PhillipsFinalProject

//__Music Piracy__// Seth Phillips

Introduction History Economic Consequences Legal Action and Repercussions of Pirating Peer Interviews Correlations to Media Literacy Conclusion Works Cited
 * Contents**:


 * Introduction ** :

I chose music piracy as my area of focus for this final project. A controversial topic indeed—the thievery of professionally recorded music has been on everyone's mind since the conception of Napster, the first true file-sharing program, just before the turn of the century in 1999. As an avid listener of music and a musician myself, the idea of stealing music has always sat uneasily with me, and I wanted to delve deeper into the issue to find out as much as I could. Besides uncovering the history of illegal file-sharing, I researched the cases in which "pirates" were reprimanded to get a better idea of what the legal repercussions of such actions were. I also conducted a few interviews with some peers (both musicians and non-musicians) to get an understanding of where my fellow classmates and friends stand on the topic. Their responses confirmed my assumptions and deepened my thirst for the more philosophical portions of the issue: What are the ethics of the act of redistributing media content? Is it morally unjust to steal music? And if so, how much are we really affecting the already financially unstable lives of most musicians? Can my generation—a generation that has already established itself as digital thieves and artful pirates—learn to phase back into paying for music if new laws force us to do so? To begin on this rather deep subject, here’s a little bit of history…


 * History ** :

Music piracy is defined as the copying and distributing of copies of a piece of music for which the composer, recording artist, or copyright-holding record company did not give consent. It is a form of copyright infringement and is therefore a crime punishable by law. This obviously does not stop the millions of people across the globe from sharing and downloading tens of thousands of millions of illegal files per day. With the turn of the century, the internet garnered the boost it needed to turn the spark that was the fledgling beginnings of file-sharing into the full-flurried blaze it has become. Cases involving the piracy of music have grown into some of the most frequently discussed issues of copyright infringement because of its rampant ferocity and heavily unregulated perpetuation.

Online distribution has grown extensively among legitimate and illicit distributors alike. The expenses of distribution are no longer the costs of printing and transporting CDs but simply the costs of maintaining a website. Because of the vast amount of file transfers, data-sharing through traditional FTP (File Transfer Protocol) servers (Mediafire.com, Rapidshare.com, Megaupload.com, etc.) has been overtaken by the more popular P2P (Peer-to-Peer) file transfers (Limewire, Napster, torrent sites such as Bittorrent and the Pirate Bay). FTP servers are typically slower and far less reliable than P2P transactions. In a P2P network, information isn’t completely stored in a single node in the network. It is stored across the entire network—sent directly from however many computers or servers are transmitting the information. The files are therefore less vulnerable and the nodes less likely to become compromised. By 2007, P2P networks like the Pirate Bay accounted for as much as 39% of the total volume of information exchanged over the internet!


 * Economic Consequences ** :

So with all this unregulated file-sharing occurring every day, I wanted to see how much it was really affecting the music industry economically. Most file-sharers will re-circulate copies of music with no added monetary value. This means that once a pirate downloads an album, he’s not selling it to anyone and further reaping the benefits of the artists’ and labels’ money. This helps to not exponentially decrease the value of a piece of music and keeps the morals of file-sharing slightly more solid albeit still in a controversial and loose frame. There is also still a large portion of online distribution that is regulated. Some consumers are still willing to pay a certain price for authentic copies of music (pay-what-you-want vendors) when they could just as easily pirate free copies. Another issue is that many people, such as those in China illegally download music because they simply cannot afford to purchase genuine copies. This translates to not every illegal download necessarily equating to a lost sale because the money was never there to begin with. Lawrence Lessig, who wrote // Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity //, explains the correlation (or in this case, the lack thereof) between the loss of CD sales and projections of illegal downloading:

In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues fell 6.7 percent. This confirms a trend over the past few years. The RIAA blames Internet piracy for the trend, though there are many other causes that could account for this drop. SoundScan, for example, reports a more than 20 percent drop in the number of CDs released since 1999. That no doubt accounts for some of the decrease in sales... But let’s assume the RIAA is right, and all of the decline in CD sales is because of Internet sharing. Here’s the rub: In the same period that the RIAA estimates that 803 million CDs were sold, the RIAA estimates that 2.1 billion CDs were downloaded for free. Thus, although 2.6 times the total number of CDs sold were downloaded for free, sales revenue fell by just 6.7 percent... [So] there is a huge difference between downloading a song and stealing a CD.


