Contents |
In 1987, the Fraunhofer Institutut Integrierte Schaltungen in Germany started the development of a compression technology that would eventually enable digital music to take up a smaller quantity of data. The institute patented this technology in 1989 as their MP3 algorithm. This technology enabled the reduction in size of CD quality music files that began to be utilised on web sites containing pirated tracks.
It wasn’t until the advent of peer-to-peer filesharing technology that MP3 became a primary issue for copyright law and the music industry. “The combination of these two technologies has resulted in the amount of copying that individuals are able to do and, in the major record labels’ view, are doing�? (Marshall 2004:pg193).
Copyright law is designed to allow the copyright owner the exclusive right to prohibit or to do certain acts with regard to the copyright material. Two of these rights are the exclusive rights to copy and distribute the material. The right to reproduce copyright works is commonly held as the fundamental copyright right. It is therefore clear why MP3 technology is contentious within this branch of intellectual property law as it operates off this core principle.
There are two primary arguments about the relationship between MP3 technology and copyright law. The first argument, held primarily by the recording industry and the some in the legal profession, was summarised by Richard Parsons, President of Time-Warner when he said,
“This is a very profound moment historically. This isn’t just about a bunch of kids stealing music. It’s about an assault on everything that constitutes the cultural expression of our society. If we fail to protect and preserve our intellectual property system, the culture will atrophy. And corporations won’t be the only ones hurt. Artists will have no incentive to create. Worst case scenario: The country will end up in a sort of cultural Dark Ages�? (Parsons quoted in Philips 2000).
From the perspective of the recording industry the problem with MP3 technology is that it is insecure. There is no incorporated copy-protection meaning that files can be copied, and copies can be copied. The recording industry has successfully argued in numerous cases (eg A & M Records v Napster ) that the down loading and sharing of music via peer-to-peer networks infringes their copyright. They have argued that the initial down loading of music constitutes the making of an illegal copy of the file. Furthermore by allowing access by other users to that file on a filesharing network the recording industry argues that users also illegally distribute copyright material. “The combination of these new technologies has resulted in an increase in the amount of copying that individuals are able to do and, in the major record labels’ view, are doing�? (Marshall 2004:p193). This technology is therefore seen as the primary factor in the increase in copyright violations with regard to music that the recording industry has been effected by.
The second argument is one proliferated primarily by users of MP3 technology and cultural theorists in favour of the free spread of cultural product. Their stance was summarised by a comment made in response to the statement of Richard Parsons that said,
“A profound moment, indeed. Indeed, it is an assault on everything that has stifled cultural expression of our society. It’s an assault on the system that stole every dime the Chambers Brothers ever made while grotesquely enriching Britney Spears�? (Barlow quoted on Napster Weblog).
The argument supporting the use of MP3 technology is that it is merely a file format. Whilst it does have the potential for unauthorised and copyright infringing uses; it may also be used for legitimate reasons. They assert that the exercise of copyright law over the digital environment stifles possibilities for innovation of the means of distribution of music and digital files. They further claim that copyright law needs to face reform to become better equipped to handle issues such as MP3 filesharing where the boundaries between what constitutes an infringement and fair use are blurred. Furthermore they maintain that there is no unambiguous proof of the industry’s claims that online theft is resulting in the fall in the popularity of recorded music.
See Also:
Baulch, L. (1993) Music and Copyright. Redfern NSW: Australian Copyright Council.
Frith, S., and Marshall, L. (2004) Music and Copyright. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Philips, C. (2002) 'Piracy: Music Giants Miss a Beat on the Web'. Los Angeles Times. July 17 2002.
--Lara Cresser 14:29, 13 Oct 2005 (EST)
