Online Music v. The U. S. Government
By: Group 10(Thug Angels)
Introduction
The
subject of online music is a sore one for legislators, industry insiders, and
consumers. On the one hand, online music is extremely liberating. Its
convenience and accessibility make it a popular source of entertainment. On the
other hand, there must be some consideration for the rights of recording
artists. Debate is bitter over whether mp3-sharing turns people away from
buying CD's or is merely a means of pre-sampling an artist's music. Legislative
battles rage over the rights of Internet radio broadcasters. Some artists
remain adamantly opposed to liberal online policies, some artists are ardently
in favor of free music, and some are just ambivalent.
Napster's demise could be interpreted as an omen of the end of online music as
we know it. In the landmark case against that file-sharing giant, the judicial
system displayed its supreme respect for the rights of musicians to administer
their recordings as they see fit. But how long can the U.S. government continue
to oppose the growth and freedom of online music? Among consumers, there is an
overwhelming undercurrent of resentment against regulation. How much can the
stalwart RIAA withstand before it is pulled under?
This newsletter will explore two of the fronts upon which online music advocates
are being attacked: webcasting and mp3-sharing.
-Ben Lucas
In the beginning
On the fourth day Congress created Internet
royalties, and it was good, but not according to Internet radio stations and
other web casters. Royalties are the amount of proceeds paid to writer or
composer, resulting from the sale and performance of their work. In reference
to music on the Internet, this means web casters and online radio stations must
pay for copyrighted work from artists if they broadcast it over the Internet.
If an artist’s music is broadcast over the Internet, other people can download
or copy it, while the artist and copyrighters aren’t getting any profit from
it. There have been many complaints from web casters that all have problems
concerning this issue for the past few years. Many Internet radio stations have
gone off the air because they argue the royalties are too highland that they
are unable to pay them. Also, many radio stations have dropped their Internet
broadcasts because they have to pay two royalties, one for then air play and
one for the online play.
While
other organizations are dealing with payment problems, there are some companies
who have tried to make the payment of royalties easier. Many companies such samba
and ASCAP do distribute royalties to their users in a way that they see
practical. Their licenses allow for online users to get music from their sites.
ASCAP for example, offers four different ways of computing the royalties for the
site operators, so that they don’t have to pay an unreasonable amount.
Hopefully more solutions will soon arise and resolve these and other
controversies dealing with Internet royalties.
-Laura Lefebvre
Value of MP3's
MP3's are rapidly becoming the "must
have" standard for the delivery of high quality music on the Internet.
Mp3's can be a 
considerable benefit to the music
production as well as to artists. It can also give an advance to the new artist,
the previous superstar on the comeback, or the band not getting the publicity
they need or ought to have. The benefits of mp3 can extend much farther than to
just the artists.
The music is always in stock; the consumer
can try before buying, and doesn't have to wait for a delivery truck to deliver
the music -it's instantly downloaded to his hard drive. This is perhaps as
close as you can get to instant satisfaction. These very compelling benefits
may cause the traditional record store to become obsolete.
One huge advantage of the mp3's are that
they can compress music files to manageable size. This is significant because
music listeners can now take their portable mp3 players anywhere they go. Mp3
players are less likely to skip than CD or cassette players, which provides an
exciting trend for joggers and students. Also, mp3 players can often hold more
songs than a CD or cassette. All of this combined makes it easier for music
lovers to mix and match their favorite songs and hold all of them on one single
drive without having to keep changing tapes or CD's. Not to mention, mp3s will
not even wear out or get scratched. "For example, a typical music CD
consumes 650 MB, using MP3 the same audio only takes 55 MB. This has allowed
music to be stored on the PCs hard drive, allowing users to effortlessly create
and customize music play lists."
The development of mp3s can be beneficial
to the artist because, lets face it, not all artists make it to the top. The
ones who do, spend practically their whole life making their way up there to
receive that level of recognition and success. By being on the web in a mp3
file, it will give lesser-known artists a chance to spread their music to
listeners who haven’t ever heard of them and give them some sense of publicity.
Since many artists are not signed to major label-recording contracts, this is a
means of self-promotion for them.
Mp3s can also benefit the record company as well as the artists.
