Free Term Paper On With The Piracy Laws And The Fall Of Napster, Formerly One Of The Largest Music Sharing

The recording industries loses billions of revenues to online piracy each year. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) states that “From 2004 through 2009 alone, approximately 30 billion songs were illegally downloaded on file-sharing networks (RIAA, 2015). In addition to these numbers, since the introduction of Napster, music sales dropped from $14.6 billion to $7.0 billion in 2013. These are drastic numbers and the data confirms that there is a major problem with illegal file sharing and artists not be compensated for these losses. These are revenues that are never recouped by the music industry. Piracy and file sharing are often seen as victimless crimes. The anonymity and frequency of file sharing make people feel like they are not committing a crime. They do not realize that when copy written music is shared illegally, that they are committing an act of theft. While many people might not see file sharing or illegally downloading a song as a crime, it can be detrimental to the music industry. The music artists are not paid for the free songs and it affects everyone involved in creating the song. When someone illegally downloads a song, it is like the artist is giving away their product for free, without any compensation.
The RIAA discourages any illegal file sharing activities. The RIAA states that “[they] enforce [their] rights against people who steal music. [They] also work hard to educate consumers about the law and about the many legal ways to get music online” (RIAA, 2015). In response to the millions of illegally downloaded songs, the RIAA has been very vocal in asking for stricter downloading guidelines and tougher penalties for individuals caught illegally sharing music.
The RIAA along with other film and music industries have tried to protect their artists and copyrighted materials by supporting acts such as the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and the Senate bill, the Protect IP Act (PIPA). These acts garnered rave reviews from industry executives because they would prevent search engines from directing internet users to sites where piracy and file sharing is free. Wyatt states that the White House and President Obama acknowledged the threat of online piracy and how it “harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs” (Wyatt, 2012). Obama also stated that he would not support any legislation that reduced the freedom of expression of consumers and limited the creativity and innovation of the internet. Many people agreed with Obama and felt that the measures of the SOPA and the PIPA were too strict and limited the rights of consumers as a whole.
While some music artists reveled in the increased exposure of having their music illegally downloaded, others wanted their fair share of the profits. Illegal file sharing has had a negative effect on music artists in terms of compensation. For example, in 2013 when music artist Beyoncé Knowles released her visual album. The album sold one million copies in its first week, however it was illegally downloaded 240,000 times during that same week period. Wiles notes that “At $16 a pop on iTunes, that means Beyoncé lost about $4 million just that week alone. But the number has likely moved higher, as illegal downloads have continued at an average of about 20,000 a day” (Wiles, 2013).
Some might argue that these numbers do not accurately represent lost revenues or that it is difficult to project the loss of file sharing. This is because the argument involves the theory that if the individuals had to actually pay for the music, there is no actual proof that they would purchase the album. This theory is not a hard fact but is hypothetical at best. Once an artist’s music is illegally shared, music industry executives try to go back and calculate the possible profits that they have lost and profits that could have been gained if the album or songs were paid for properly. With major artists such as Beyoncé or rock band U2, the losses for the artist and their record company might not be felt as greatly as by an artist on an independent record label. An independent artist might not have the additional sources of income as a major artist. Start-up costs, advertising, promotion, combined with illegal file sharing can bankrupt the artist.
With all of the file sharing sites and networks available for downloading music illegally, there are also reputable companies where music can be downloaded for a nominal fee. iTunes (available through the iPhone) is one of the music’s biggest retailers. iTunes has a large selection of music and users do not have to worry about if the music is illegal. Pham and Peoples stated that iTunes changed the music industry by creating legal digital music, making it a norm, standardizing a download price for music, and making the album single more important. (Pham and Peoples, 2013).

sites on the internet Apple president Steve Jobs sought to make a music service where individuals could download songs without the fear of piracy laws. He created the iTunes platform and iPod music players for consumers to download their music. Pham noted that Jobs felt that iTunes made “complete sense, and it was something he felt people would be willing to pay for” (Pham and Peoples, 2013).
Another way iTunes and the iPod changed the music industry was through proper product placement and the ease of use. Music no longer had to be contained on large CD’s or rewritable disks. Users could download an unlimited amount of songs into their iPods; which was a small music player, and choose from a huge library of songs from iTunes. The iPod was everywhere and people were purchasing them as Christmas gifts, as gym companions and downloading the iTunes application on their mobile devices. This revolutionized the music industry and became a very successful endeavor.
iTunes was the first music sharing site to set a standard price for downloading music. The music downloads were set at 99 cents for any single song. Artists and record labels did not like the standard pricing due to the popularity of certain songs. Pham stated that the music industry felt that “If certain songs were really popular [they] should be able to set the price at whatever [the industry] thought was the right price as opposed to the $1 price” (Pham and Peoples, 2013). Jobs did not agree to that strategy and told the record labels that if they wanted their artist’s music to be included in the iTunes’ catalog that they had to agree to the 99 cent download price. The record companies ultimately agreed to the deal. Because each song had to be downloaded as a single, the importance of the single rose as a result of iTunes. Artists began to remake many singles and market them strictly on iTunes in order to gain more downloads and increase revenues for their music companies. 

References

Pham, Alex, and Glenn Peoples. "Seven Ways ITunes Changed the Music Industry."
Billboard.com. Billboard, 25 Apr. 2013. Web. 13 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/1559622/seven-ways-itunes-changed-the-
music-industry>.
Wile, Rob. "Beyoncé Has Already Lost $4 Million On Pirated Copies Of Her New Album."
Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc., 27 Dec. 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/beyonce-album-illegal-downloads-2013-
12#ixzz3UMnaBCJc>.
"What Is Online Piracy." Http://www.riaa.com. RIAA, 6 Mar. 2015. Web. 15 Mar. 2015.
<https://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=What-is-Online-Piracy>.
Wyatt, Edward. "White House Says It Opposes Parts of Two Antipiracy Bills." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 14 Jan. 2012. Web. 13 Mar. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-
antipiracy-bills.html>.