 * Legal Action and Repercussions of Pirating ** :

So what’s exactly happening to these digital pirates? If the issue is such a powerfully debated one in our country, then where are the scapegoats and how are they being punished? Some claim that the enforcement against music piracy (which may cost copyright violators between $750 and $150,000 per infringement!) is highly unreasonable and unethical in itself. It may even violate the United States constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The Copyright Act, which was last extensively updated in 1976, allows plaintiffs to take two approaches to damages. They can either ask for the quantifiable amount of harm caused (e.g. $100 owed back for ten illegally downloaded albums at $10/album), or they can seek statutory damages (which is—unfortunately for the cases I’ll discuss—the typical means of enforcement). Plaintiffs in music piracy cases have confirmed some questions of unconstitutional behavior by essentially flirting with bullying. In one lawsuit, lawyer Matt Oppenheimer told the defendant, “You don’t want to pay another visit to a dentist like me.” And in the same case, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America—the lobby for the music industry) asserted it would not resolve the case of feel compensated for until it took “every penny the defendant had saved.” (Lessig)

Song BMG Music Entertainmen9 v. Joel Tenenbaum: In 2007, Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files, thus violating U.S. copyright law. The copyright infringement was for the sharing of 31 music files from Kazaa (a P2P file-sharing application). After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000 (nearly $22,000 per song). Tenenbaum admitted he would be declaring bankruptcy if the charges stood.

Capitol v. Thomas

In a similar case occurring two years prior, a federal jury in Minneapolis, Minnesota ruled that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old file-sharer, must pay $1.92 million ($80,000 for each of the 24 stolen songs) after concluding she willfully violated the copyrights on those tunes.


 * Peer Interviews ** :

I wanted to get a better understanding of where my fellow classmates, friends, and musicians stood on music piracy and filesharing, so I conducted several interviews with two musicians and one non-musician. I kept the questions the same for all three consultations and got some pretty astounding responses.

-All three of them illegal download music so the first question and most important was unanimous. As much as I would have liked to interview someone who doesn’t illegally file-share to get their take on the whole subject, it was nice to see where the three interviewees went from here.

-When asked if they purchased music and if so, in what form, only the two musicians said they do and even then they said only occasionally. The first musician buys both vinyl records and compact disks but only used copies, never new, as they are “too pricey”. The second musician sparingly purchases music off of iTunes as well as some used and new vinyl but never CDs. The non-musician said he hasn’t paid for music in close to five years—a startling response to say the least.

-I then asked all three of them how they would feel if their (theoretical) music was being illegally downloaded. The musicians agreed that exposure in any form is good and as long as people were listening to them, they would be happy. One musician said it’s a double-edged sword because “not making money still sucks” but if enough money is made from other things (posters, shirts, etc.), it doesn’t really matter. The non-musician said they’d be upset knowing their music was being illegally downloaded but understanding at the same time.

-When asked if it was unfair to the artist to illegal download their music, the responses were split again between the musicians and non-musician. Both musicians stated it would be unfair because a lot of work and money goes into the production of an album and the artistic expression in itself is downplayed through file-sharing. The non-musician said it’s fair to the artist simply because people are still hearing their music.

-Next, I wanted to see what my peers’ thoughts on the repercussions were, so I asked them if legal action should be carried out to lessen or stop illegal downloading. The first musician told me the laws in place are adequate enough to catch the right people. This was a bit of a surprise considering very few people are actually reprimanded for downloading music and it’s typically for a few albums worth of music as compared to the thousands upon thousands of songs in some people’s libraries who are never caught and punished. The second musician replied with the comical response, “No, because that’s how I get my music,” but they stated that it would definitely be unhealthy for the music industry to remove the laws. The non-musician said the RIAA shouldn’t take legal action because he “doesn’t like censorship”. This was another someone off-putting response because forcing people to pay for music doesn’t make it any more censored than removing laws against piracy entirely. The music is still there, you simply have to do the legal thing and pay for it.

-Finally, I asked my interviewees if they thought music piracy would last forever. The first musician said that eventually there will only be digital music and it would most likely be more legally managed—eliminating most illegal file-sharing. The second musician somewhat agreed with the first by stating some form of new technology will eventually be developed to prevent illicit downloading. The non-musician thinks it’ll ultimately transpire into online memberships where music sharing is regulated and costs at least something.

It was certainly interesting to get the different takes on unlawful file-sharing through the eyes of musicians and a non-musician. I expected there to be more empathy on the artists’ side through the eyes of the musicians and that’s exactly how their responses were structured. Unfortunately, the non-musician (who undoubtedly accounts for the majority of file-sharers) had little to no sympathy for the music industry and the artists who work so hard and spend so much money on his illegally downloaded albums. If the rest of the non-musician file-sharers of the world feel even slightly the same way as my interviewee, it’ll be a dark future for musicians indeed and the RIAA will surely have their works cut out for them.


 * Correlations to Media Literacy ** :

If //digital literacy// can be defined as “the ability to understand, evaluate, and integrate information in multiple formats,” (Hobbs) then illegal file-sharers undeniably possess digital literacy. They understand all the methods of searching and discovering whatever songs or albums they are seeking, evaluate the data they wish to download, and integrate that data into their own personal lives through burned CDs, iPods, etc. My generation—or more specifically—the sub-generation after mine makes up the “digital natives” at the forefront of piracy. They never knew paying for music and may never know it for the simple fact that they don’t have to. What’s the point in unnecessarily spending ten to fifteen dollars on a new record when you can obtain the same album in the comfort of your own home with much easier means? A new culture is rising to the top of the digital food chain—a culture of swashbucklers immersed in the newest technology and brandishing the wherewithal to do whatever they want with it.

