Three Anti-Piracy Proposals, Essay Example

Synopsis

Since the advent of the Internet, the process of production, distribution, and music consumption continues to face significant challenges. Undoubtedly, such a revolution remains a phenomenon that has brought about substantial problems related to intellectual property rights. For instance, the file-sharing issue of copyrighted data through unauthorized networks, widely known as peer-to-peer (P2P), is currently one of the activities that challenge the music industry. Despite the measures and efforts of the industry to address and fight these conducts, P2P and consumer network providers that include the popular PirateBay continue to invest in some of the newest ways to address and work around a set of legal remedies (Jaisingh, 2004). The primary issue revolves around the fact that digital music remains a widely traded phenomenon on different P2P networks that copyright holders and record labels do not license. On the other hand, the battle between the anti-copyright movements and copyright holders, therefore, continues to have a significant impact on the business approach and model within the industry.

Three Anti-Piracy Proposals

The Creation of Strong Legislations and Strong IP Rights.

As observed, the music industry needs to focus on working closely with law enforcement entities to trace and identify the increasing cases of online pirate services. To achieve this goal, the industry may focus on building stronger legislative measures against the perpetrators through the engagement of the judiciary and government systems in creating an environment that devoid of and punishes piracy. The currently existing policies lack the rigidity needed to address the concern (Darmon & Le Texier, 2016). For instance, suing the actual infringers who trade music on P2P networks such as Blubster, Filetopia, Direct Connect, OpenNap, and Overnet is currently passé within the digital work and copyright law. In the digital landscape, Jaisingh (2004) establishes that the real stakes lie in suing those engaged in the facilitation of piracy

Devise Technologies that Detect and Trace Illegal Distribution

Music piracy primarily occurs due to collusions between several parties that include the providers of pirated or illegal content and the providers of the P2P technologies. The music industry may address this by developing watermarking systems and methods that may be used in tracing the pirated sources of illegal content distribution (Darmon & Le Texier, 2016). Therefore, the industry needs to establish a seamless working relationship with different online facilities and stores to disband some infringing apps and place restrictions on illegal websites. Besides this, the use of ISPs may help in ensuring that tabs. For example, during the 80s, cassette tapes were fundamental in allowing music enthusiasts to record and tape some of their favorite songs from LPs and radio stations. This allowed for the free distribution of music. However, currently, the music industry focuses on integrating the advertising model to ensure the people acquire music content legitimately. This model currently works for organizations such as Hulu in addressing the increasing cases of piracy.

Pruning the Web Primarily for Pirated Content

The music industry equally needs to engage in cleansing measures to eliminate accidental piracy in which the consumers disburse music without the intention to engage in piracy. Given the emergence of different online platforms that support music collaboration, such as the SoundCloud system that allows the users to promote and share music on the platform, the onus lies in ensuring that no copyright-protected music and content is shared through these platforms. According to Marks (2009), copyright owners often tend not to focus on suing individuals who trade music files, videos, and software through the Internet other than finding other means that may be used in addressing this issue. As provided in the three proposals, there is a need for the music industry to advance on the current measures used to address piracy. A review of the current anti-piracy measures remains key in devising alternative measures that address the industry’s current issues.

Allies and Opposition

As established in this case, the copyright owners may be considered allies and classified on a two-tiered scale. The first tier mainly includes the composes, artists, and the performers who primary have ownership of the copyrights for the works they produce. The second tier primarily encompasses the recording industry or the music industry to whom the artist’s delegate and accord part of these copyrights to exchange several specific services (Marks, 2009).  Since the beginning of the 20^th century, Oh and Hann establish that the recording industry has focused on building one of the most powerful commercial and systemic empires that allow international corporations to rule the market. In this case, the international market is mainly ruled by the widely known bid three, including Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group, all of whom are allies in this proposal. Besides some of the recent changes, their business model remains a phenomenon that has significantly undergone a series of evolutions since its establishment (Oh & Hann, 2013). For example, traditionally, artists may license their copyrights to corporations by recording and publishing contracts that allow the recording labels to collect their royalties specifically to sell their produced work.  In exchange, artists receive a share or percentage of the royalties that benefit them from their services.