They can serve as positive functions for the music industry such as the
marketing and advertising aspects of having your music on the web. Most artists
are not aware of the "ins and outs" of mp3's. (Cichon) If they were,
there would be so much publicity to be received because every record industry
is labeled on each and every mp3 before it is downloaded. By allowing a
listener to download an artist's music on the Internet, it encourages that
listener to look for more of that artist's songs when they realize they like
this artist. Thus, an artist is opened to a new world of listeners.
By Fred Cichon
Mp3s, in general, are not illegal, so why
make it sound like they are? They are just a compression format for audio.
While some people douse mp3s for illegitimate reasons, most down loaders use
them responsibly. Mp3salso help artists and record companies by means of publicity.
Mp3s don't hurt anyone, except a few musicians if people download mp3s instead
of buying a CD. However, if artists can't afford to lose a little money, their
passion for singing isn't as strong as it should be.
-Travis Lamb
Violations In The Music
Industry
In 1999, Shawn Fanning developed a file
sharing system, which enabled college students to download music faster. His
famous online invention made file sharing user-friendly. Shawn created the code
for the search engine that controversially changed the music industry. For
Shawn Fanning, Napster became an instant success. Raking in millions of dollars
while attracting numerous lawsuits from
many musical artists. Metallica was one of the primary bands involved in the
infringement charges of Napster through accusations regarding copywriting.
According to Title 17, Chapter 2, Section 102 of the U.S. code, original works
of artists are supposed to be protected. Since the famous lawsuit, many other
musicians have entered into this online controversy. The popularity of file
sharing contributed to the success of Napster, and has paved the way for other
file sharing programs. Major record companies are constantly discussing
copyright concerns. One of the main companies requesting liability is the
Recording Industry Association of America. According to the RIAA, "Napster
launched a service that enables facilitates the privacy of music on an
unprecedented scale" (Straggas). Napster and one of the record companies
came to an agreement over the online file sharing services. Both of them
decided on various solutions such as monthly rates and downloading fees on peer-to-peer
sharing. However, the other record companies continue to attack Napster and
other file sharing services with forceful lawsuits regarding copyright
infringements. In the future more file sharing programs will be developed. It
is clear that the online music controversy that started out as a college hobby
has become the music industry's never-ending battle.
-Kristen Marcinkowski
Let It Be: A Defense of
Internet Radio Broadcasting
As internet technology continues to advance at an exponential pace,
traditional forms of media have found a place among the information
superhighway. One such form of media is radio. Just as radio waves flooded the
air in the early 20th century, internet broadcasting has begun to flow into
cyberspace. While this relatively new technology provides internet users access
to a much wider variety of radio programming than traditional radios, it is not
without its critics. There are opponents that wish to strictly regulate and/or
prohibit the broadcasting of radio stations on the internet. The matter of
publishing rights have brought this issue all the way to Capital Hill, in form
of legislation, that would require radio stations that broadcast on the
internet to pay higher fees. While these fees are no big deal to large
commercial radio stations, smaller, non-commercial stations are suffering. For
example, college radio stations that do not produce any revenue, just like
Bowling Green's own WBGU, will find it hard to find the money to pay internet
publishing fees. So why is this a problem? Why should Internet broadcasting be
protected?
It is unfair to hold non-commercial radio stations to the same rules and
regulations as large commercial stations. While commercial stations can sell
advertising to make money, non-commercial stations 
rely solely on donations or some sort of
financial backer, like a university. With its emphasis away from profit, then
on-commercial stations tend to focus on community enrichment playing a diverse
selection of music, expressing a variety of opinions, etc. These radio stations
serve an important role in their communities, and with Internet broadcasting
these stations, which usually cannot afford powerful transmitters, are able to
reach a significant audience cheaply.
Internet radio broadcasting provides a means in which small radio stations are
able to reach an international audience, therefore providing infinite listening
choices for Internet users. Internet radio broadcasting serves as a means for a
wide variety of ideas, music, etc. to be accessible to a great deal of people outside
of the stations broadcast range. Our government and those lobbying for internet
radio regulations should embrace this technology and all of the benefits that
it could potentially provide, instead of limiting internet radio to the few
that can afford to use it. Internet radio broadcasting could prove to be a key
in the exchange of knowledge on a global level, but only if it is defended
against unfair regulations.