In his article, “What is Literacy?” James Paul Gee talks a lot about discourse communities. In his words, a discourse is “a socially accepted association among ways of using language, of thinking, and of acting that can be used to identify oneself as a member of a socially meaningful group or ‘social network.’” If a discourse truly is an “identity kit” as he cleverly puts it, then the file-sharing community is undoubtedly a discourse. Music pirates take pride in the fact that they illegally share art and revel in their overstuffed libraries of unlawful songs. On P2P torrent sites such as The Pirate Bay, users relate to each other on a different level than other, average internet-goers. They possess an ere of beauty in their illicit ways. They band together and feed each other’s desires for the next new set of files. Individually, they are meaningless, but together, they are terabytes of data—each with his own piece to the puzzle and a lens aimed at the bigger picture: despite the immoralities of what they do day after day, they are connected through their identities—through their discourse—through their piracy. File-sharers don’t “learn” the ways of illegal downloading; they “acquire” traits. They subconsciously become engulfed in their new culture and morality falls to the wayside. Are they really wrong? Or does it not even matter because they wouldn’t know the difference either way?


 * Conclusion ** :

As media literacy grows among the upcoming generations, illegal file-sharing is as rampant as ever. Economic times are undoubtedly rough and with such a high unemployment rate, teens and young adults are turning to illegal music downloading to expand their libraries. I believe the guilt doesn’t lie as much in the people downloading the tunes as it does in the applications used for sharing. If the RIAA intends to stop file-sharing (which it unquestionably does), it needs to aim its guns closer to the source as opposed to relying on “setting examples” by charging individuals outrageous amounts they surely cannot pay. Unfortunately, the true victims of illegal file-sharing—musicians—are typically overlooked as the big swinging labels handle all the lawsuits. Until the issue is adequately handled, they will need to look elsewhere for sufficient income. This revenue could be generated from live shows and merchandise like t-shirts, posters, etc. since their albums aren’t receiving the monetary retribution they deserve. I believe file-sharing is a very powerful beast that needs to be seriously dealt with at some point. It's too unfair to the artists and labels producing the art. Without them, there would be no files to share. I won't say I haven't downloaded countless albums illegally because to do so would be a lie. But I feel the immorality in the act every time I do it, and eventually we, as a culture, need to wake up, swallow our pride, take off our eye patches, and open our wallets.


 * Works Cited ** :

1. Lessig, Lawrence (2004). //Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity//. New York: The Penguin Press.

2. Panethiere, Darrell (July – September 2005). "The Persistence of Piracy: The Consequences for Creativity, for Culture, and for Sustainable Development"

3. Clough, Jonathan (2010). //Principles of Cybercrime//. Cambridge University Press.

4. //Downloading Music//. CBC News. May 1, 2006. 

5. Correa, Carlos Maria; Li, Xuan (2009). //Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives//. Edward Elgar Publishing.

6. Gee, James Paul. “What is Literacy?” Journal of Education. 1989

7. Bennett, Sue; Maton, Karl; Kervin, Lisa. //The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: A Critical Review of the Evidence.// British Journal of Educational Technology. 2008

8. Hobbs, Renee. //Multiple Visions of Multimedia Literacy: Emerging Areas of Synthesis//. Temple University

Comments:
===Focus Theme: I loved the topic and the fact that you are bringing awareness to music piracy especially when I am a member of the music industry community. This is something that has been affecting my friends and mentors in the industry so it really engaged me into reading the Wikipage. I like that in your introduction you set up the rest how your paper by asking questions. That let me know what to expect from the rest of the paper.===

===Warm Feedback: Reading the project I noticed that you stated that most people who engage in Piracy recirculate the music without charging money for it. That makes the artists’ music become valueless and puts a hole in the industry’s economy which you stated, In 2002, the RIAA reported that CD sales had fallen by 8.9 percent, from 882 million to 803 million units; revenues sell 6.7 percent. This confirms a trend over the past few years.” This draws a correlation to becoming an effect of music piracy. You stated that people are being brought to justice and provided examples of cases which were good. The use of interviews was a good idea and it was a good way to into Media Literacy. You’ve established some credibility because of your statistical information and field work and how you used it.===

===Cool Feedback: Now in your project I was unclear as to what you were specific trying to target because Music Piracy is a broad subject. With that being said I was unclear as to what your Thesis Statement was. You provided a lot of statistical information but I didn’t see how that tired into you Correlation to Media Literacy. I liked the James Paul Gee, reference on “discourse communities”, but my question to you is this a result of pop culture? James Paul Gee states that pop culture forms out reality just as much as our parents do. Also to we point the finger at the generation of teens who started Music Piracy or do we point the finger at the Internet for being Open Forum, or the Parents. Rheingold stated that are pretty bored with politics so they point there interest toward celebrities and conforming to peer norms. Has this become a norm? These are some things I wish you explored so that it could strengthen your topic and point it in a more specific direction.===