Does Copyright Matter, by Tim Parks, NYR Daily, The New York Review of Books, copyright laws essay.3/29/2017 The population that is largely responsible for music piracy is college students. Many members of the college community have access to the type of high-speed internet access that is required to download illegal MP3 files, and they have limited budgets to spend upon entertainment on a monthly basis. According to Wade (2004), many colleges and universities are now educating students about the illegality of music piracy, and attempting to limit student access to illegal download sites through the school computer networks. This can only be positive as in many cases the RIAA has pursued legal cases against internet providers as well as those who download music illegally. The California State Court of Appeals also decided that since the files were transferred from the computer hard drive to a MP3 device solely for being listened to and not sold, that this constituted a fair use under Federal Copyright Laws. The main reasoning of the Court was that people had been downloading music for personal rather than commercial use. This is the base upon which most Fair Use laws have been based, and to copy something with the intent of personal use only has not in recent years been considered copyright infringement by the courts. Siegfried (2005) indicates that there are several reasons behind why students pirate software and music off of the internet. First, they do not see that the person who created the music or the software is losing out monetarily. Second custom term papers reviews, they mistakenly assume that all items available over the internet fall under laws of public domain, and therefore it is okay to download music or software. Finally, they assume that all material downloaded off of the internet falls under laws of fair use, and that they should be free to do what they want with the material including re-selling the software cars cause air pollution, or music. These attitudes indicate that students are poorly educated about not only copyright and public domain laws but they are also poorly educated when it comes to basic ethics. When used legally music download sites can be beneficial to the record industry by providing cost efficient publicity and recognition for new artists. However writing an outline for an essay, Sherman (2001) states that there truly is no need to implement newer and stronger copyright laws. However bipolar disorder essay conclusion, it is necessary to educate people about copyright law, and how these laws apply to music and software that are downloaded off of the intent. Sherman (2001) states that education is key in making people understand that to download pirated music is illegal. Suing people teaches them nothing except for the fact that they will have to pay out the same amount of money that they would had they just purchased the music to begin with. Sherman (2001) states that although downloading from free file sharing is illegal according to international copyright laws the music industry should take this in stride and work to develop partnerships with sites that have always been fee for service such as ITunes, and ones that became fee for service sites after being sued by the RIAA. This would still allow them to charge users for access to the music but do my physics homework for me, would allow them to access it in a form that meets current technological standards rather than forcing them to use soon to be outdated technology such as, cassette tapes, or CD's . Accordng to Wade (2004) the file sharing revolution began in 1999 when Shawn Fanning began the website that would come to known as Napster. This website would be shut down by court order in 2001 sample of essay letter for college, only to be reopened as a site that allowed one to download music for a fee. However help writing thesis statement, the revolution did not end there. For every site that the FCC and the RIAA have managed to shut down 2-3 more, file sharing sites pop up. Wade (2004) states that the recording industry looks at this music piracy as little better than copyright violation and theft. Industry statistics have estimated that music piracy has cost the music industry more than 2.5 billion dollars in lost sales. RIAA statistics estimate that 2.6 million pirated songs are downloaded every month. These statistics show that over the last 10 years music piracy has become rampant amongst music lovers everywhere. Another fact that is indicated by these statistics is that many people have stopped purchasing music in CD format, and have moved on to purchasing their music (when they obtain music legally at all) in MP3 format as well. Another major legal issue that the RIAA has brought up in recent years is the prosecution of people who sell bootleg, and import recordings of music that is not currently available in the United States. According to Blunt (1999) the Universal Copyrights Convention was created to allow the international community help the recording industry to deal with bootlegs that are increasingly difficult to tell apart from legitimate recordings due to continuously evolving digital recording technology. The music industry must learn to accept new technology such as digital music downloads and to use this as a means of selling and publicizing their music. The increasingly advanced technology that is available to the recording industry has not been utilized the its fullest. They must also seek to educate the consumer critical thinking and writing about literature, as many people are unaware of what internet materials are covered under current copyright laws, and what information falls under the terms of public domain. Published: 2016-07-07 11 Pages 3,811 Words Published: 2016-07-07 8 Pages 2,797 Words Published: 2016-07-07 10 Pages 3,489 Words Click here to read more Click here to read more Click here to read more Raymond Carver signing books, New York City, 1988 Do I, as an author give opinion essay, have the right to prevent people copying my books for free? Should I have it? Does it matter? We all sense that there is more instinct than logic at work here. We simply feel that it would be bizarre to be taking royalties from the work of an ancestor who lived four hundred years ago. It would be bizarre not to be able to quote Shakespeare without paying something to his descendants, if there are any. At the same time we do not feel that if we owned a painting an ancestor made and left to the family we should not have the right to keep it or to sell it for any price the market will offer. Officially the idea is that the writer, artist, or musician should be allowed to reap the just rewards for his effort. This is quaint. There is very little justice in the returns artists receive. Works of equal value and quality produce quite different incomes or no income at all. Somebody becomes a millionaire overnight and someone else cannot even publish. It is perfectly possible that the quality of work of these two writers is very similar. The same book may have a quite different fate in different countries. Any notion of justice in the incomes of artists is naive.
0 Commentaires
Laisser une réponse. |