The Recording Industry of America (RIAA) has been playing the world’s
smallest yet most repetitious music on its violin for almost two years: we
try to tune it out as we stealthily use Napster to download MP3s, always
cautious that the Music Police could ban us from accessing our music
collection.
The Internet is challenging the traditional forms of music distribution.
Yet today’s legal and ethical debates stem from a long history of copyright
battles. Before digital music or CDs, the record and film industries were
locked in several copyright battles over the recent technologies of cassette
and video taping. The content industry claimed that because people with
such recording devices could make personal copies of the music and movies,
those devices violated copyright law.
From those lawsuits came a legal precedent called Time Shifting.
Time Shifting is a concept where the consumer transfers music from one
medium to another for the convenience of playing it at a later time or
another place. In a landmark case twenty years ago, this was ruled a fair
and legal use of recording music, since the courts felt that the great
majority of consumers didn’t use these devices to steal content, but rather
as tools of convenience.
The music industry continued to cry foul and decorated the sleeves of vinyl
albums with the message: “Home Taping is KILLING the Music Industry” despite
the court’s landmark ruling. While the RIAA proclaims defeat, the music
industry is alive and kicking; it is stronger than ever.
At the root of today’s issue is the distribution of digital music referred
to as MP3s. At MP3.com, using a tool called Beam-It, users take their bought
CDs and upload them to a private account on My.MP3.com. The account becomes
a personal music collection that allows users to play music from anywhere
that they can access the Web.
MP3.com’s income model takes advantage of the user’s right to Time Shift.
My.MP3.com delivers instant digital music for convenience sake.
MP3.com uses the Internet and file formats that make music files smaller,
which allows artists to distribute and promote their music anywhere the
Internet penetrates while enabling consumers to access this expanding music
catalog. MP3.com’s site contains over 387 000 songs and audio files from
more than 62 000 artists. Consumers can search for, listen to and download
music for free.
MP3.com’s service, My.MP3.com is a modern application of Time Shifting. The
music, theoretically, is already paid for as are the pre-described rights
endowed through the legal precept of Time Shifting.
The major money makers in the music biz felt threatened by the its lack of
control over the distribution of MP3s.
On January 21, 2000, the major record labels filed a complaint in New York
Federal Court against MP3.com for copyright infringement relating to its
My.MP3.com services. On April 28, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Rakoff
granted the major record labels’ motion of partial summary judgement.
Robin D. Richards, MP3.com President and CEO commented that “We regret the
need to take this step, which inconveniences more than 500 000 My.MP3.com
account holders. While we disagree with the court’s decision, we also want
to demonstrate our good faith and strong desire to achieve an expeditious
business resolution.
“We continue to work tirelessly with all the major labels to arrive at a
settlement of their copyright infringement claims and to reach an agreement
to license their musical works. We expect to restore user access to the ‘Big
Five’ major label groups’ (Sony Music Entertainment, EMI, BMG Entertainment,
Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group) content if and when a
settlement is reached and licenses are executed.”
Trying to change the image of greedy record labels, Cary Sherman, Senior
Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the RIAA, said in a
statement that the music services provided by MP3.com constitute “a blatant
infringement of rights, upsetting not only to record labels, but also large
numbers of artists, retailers and technology companies who have business
agreements with copyright owners.”
The fight to save the integrity and prosperity of artists is a noble cause.
Yet when you remove the warning label about how MP3s are killing the music
industry, you find a deep, if not bottomless, pit of wealth. The RIAA’s
lawsuits are designed to protect their wealth and the system that dumps it
in their backyard.
To date, the music industry has sued: Diamond (lost), Lycos (lost) and
Napster (still pending, but doesn’t look strong).
MP3.com’s Eric Schierer commented that “… hastily conceived lawsuits have
a way of backfiring by creating precedents with undesired consequences for
the old content industry. In ruling on the RIAA-Diamond lawsuit, the court
judgment severely weakened the American Home Recording Act when it ruled
that home computers are not music-recording devices.”
The future plan for MP3.com is eventually to offer a fee-based service.
Currently Amazon and CD Now sell a lot of music. Add MP3.com, and there may
be yet another significant evolution in the world of Internet music.
Caving in under legal pressures from the RIAA, MP3.com announced on May 10th
that it would disable access to all major record labels content from its
My.MP3.com service (My.MP3.com) while negotiations to settle its copyright
infringement lawsuit continue.
Enter the Napster revolution. Napster is comprised of hundreds of thousands
of music catalogues that are accessible and tradeable. Users log into the
company’s servers, located in California, and reach other music collectors.
They can use their computers into music distributing machines by copying
files and ripping CDs. A quick search for a favourite song will prompt a
list of all the MP3s of that song currently available to appear.
This worried record labels who have taken Napster to court, alleging that
the company is “enabling and encouraging the illegal copying and
distribution of illegal copyrighted material.”
The Progressive Policy Institute has proposed reopening the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act in an effort to shift penalties on service
providers like Napster to the people who use it to engage in what may be
music piracy. Super group Metallica and rapper Dr. Dre’s lawyer Howard King
representing the performers in identical copyright infringement lawsuits
against Napster Inc. maintains that the users are engaging in criminal
activity, but he doesn’t forsee suing because to sue 30 000 users is
“economically ridiculous.” The Napster users do not see themselves or
Napster as doing anything beyond their rights, thank you very much.
The technology is here and has been embraced by music lovers. Undoubtedly,
never before have so many artists been accessible to such a huge market.
And while record companies cry foul, the RIAA’s own figures indicate that
its revenue grew more than 8 percent in 1999 with sales up $14.6 billion
from $13.7 billion in 1998. They are not starving quite yet.
The distribution of MP3s both challenge and complement the RIAA. Rather
than fight the tidal wave of consumer interest and preference, the RIAA
might serve itself better by examining its steep music prices and services.
Where will the RIAA stick its latest warning labels? A few hundred thousand
MP3-users may be able to offer a few suggestions.