-Nick LaRusso
Downloading Music: A Form of
Piracy
In recent past and in current day,
downloading MP3's off the Internet has been an ongoing battle, almost like a
trampoline, always in constant motion. Music downloading has grown prevalent
throughout the world within the matter of a couple years. The downloading of
MP3's however is a very serious legal problem that has been argued in courts
across the world. One of the best defenses music artists and record labels have
is in Article 1, Section8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
"The congress Shall have Power To promote the Progress of
Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors
the exclusive Right to Their respective Writings and discoveries
(U.S.Constitution, 1787)."
In the case the writer and or artists are
the authors and inventors, and the music is their property. This states that
any individual, who illegally downloads music off the Internet, can be
subjected to punishment by U.S. courts of law under the terms of copyright
infringement.
Users of programs such as the ever popular 
Kazaa, Bearshare, and Morpheus do not
realize that they are affecting many different people by downloading music
instead of making music retail purchases. 
These individuals
affect not only the artist but the record labels and small businesses too. The
music recording companies are major players in profits in the U.S. and
throughout the world. In all actuality, by downloading music off the Internet
one is stealing money and avoiding taxation by the government.
Metallica and Dr. Dre have stood up against the right of downloading music off
the Internet. These artists believe that they are losing out on money that
should be in their pockets, but more importantly that they are losing out on
pride for their music. They have taken the very popular Napster to court and as
an outcome have made it into a program that one must pay to use. The other
programs that I have mentioned will fall in the same matter as Napster has; it is
only a matter of time before they too charge a price for their services.
-Andy Martincin
Internet Royalties: Essential Safeguards
It's pirate season, and the RIAA is
worried-with good reason. Never in the history of recorded music has the
potential for illicit activity been so great. The creative works of artists and
record labels are threatened by CD-copying technology, mp3 file-sharing
networks, 
and now, webcasting. New developments in
technology necessitate new developments in intellectual property laws. The
Congress-approved royalty fees imposed on Internet radio stations are essential
safeguards against copyright piracy; attempts to show preference to smaller
webcasters, on the other hand, are uncalled for and unfair to musicians.
Perhaps, in determining the propriety of the royalty laws, it would
be useful to sort out the interests of the parties affected by this legislation.
The primary interest to consider is that of the recording artists
and their labels. It seems a basic principle of economics that those who
provide services should be paid for their services. A plumber is paid byte
hour, a policeman has a salary, a heart surgeon profits from his practice.
Everything has a price, and entertainment is no different. Movie companies make
money from box office sales and video rentals; novelists receive royalty
payments for copies sold; musical artists (or their labels) are paid per Cased.
Clearly then, there is ample precedent
to show that creators deserve compensation when others enjoy their creations.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ensures that artists receive the
payment that they deserve, at a rate determined by an impartial arbitrator (The
Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel, or CARP).
Historically, however, radio has been royalty-free; why should Internet radio
be different? According to the RIAA website, the exemption of terrestrial
radiobroadcasters from royalty fees is a fluke, not a precedent to be followed.
It explains, "In almost every other country broadcasters pay for their use
of the sound recordings upon which their business is based [In the U.S.] The
broadcasters were simply too strong on Capitol Hill" (2002). The rationale
for this exemption is that radio airplay serves to promote record sales for
artists. The artists are supposedly "paid" in the form of increased
exposure. But it is simply not tenable to say that webcasting has any
promotional value. The arbitrators of CARP found that they could not” conclude
with any confidence whether any webcasting service in any way significantly
affects the copyright owners' revenue streams" (U.S.Copyright Office,
2002).
It is clear, then, that the DMCA treats artists and labels fairly, safeguarding
their right to profit from their creative works, and not giving them any undue
preference. On the other hand the Internet Radio Fairness Act (IRFA), which
exempts smaller Internet radio stations from paying the same fees, would
deprive artists of their fair share of revenue.
Another party affected by the DMCA is the consumer. It seems logical to assume
that listeners prefer music that can be heard for free. Webcasting provides
this. The convenience of the Internet also allows for greater variety of
selection, which is plainly desirable to the music enthusiast. Without passage
of the IRFA, however, smaller webcasters will be unable to afford to continue
operating for free. The options are to either shut down or to charge for
services.
