The Impact of Music Piracy According to the Recording Industry of America (ARIA) the record Industry loses $4. 3 billion dollars, worldwide, due to music piracy (ARIA, 2003). The American Federation of Artists claims that on-line music piracy has caused some record store sales to drop by 20% and that 20. 6 billion illegal downloads occur every month (FM, 2004). Many experts believe that music piracy is currently the number one threat to the music industry. ARIA sources claim 278 million people, worldwide, use peer to peer networks such as Aziza and Grosser to trade music files.
ARIA and FM are auricle fighting music piracy and enlisting government support to put and end to this crime. Congressional committees are currently addressing on-line music piracy and are generating bills. Many people do not understand why music piracy is such a big deal and see it is a “victimless” crime. Contrary to this belief, there are many people who argue there is a wide range of victims who suffer the consequences of music piracy. The mall group who suffers are the actual music artists who receive no reward for their talent. Anyone with a computer can download whole entire albums without paying a dime to the music industry.
Copyright laws and intellectual property laws are being completely disregarded. Music artists are not receiving the royalties they are entitled to for sharing their talent with their fans. This creates a lack of incentive artists need to continue creating new music. Secondly, many groups feel as if government and our own economies suffer greatly due to this crime. According to a report created for the International Intellectual Property Alliance (APIPA) In 1999, the copyright Industry accounted for $348. 4 billion in value to the U. S. Economy, approximately 4. Percent of the Gross Domestic Product (SUNNIS, 2000). The APIPA estimates that the American copyright industry loses $22 billion due to piracy. Internet music piracy cancels job positions for Americans and fewer Job positions harm the economy. The government loses millions In tax revenues and the economy Is deprived of consumer Investment. Consumers and record producers also suffer the effects of music piracy. Consumers will feel an increase in concert ticket sales and legitimate album sales to compensate the artists for lost revenue due to internet music theft.
Record producers will have less revenue to work with which is needed to scout and produce ewe talent. So, ultimately the consumer is hurt again because less money is available to “buy” new talent, so the music pool does not grow and music becomes stagnant. Measures Taken to Stop the Piracy The ARIA represents many major recording labels and they are taking lead In the fight against music piracy. The ARIA feels as if educating the public of the consequences illegal music sharing has on the industry will be key to decreasing the crime occurrences.
The ARIA along with other groups has launched a major public awareness campaign. The ARIA is also working together with Congress to enact new ills which would specifically give legal power to prevent music piracy. HER 2517, the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. This act would mostly attack peer to peer networks and force the FBI and the U. S. Copyright office to develop anti-piracy programs (FM, 2005). Since 2003 the ARIA has aggressively pursued music pirates on the internet who have committed a “substantial” amount of illegal downloading.
They have won hundreds of guilty pleas averaging a reported $3000 per case settlement (Dean, 2004). ARIA President, Cary Sherman stated “the legal actions taken by the record impasses have been effective in educating the American public that illegal file sharing of copyrighted material has significant consequences. Consumers are increasingly attracted to the host of compelling legal online music alternatives. These lawsuits help to foster an environment that provides a level playing field for these services to succeed. Road Blocks to Piracy Prevention In 1984 there was a Supreme Court ruling which protected Sony Bateman from being held liable for propagating copyright violations through the use of video cassette recorders. The courts ruled that the recorders had “substantial” legal uses and Hereford Sony Bateman was not liable for any copyright infringement that might occur through the use of their devices. The “Sony Bateman” case precedence has served well for the peer to peer networks such as Jazz and Grosser so far.
The music industry has been trying to shut them down but the courts continue to rule that they cannot be held liable because their software has plenty of non-infringing uses. This forces the music industry and groups such as ARIA to go after individuals committing the illegal file sharing. This can alienate consumers and is a battle that Nail go on forever. It is like preventing drivers from speeding, it will never happen, no matter how many tickets are written. There is an organization, downheartedly. Org, Inch actually feels as if the ARIA has does the music industry more harm than good.
They claim that the ARIA represents only the major record labels, and by preventing file sharing they are shutting down the only venue for some musicians to get exposed to the public. Downheartedly. Org claims that only major record label artists can be heard on the radio since they can afford the price the radio stations have come to expect from the major labels. There are many musicians who feel that file sharing should continue and is a great way to allow consumers to sample music that they might never hear on the radio.
More and more sites are providing legal means to acquire music which is a great compromise between consumers and artists. As the public becomes educated on the negative impact illegal file sharing has on the industry, this compromise might end up being a great lure to consumers which could turn healthy profit for the musicians who deserve credit. In the mean time, individuals who are downloading music and sharing it over the internet need to be careful to avoid being sued by ARIA.