Copyright Infringement

Copyright infringement has become a bigger issue year after year since the 1990’s and the advent of digital media storage and internet peer to peer (p2p) sharing. As computers became more of a necessity than a luxury, internet users began to take advantage of media sharing from ones computer to another. This has been one of the most debated topics of copyright infringement. There are two extreme positions most people take stance with and discuss in regard to this copyright infringement. I believe that both sides are to blame for each others misfortune. Society must come to a new mutual resolution because let’s face it; we will never go back to the way media usage originally was because technology is constantly changing.
Many consumer interest groups would point to the cause of copyright infringement as due to price fixing by record label companies, who sell CD’s or movie production companies selling DVD’s or VHS tapes and charge too much for them. Schram (2005) argues against accusations that p2p sharing is “morally wrong” by saying “If the industry wants to have a discussion on morality, let’s have a closer look at this black kettle, the house of glass they want to throw stones from.” Schram describes how the media industry is very hypocritical because the industry has overcharged consumers for many years and finally the tables have turned for the worst against them and now; they want to label many consumers as morally wrong.
Referring back to Schram (2005), who happens to supply the reader with a good point regarding the CD industry. Schram states “knowledgeable observers have long since figured out that p2p is not about copyright at all. Instead it’s about disintermediation – getting the labels out of the middle, removing them from between the artist and the listener.” That statement suggests that the artist will not be hindered financially from losing the record label. Instead the artist’s popularity is increased by p2p sharing.
Before making a quick judgment, it is always better to hear both sides of any argument. The media industry and music artists are entitled to sell their finished product for a price. According to Webb (2004), the Los Angeles Times quoted a representative of the MPAA supporting all of the lawsuits filed against citizens who have taken part in any kind of illegal media distribution as saying “The future of our industry, and of the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports, must be protected from this kind of outright theft using all available means.” This statement highlights a possible negative economical effect of free media distribution. It states that many thousands of people’s jobs rely on the production and sales of media content in retail stores and online stores. It would seem that there would be no financial benefit of supplying media for free. Webb (2004) also points out that the MPAA has filed lawsuits against people, who have only downloaded one song or movie. John Malcolm of the MPAA supports this action by saying “One copy, he added, 'could easily become tens of thousands of copies available around the world” Schram (2005). Malcolm is emphasizing how fast information can spread in today’s electronic world. In fact in many DVD’s before you get to the feature presentation, there is an ad that warns about the consequences possible if you make or take part in the distribution of DVD’s illegally, whether it be online or on the black market.
As for what should be done about copyright infringement, Dr. Norbert J. Michlel (2004) takes a strong stance on the issue but suggests that a law should be amended specifying that copyright infringement should be clarified so that not one single person is exempt from this crime. He suggests that many bills proposed thus far are too broad and that many of the accused can often times find loop holes to escape through the court system. Dr. Michel also states that the proof of sales decline is not apparent yet, but soon will be because if a person has a choice to purchase music or download it for free, they would take the easy way out by not paying, at least until we clarify and take definitive action on these crimes, which are classified as theft.


References

Jamie Schram. (April 21, 2005).
The Phony Moral Debate. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
From http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/04/new_arguments_a.html

Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D. (August 23, 2004).
Internet File Sharing: The Evidence So Far and what It Means for the Future. Retrieved February 1, 2007, From
http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternetandTechnology/bg1790.cfm

Cynthia L. Webb. (November 17, 2004).
Hollywood’s One Strike Policy. Retrieved January 31, 2007, From
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NTQ/is_2004_Nov_17/ai_n9510419