File-Sharing and Copyright Infringement
Before the turn of the century, many of you may recall a case with Napster. For those of you who may not know, Napster software would users to log onto its servers and make their personal MP3 collections of music available for any other user to download. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) accused Napster Inc. of violating federal and state laws through copyright infringement. Napster, as well as many other web-based sites, was becoming tools for downloading and distributing free copyrighted music. Cary Sherman, senior executive vice president and general counsel for the RIAA at the time, stated that "Napster is about facilitating piracy, and trying to build a business on the backs of artists and copyright owners." Some artists, including Metallica took great offense to the world Napster was creating and sued Napster.
The interesting issue here is that Metallica became popular through the distribution of free, boot-leg music. This underground distribution allowed their name to get out, and in turn allowed them to land a record deal. With Metallica, it seems as though once success was reached, there was no need to depend upon their name getting out. After the 80’s people knew who they were and with great confidence, knew that they would continues to rock for a while. Metallica viewed the illegal distribution of their music as a hindrance to profits and a copyright infringement, yet did they overlook the fact that their popularity was attainable through this type of distribution? The question to ask is, do websites such as Napster hurt the artist, or help build the artists reputation? Of course, free music is a great thing but how does it affect successful artists and how does it affect artists who want success and more profits? These two questions could demonstrate different outcomes due to file sharing. These examples and more will be investigated in future blogs to come.
Comments