Contents |
The new economy includes the notions of the network society, the information society and the knowledge society (Hartley, 2002, p.162). The network society can be defined as interconnected decentralised systems (Hartley, 2002, p.161). Freedom of speech through the participation of new technologies embodies the information society, and finally, the knowledge society values not only knowledge, but the application there of (Hartley, 2002, p.129). Thus, it is evident that music file sharing is one technology representative of the new economy. Decentralised systems, free speech and the implementation and spread of knowledge has received praised and criticism in the music industry and its relative publics.
The freedom that is provided for consumers to sample free music can be perceived as both a problem and opportunity for the recording industry. For artists, this technology can be viewed as either robbing them of their intellectual property when they are not paid, or assisting the process of music distribution, marketing and publicity. Free music downloads exemplifies the age of access in which consumers hold power (Rifkin, 2000, p.34). Consumers now have the opportunity of sampling music before they buy the compact disc (CD). Furthermore, according to Jeremy Rifkin (2000, p.33), studies show that by the year 2010, 20 percent of music will be sold on-line. The decentralisation of networks further emphasises the importance for businesses to consider moving towards cyber operations in this age of access (Rifkin, 2000, p.4)
Artists such as punk band the Offspring believe that MP3 technology provides them the pivotal means of fostering a better relationship with their fans (Menn, 2003, p.140) without the intermediaries and distributors of their music. Although this process is particularly detrimental to the intermediaries and distributors, however, it does allow musicians the opportunity to take advantage of a larger pie- fan loyalty. Musician’s fans are the largest majority in the purchase of artist related products. As most of the money from CD sales goes to the recording industry (Menn, 2003, p.145), artists who practice in on-line music distribution have the opportunity of generating profits from the sales of merchandise. In addition, evidence exists to suggest that cyber traffic is increasing at mammoth rates (Rifkin, 2000, p.34).
Furthermore, the relationship between CD sales and file sharing technology suggests that consumers relish in the opportunity to first sample potential products (Lessig, 2001, p.200). In addition, consumers have demonstrated that on-line purchases are increasing, so too has traffic (Rifkin, 2000, p.34). As a result, consumers demand for instant access and gratification for a fee or for free introduces opportunities for businesses.
Emma Pi-Hui Chow 21:48, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
Hartley, J. (2002) Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts, (3rd ed.), London: Routledge. ISBN 0415268893
Lessig, L. (2001) The Future of Ideas: The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World, New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 0375505784
Menn, J. (2003) All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster, New York: Crown Business. ISBN 0609610937
Rifkin, J. (2000) The Age of Access: How the Shift from Ownership to Access is Transforming Modern Life, London: Penguin Books. ISBN 014029547
Grokster, a product of the music industry’s implementation of new media technology, is an advanced peer to peer file sharing program, and a recent topic for debate in the court case MGM V Grokster.
Initiated in April 2003, the Grokster case, was unanimously decided by the courts in June 2005, that “Grokster could indeed be sued by infringement for their activities prior to the date of this judgement�? (Wikipedia 2005).
Similarity to the Napster case, Grokster, whilst not being accused of any direct infringement, was sued under the doctrine of secondary liability under the law of being liable when “someone is shown to be directly infringing the copyright of another�? (Fries 2005, 7). More specifically Grokster “were sued for distributing software that provided the means�? of downloading and distributing copyrighted works. Unlike Napster, however, Grokster did not have a central server, marking a key difference and consideration in the ruling of the case.
As a result of the decentralised structure of P2P being recognised by both the US District Court for the Central District of California and the court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, these courts found Grokster to be “not secondarily liable�? on the basis that “there was no proof of actual knowledge and therefore no liability to the companies (Fries 2005, 7). The Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling on the basis of unlawful objectivity, as Fries (2005, 7) states “there is liability when a distributor can be shown to have the unlawful objective of promoting the use of a product to infringe copyrights�?.
With the implication of these laws in mind the case ruling resulting only, in the necessity for Grokster and other software and P2P companies to be more careful when advertising their packages and should discourage illegal copying (Wikipedia 2005).
Fears for the implications of rulings find both the opposition and the Supreme Court concerned with limitations and financial risks for inventors and entrepreneurs of new technology, as Gibbs (2005, 50) states “the scope of possible litigation is being expanded to involve any technology that can transfer and or store copyright content�?. These implications were taken into consideration in the ruling of the case, as Fries (2005, 7) observes, “Based on statements made by several justices… there was concern to avoid a ruling that would chill technological innovation�?.
Kate Mitchell 17:19, 27 Oct 2005 (EST)
Fries, J. (2005). Computer and Internet Lawyer.Frederick, 22 (10): 5-7
Gibbs, M. (2005). Network World. Framingham, 22 (28):50-51
Wikipedia. (2005). Grokster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grokster (accessed October 26, 2005).
Back to Music File Sharing Effects on Business
Music File Sharing Effects on Business- Artists
Music File Sharing Effects on Business- Copyright and Intellectual Property
Music File Sharing Effects on Business- Napster Case Study
