In 2000, the file sharing website, Napster, came under immense scrutiny from artists and producers in the music industry. Built on the internet technology of peer-to-peer file transferring, or P2P, Napster and its subscribers were accused of illegally sharing and stealing copyrighted material. Now, what is a copyright?
Merriam-Webster defines the term 'copyright' as, "the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something" (Merriam-Webster). This means whoever owns the rights to anything has the sole legal ability to reproduce it. This idea goes way back. The brilliant framers of our Constitution even thought to include it in the sacred document that we hold so dearly. Although some of those great minds distrusted the "limited monopoly" that copyrights ensured their possessors, they decided to include the clause in the document to ensure social contributions from artists and inventors (An Introduction). Up until the Napster boom, this idea seemed to be working out just fine for everyone involved. With the introduction of file sending, however, a hazy gray area of indecision began to sweep the music industry and fans around the world.
In 2000, it seemed as though one band, and one member in particular, were leading the crusade of the music industry against Napster. Lars Ulrich, drummer for the metal band Metallica, became the figurehead of the movement, catching support and immense criticism from all angles. In an interview with the website Macworld on May 1, 2000, Ulrich is quoted as saying,
"We've sold about a thousand gazillion records and we're glad that we're set for life, that we don't have to worry about sending the kids to school. The stuff that's being lost on the Internet, it's pocket change, it's meaningless. But where is it going to be in five years? This is something that could really be out of control. Now people are sitting there with straight faces saying they deserve music for free. I think people are getting a little too comfortable with their computer as a tool and are taking it for granted," (Macworld).
A little cocky, sure, but I think this encapsulates what the music industry was afraid of with free file sharing venturing into uncharted territory. No one had any idea what this monster could evolve into. The record industry was terrified of this new technology not because of what it was, but because it had the potential to be something so much bigger. That speculation meant economic loss, and that was unacceptable.
In order to prevent this from happening, the RIAA, or Recording Industry Association of America, got involved. According to Grand Robertson, the RIAA basically represented the Big Four, as their known, record companies in litigation attempts to prosecute those who transfer music files. These companies, Sony BMG, EMI, Universal, and Warner, apparently do not even involve their artists in these civil cases (RIAA). For example, if I were to be arrested for downloading, or “stealing” the Jonas Brothers album, their names would not even grace the litigation report.
This point leads this fan to question…what do the artists care if their music is traded between users? Hell, if anything, it gets their name out to the general public on a broader level based on an enhanced word of mouth basis. These record companies steal their souls and first born children anyway…these artists make little to nothing on album sales. Personally, I like the idea that artists are sticking it to the huge record conglomerates. Artists like Nine Inch Nails, Radiohead, and Lil’ Wayne are releasing their music for free online to a larger audience than once thought possible. I believe that the music that these artists make should belong to them, and not the record companies that own them based on a binding, unfair contract.
When the framers of the Constitution created the clause that protected copyrights, I can say with the utmost certainty that it was not their intention for evil record companies to be able to sue innocent citizens for copyright infringement on mp3s. I think it should be up to the artist regarding how they want to spread their music and message to the people of the world. I believe that companies like iTunes and Myspace are a great asset to the music community, and are doing a great, legal job in promoting artists.
And for the record, I did not steal the Jonas Brothers record. I bought that shit fair and square.
Sources:
1) Merriam-Webster Online.
2) Ovalle, Carlos. 2005. An Introduction to Copyright.
3) Ferris, David. 1 May 2000. Interview With Lars Ulrich.
4)Robertson, Grant. 7 Aug 2006. The RIAA vs. John Doe.
4 comments:
I laughed when I saw your picture. That is pure Metallica (my son is a huge fan.)
I remember how Metallica championed the movement (with Lars leading the way) against illegal downloading. I remember the mixed reviews he received.
I have to admit, the whole scenario irritated me at first. The internet though, is still just another medium and we have to remember that.
i love the Jonas Brothers too, wanna hang out and listen to their cd together??? lol nice picture, hopefully this info will help us with our presentation
The fact that artists are rich despite the fact that millions of people are stealing their music just goes to show that illegal downloading has become an issue for another reason. This is a potential issue that could get out of control, and if it already hasn't where will it end?
I wish they would bring Napster back. When I was a wee pup, I didn't have the chance to mess around a pirate music on a historical piece of Internet History. Now Bitorrent is the new bank to "borrow" from. Funny picture by the way Hahaha!
Post a Comment