Certainly, the DMCA has undesirable implications for the music consumer. But in
what ways have a consumer's rights been violated by this Act? Citizens of the U.S.
have a right to vote and receive Social Security benefits because they
paytaxes; they also have a right to expect quality service when they pay to
havetheir houses renovated and their children educated. They have no right to
expect anything, however, when they haven't paid for it. Free music is not
aright. Anyhow, the imposition of royalties will not wipe out webcasting entirely,
and all of the normal channels of music consumption-those that existed before
webcasting-are still available. Therefore, the new law will not significantly
diminish a consumer's ability to enjoy music; and even if it did, the copyright
owner's rights have a legal priority over the listener’s pleasure.
The final party that the DMCA affects is the webcaster. As
discussed above, DMCA royalty rates will force smaller radio stations out of
business unless the amendment to decrease rates is passed. Larger stations will
be inconvenienced, but will be able to afford to continue operating. Webcasters
are petitioning Congress to amend Title 17 of the U.S. code, which deals with
copyright issues. Under the proposed law, many webcasting stations would
qualify as "small businesses" and would not have to pay the full
royalty fees.
If the Internet Radio Freedom Act is voted down, then many online radio
stations will suffer; but do they have any legitimate claim to such legal
protection? Clearly not. Webcasters should not be allowed to profit from
someone else's creative work without sharing a fair amount of revenue with the
artist. If that means that some radio stations cannot continue to operate, that’s
unfortunate, but that is the nature of a competitive market.
When the controversy is dissected like this, it is plain to see
that the only party with a legitimate interest here is the artist. To make sure
that a person's creative work is not hijacked for another entity's gain, thermal
must stand. Royalties should not be reduced for smaller radio stations.
-Ben Lucas
Works Cited
FMQB (Sept 13, 2002). Arbitral-Edison
"Internet 9:
streaming audited." Huge Opportunity for Recording
Industry.
FMQB (Sept 13, 2002).
ClearChannel Cuts New Indie
Deals.
FMQB (Sept 13, 2002).WRAL/Raleigh
Uses New Technology
to Stream Locally.
R & R The Industry’s
Newspaper (Sept 13 2002) Study:
83 Million Americans Have Tried Streamed Media.
CNN.com (2001) Music stars,
repsclash in Congress
over Napster. April 3. Available oncline:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/04/03/napster.hearing/index.html
(accessed Septemeber 26, 2002)
CNN.com (2001) Napster offers
$1billion to settle
suit. February 20. Available online:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/Law/02/20/napster.settlement.03/index.html
CNN.com (2000). Meet the
Napster.October 2. Available
online:
http://www.mediacentral.com/Magazines/MediaDaily/OldArchives/199612/1996120410.html
(accessed September 28, 2002)
RIAA (2002). Webcasting
FAQ's.(Date?). Available
online: http://www.riaa.com/Licensing-Licen-3a.rfm
(accessed September 26, 2002)
New Times L.A. (2002). Artemis of
reason. August 9.
Available online:
http://www.newtimesla.com/issues/2002-8-8/earwax.html/1/indext.html
Save Internet Radio! (2002). Give
me the story in 90
seconds, you ask. Okay, I'll try. Available online:
http://www.saveinternetradio.com/90seconds.asp
(accessed September 26, 2002)
CNN.com (2000). Napster the
revolution. October 2.
Available online:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/10/02/revolution.html
(accessed September 26, 2002)
Money.CNN.com (2001) Judge nixes Napster.
Mar 6.
Available online:
http://money.cnn.com/2001/03/06/technology/napster.html
(accessed September 26, 2002)
Legal Information Institute(2002)
Title 17-
copyrights. Available online:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/114.html
(accessed September 25, 2002)
Thomas. (2002) HR 5285. Available
online: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.5285.html
(accessed September 25, 2002)
WRITORS:Travis Lamb, Nicholas LaRusso, Laura Lebreve, Benjamin Lucas, KristenMarcinkowski, Andrew Martincin
EDITOR:Eric Laugel
DESIGN:Jeff Kostic