Contrarily, the opposition to this proposal includes the infringers, widely known to be the consumers who rely on P2P services in sharing music without royalties. On the other hand, this population includes individuals who download music illegally or rather in complete violation of the copyright laws (Rajagopal, 2004). This group equally encompasses the peer-to-peer providers. These are mainly websites that promote the sharing of music against the volition of the copyright owners, such as the PirateBay, Napster, Limewire, and Kazaa that rely on some of the current technologies. The technologies currently allow the users to gain contact with others through torrent files that function through internet links. In this case, the users can share files outside their computers or phones through the P2P website administrators and share content with others (Rajagopal, 2004). These websites frequently use an advertising revenue business approach that allows advertisers to collect fees from their adverts. To cultivate the support of the opposition, the industry may focus on the fragmentation of responsibilities through strategic plans that coordinate and engage different stakeholders in finding solutions to the issue. Secondly, fostering a culture and community of protecting the works of copyright owners remains central in cultivating the support of the opposition.

Implementation

The first approach intended at dealing with the wide-scale infringement through the P2P networks lies in the targeting of enforcement methods at people who pirate. Tsui & Wang (2012) suggest the need to evaluate and canvas models that emphasize the reduction of copyright infringement on P2P networks mainly through the enforcement of legal actions. This may be achieved by enforcing legitimate alternatives that address the online dissemination of music (Sudler, 2013).  This may be achieved by enforcing potential sanctions in cases where legal alternatives accord reasonable substitutive measures to regulate the acquisition of music online.  Enforcement may therefore revolve around measures that include the garnishing of the defendant’s systems and wages as well as the placement of liens on their property. However, the execution of such administrative judgments may prove costly and difficult, detailing the need for the copyright owners to notify the credit reporting firms and agencies of the illegal unpaid dues and judgments. Uploaders and copyright owners may bring successful claims designated by an administrative decision and judgment as copyright infringers. Such designations may be important as they have consequences specifically for the safe harbors of an Online Service Provider (OSP) providers as enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 (Tsui & Wang, 2012). Repealing the DMCA, in this case, provides a safe environment to the OSPs in cases where they implement policies that play a fundamental role in terminating all the accounts of the repeated infringers in specific cases.

Feasibility

One possibility of making this proposal viable lies in doing away with the existing lawsuits favoring other ex-ante approaches and mechanisms of collecting royalties and compensating the copyright owners (Tsui and Wang n.p). This suggests the need to enhance copyright laws that may be enforced on online content through a system that collects levies that may be used to compensate the copyright owners specifically for the online activities, a move thwarted by the traditional methods of enforcement that focus on the engagement of lawsuits.  A roadblock to the feasibility of this proposal lies in the fact that circumnavigating issues related to the collection of levies, such as suing the facilitators, remains a challenge.  The administrators often target the upstream technologies that propel music sharing through different platforms rather than those who engage in piracy.

Results

This proposal may not efficiently remedy the current challenges facing the music industry; however, its adoption may play a fundamental role in rooting out the issues related to P2P sharing. Upon implementing this proposal, the music ecosystem will likely experience increased royalties collected to compensate the copyright owners. Secondly, lower volumes of P2P sharing may be deterred, a factor that will significantly bankrupt the increasing criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits. This will accord the allies and the administrators of the music estate enough control to sufficiently incentivize the creation of new works and the adequate compensation of copyright owners. Lastly, the proposal may trigger the need for policy reforms that regulate the music industry.

References

Darmon, E., & Le Texier, T. (2016). Private or Public Law Enforcement? The Case of Digital Anti-Piracy Policies with Illegal Non-Monitored Behavior. Review of Network Economics, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.1515/rne-2016-0027

Jaisingh, J. (2004). Piracy on File Sharing Networks: Strategies for Recording Companies. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.567681

Marks, P. (2009). Anti-piracy laws won’t just upset web users. New Scientist, 204(2737), 22–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0262-4079(09)63185-7

Oh, J., & Hann, I.-H. (2013). Combating Pre-Release Piracy: Modelling the Effects of Anti-Piracy Measures in P2P Networks. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2337111

Rajagopal, I. (2004). Cons in the Panopticon: Anti–globalization and cyber–piracy. First Monday, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v9i9.1174

Sudler, H. (2013). Effectiveness of anti-piracy technology: Finding appropriate solutions for evolving online piracy. Business Horizons, 56(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2012.11.001

Tsui, H., & Wang, T. (2012). Piracy and social norm of anti?piracy. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(12), 922–932. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211269361