The trading of MP3's or digital music over the Internet is all ways going to be an important part of the music industry, and is an unrealistic goal to try to control. The cost of controlling the piracy issues over the Internet would cost record companies more money than what they are losing due to MP3 trading. The record industry is trying to fight the major sites and companies in court with copyright suits. Quinlan states "Although downloading music over the Internet and playing it back on computer or portable digital music players has become increasingly popular, major record labels have been slow to embrace distribution over the Web because of the difficulty in preventing unauthorize ...view middle of the document...
Established bands post sample tracks from new albums to encourage CD sales, and new bands post their music on MP3 sites in order to develop an audience.The main legal controversy involved with MP3 files is that they are being traded aroundthe Internet without the consent of the artist or record companies. Kimmel states the following: It seem obvious that the use of MP3 technology does not for the most part, meet the requirements, set by the Copyright Law of 1976, to clam fair use for educational purposes. These arguments can include protection gaps, where copyright treaties only protect material for a certain amount of time, thus making produced and distributed after this gap has expired legal. Another legal justification of bootleg recordings is that the copyright is not owned by the artist, publisher, or record company, though this defense has not been as successful as the protection gap defense. The length, format, and approximate size is making it easy for sites to be around such as MP3.com and programs such as Napster. For example, for a five minute music file, the size of a .WAV file would be sixty megabytes, a .MP3 file would be five megabytes, and a Real Audio file would be less than a megabyte (but the sound wouldn't be as clear as a MP3).The chief argument that MP3.com states is thus Robertson says "When a consumers buys a CD, does the industry get to tell the consumer where she can listen to her music? The type of technology that she can use to play her CD? Whether she can use new Internet technologies? What about the fair use rights of the consumer, Hillary?" The services that MP3.com provides are as follows as long as you have purchased the CDs you are able to listen to thought their technology. As RIAA lawsuit states "once a user obtains permanent access to infringing reproductions by placing an order for or confirming to defendant that he is in the possession of an audio CD (or a copy, authorized or unauthorized, of an audio CD) containing those sound recording, he then has free rain over that site." They had purchased a total of 80,000 CDs and made them assessable to their viewers. "If you start looking at what MP3.com is doing, the company is providing the music from records to people who have already bought them," said digital music lawyer Whitney Broussard. "Even if it is illegal, what are the damages because there aren't really any lost sales? People still have to purchase the CD's," said King. Eventually MP3.com is planning to move to a system where you have to pay for listening to their services. Robertson states that "We believe that the artists will benefit far more by having the Internet technologies given them the ability to make direct connection with their fans and ultimately receive revenue on a pay-per-listen basis." Robertson also states "We have every intention of fighting your efforts to dictate the way people can listen to their music." MP3.com has voluntarily agreed to disable their content in the My.MP3....
