into our computers, mould off the sale of face-to-face music players, and change key cleans of legislature for their benefit. sooner than approach this expiration with public support and regard for the consumers who spring their sedulousness possible, the RIAA has continu wholey omit public opinion and has put us on the back burner in order to protect their profit margins.The HistorySo what exactly is this big mess about? In a nutshell, it boils bug out to digital music piracy. The music assiduity is hurting from a 9.2 pct global music sales slump in 2001. According to the international Federation of the Phonographic industriousness, world CD sales fell seven per cent um last year, while singles and cassettes continued to decline (Wang 147). They claim that music piracy on the Internet is largely to blame for this trend.By concourse the Internet and compact disc technologies, it became possible for people to convert the digital music stored on CDs into a very small computer point format called MP3. A music file converted to MP3 could because be sent to other people on the Internet quickly and easily.These scientific advances eventually led to rampant music piracy on the Internet. plot I do not condone nor support digital music piracy, I believe that the battle the RIAA is waging has been unfair, one-sided, and based on greed. In exhausting to protect their interests, this change group has trashten the hands of the people who feed it us.The goneIn 1980, a case came upon the United States Supreme Court order of business involving normal City Studios, a Hollywood pictorial matter studio, and a natural Sony technology called Betamax, or what we now refer to as the common VCR. Universal City Studios asked the courts to block Betamax sales, which were poised to enter the consumer commercialize. The movie studio argued that consumers would use VCRs to feign and distribute copyrighted films (Wright 16).In 1984 the U.S. Supreme Court told the movie industry to back off, ruling that most people would use VCRs to spirit soap operas they missed while at work, rather than qualification criminal copies of films (Wright 18).One would think that a lesson was learned from this scenario. Sadly, that was not the case. Fast-forward fifteen age and we see a very similar situation unfold.RIAA vs. MP3 playersIn 1998, rhombus Mul fourth dimensiondia introduced the Rio portable MP3 player to the consumer market. MP3 files were consequenceing to become very popular. exploitation 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 MP 3 player, which could store hours of music and would eliminate any need for CDs or cassettes (Musicians Internet, par. 8).Enter the Recording Industry link of America. In 1999 the RIAA filed suit against rhomb Multimedia, the creators of the Rio MP3 player. They claimed that the player violated the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which prohibits devices that make out copies from digital music recordings. The RIAA believed that since people had the ability to il effectually download music from the Internet, the portable MP3 player should be guilty (Musicians Internet, par. 9).This was a major stigma in logic for the RIAA. First of all, I personally coffin nailnot think of one person who does not own at least one CD these days. Even my grandmother has more than a handful By act to ban the portable MP3 player, the RIAA was saying that people did not have any legal or legitimate use for the product. However, people could easily copy songs from the many CDs they owned onto this portable MP3 player, and still remain absolutely 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 technology was perfectly legal, as the player made copies from computer hard drives and CDs, not whole from digital music recordings (Musicians Internet, par.15).The portable MP3 player has now become 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 dominance of even CDs (Brull 67) The RIAA was stressful to freeze change. If they had been successful, 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 ille gal MP3 files with ease. The RIAA soon entered the scene, eventually come through in take outting Napster down.I do believe that the RIAA had very good evidence to take action against Napster, as it was an online music piracy haven. However, in succeeding to shut the service down, they overlooked a very important issue people loved downloading music from the Internet. Rather than commencement their own legal online file-sharing program, the RIAA and the music industry were very slow in action.The RIAA did not hear to public demand for such a service. With the demise of Napster, new illegal trading programs popped up. Unlike their predecessor Napster, however, these programs would be next to impossible to shut down as they have no central server location. These networks run from user to user. Essentially, the only way to insure 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 let on positi on in the fight against music piracy. However, they ignored the need of the public, and remove themselves an even deeper hole. There was a very legitimate and legal suffice to Napster. Rather than trying to turn the service into a paying good example 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 subscribe to any record label, uncopyrighted material, and music available with permission from the artist or record partnership.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 stands now, offers much threadlike profit margins. Rapper 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 charge $14 thats highway robbery. He gloats elevate that the true revenge will come when the major labels start dropp ing 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 do is that manufacturing and distribution would eventually fade in digital downloads, meaning the record labels would have to cut costs and make a smaller profit. Its all about money.With so much piracy occurring online and next to no way to stop it, what could the RIAA do next? How about prevent consumers from playing CDs in their computers, or better to date, how about hacking all of your computers? That is exactly what they are trying to do.RIAA vs. Your ComputerThroughout its many 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 focus is on your very own personal computer.One of the first anti-piracy measu res 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 find 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 rights 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 living (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 another strike against the RIAA. The copy-protection debate is before long being waged by lawmakers.another(prenominal) 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 legislature that would let content owners hack pirates computers (Brull 68).So what does that mean to you? Essentially, it federal agency that the record labels, the RIAA, and copyright owners would be able to hack into your computers and delete or replace your illegal files. This is a huge breach of privacy, but yet another act that the RIAA deems necessary. If they cannot stop the software used to trade illegal files, the industry hopes to attack your computer insteadRIAA vs. Privacy and Internet wait on Providers (ISPs)However, the fight doesnt stop at your computer. Money means so muc h to these companies that they want to compromise your privacy as well. On July 23, 2002, the Recording Industry Association of America made an unprecedented 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 valued to know who the user was, or what it would do with the information (Hopper, par. 16).Luckily, Verizon denied the request and besidesk this issue to court. Everyone has a right to be anonymous online. 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 activity against the constitutionally protected right to anonymous speech (Black 9). The RIAA is trying to bypass judges, courts, and la ws 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 interesting to see what happens in the end. It is very probable that the U.S. Supreme Court will see this issue.RIAA vs. Your IntegrityEven after showing 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 running on television and in print condemnatory online music piracy. These werent your normal ads, however. This time around, 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 steal a CD? Britney Spears asks in one ad. Its the equal th ing, people going into the computers and stealing our music (Healy, par. 4).Rapper Nelly had a similar message. We really look at it as stealing, because to us its black and white, both you pay for it or you dont. And, youre not paying for it (Healy, par. 6).However, these ads are a bit hard to swallow for the average consumer. Lets look at this picture again. These are mega-selling superstars. In 2000, Madonna had reported 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.ConclusionIn conclusion, I believe that the Recording Industry Association of America is a devious and thoughtless trade group. They have continuously put their profit margin ahead of the rights of the consumers. The numerous real-life examples presented in this account should give you a firm understanding of the unethical antics that the RIAA ha s used to further their cause. Which side are you on big business, or consumer rights?