This essay discusses the future of the music industry from a technical point of view, probing into details such as Napster case verdict, iPods, iTunes and next generation audio delivery formats. The Music Industry A Futuristic Look Although only a miniscule percentage of music presently sold is also distributed digitally, downloads, subscription services, ringtones and ringbacks are expected to grow exponentially in the coming years. According to Jupiter Research, ringtone revenues, which were $91 million in 2003, more than doubled to $217 million in 2004 and will reach $724 million in 2009. Meanwhile, U.K.-based Juniper Research estimated full-song downloads totaling $20 million worldwide in 2004; it projects revenues of $1.8 billion by 2009 (Matt 2005).
Seven hundred million music-enabled mobile phones will be sold worldwide this year. Last year digital music became a reality; this year it will become a real business. A recurring theme at both conferences was that physical CD sales are surely to suffer at the hands of downloads.
The CD is going to go away as we realize we need a new disc, legitimate digital music sales is only 2 percent of total music sales, it’s up 10 times over the previous year; Sony’s Blu-ray next-generation DVD needed to be adapted for music. In the short term, some digital sales will result in a decline of some of the physical business. Kids being born today are not going to listen to physical CDs. Despite the recent inroads paved by Apple with iTunes and the iPod, lack of interoperability between MP3 players and PCs prevents seamless transfer of music collections. Among the issues preventing those barriers from being removed are the creation of a single standard for digital rights management and copyright clearance. Microsoft has created a software-based infrastructure known as Janus that will allow users to synch up their PC-downloaded song library with tracks that have been paid for to port over to a digital device; otherwise they will time out. Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster, has been busy promoting his new company Snocap, which aims to facilitate the rights clearance process. TVT Records and Artemis Records among other indie labels have signed on with the company as well. Napster, of course, unleashed the MP3 file-sharing, peer-to-peer (P2P) phenomenon in 1999 and was shut down two years later by a federal appeals court, which found it guilty of contributory copyright infringement. Several acquisitions later, Napster resurfaced without its founder as a legitimate subscription-based service controlled by the company that previously owned the Roxio line of CD-burning software.
The Essay on Bands And Record Napster Download Files
A major news item lately has been what is called The MP 3 Controversy. It is based on the free trade of music files known as MP 3 s, which are small enough to be easily downloaded but have the same quality as a compact disc. Computer users are able to download these files from the internet and then burn them onto CDs that can be played in any regular CD player. Bands and record labels claim that ...
During the Napster court case, the company was found to be an “imperfect technology” because it could not assert that the audio files being traded were copyrighted. That led Fanning to realize that he needed to get all the labels to identify their masters. Fanning admitted for Snocap, which uses an audio fingerprinting technology, to be truly effective he needs total participation from the labels. The Snocap software analyzes the aural properties of a track to determine if it is copyrighted. “There has been a deadlock working together because of the outstanding litigation,” Fanning said, referring to the MGM v. Grokster P2P case to be argued before the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 29. A decision is expected in June. A panel of entertainment lawyers argued at the Digital Music Forum what they thought might happen in the Grokster case. There was a general consensus among the panelists that the court could separate unlawful conduct (i.e., piracy) without banning outright a dual-use technology by applying a series of legal tests. Another school of thought had the high court remanding the Grokster case back to the district level for further scrutiny. In April 2003, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that the current version of StreamCast Networks’ Morpheus software-disseminated by Grokster-was legal and that StreamCast was not a contributory or vicariously liable copyright infringer.
The Research paper on Quantum Software Case Study
Quantum Software is a fairly new organization “No ties, no suits coats, first name only” that was founded by Stan Albright and Erin Barber. The company develops computer software specifically oriented to the needs of independent oil businesses. They’ve had a lot of success over the past 3years and are growing fairly fast. Quantum has gained over 200 employees and has made about 95 million dollars ...
The recording industry and motion picture industry plaintiffs, who lost that ruling, filed an appeal, requesting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals consider the case. After losing the Appellate court ruling, the entertainment industry plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was accepted in December 2004. Sony BMG Music’s Lack said at the Billboard conference his company didn’t necessarily want overturned the landmark Betamax ruling, in which using Sony’s VCR to tape television for home use was narrowly determined to be lawful. “This is a different world; this is a digital age,” Lack said. “The issue is not technology vs.
content. We need each other. We need to find a sensible center.” Illegal file-sharing flourished partly as the result of a consumer backlash. “There’s no question that CDs got overpriced,” he admitted (Christopher 2005).
Manhattan-based LimeWire has quietly become one of the country’s leading services for sharing copyrighted music and movies, and even operating systems like Windows XP, without paying for them. LimeWire has managed to double its user base in the past year by attracting converts from other such networks, due to its reliability and the absence of pop-up ads. It’s also found a way to make money by selling premium versions of its software. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled recently that Internet file-sharing services can be held liable for copyright infringement when customers use their software to swap songs and movies.
The ruling, which could have a broad impact on how Internet users obtain and share music and films, was a major victory for movie studios and recording companies in their battle against online piracy. It was a setback for companies like Grokster Ltd. that distribute free software that allows users to share files through so-called peer-to-peer networks. The court, in a decision by Justice David Souter, noted that the defendants in the case (Mark 2004), Grokster and StreamCast Networks Inc., intended recipients of their software to use it to download copyrighted works and each took active steps to encourage the infringement. Grokster, StreamCast and other file-sharing companies make money by selling advertising space. The more users they have, the more they can charge advertisers (Thom 2005).
The Essay on Record Companies Music Cost Cds
The New York Times article put a perfect perspective on how ridiculous and greedy record companies really are. What a perfect way to teach a lesson; sue a child for $750, 000, and lesson learned. As far as I can remember, music downloads and file sharing has been going on for years, and even before The Napster era, so how convenient to make it illegal now, coincidentally when the music industry ...
Unlike the original Napster, which maintained a central server that controlled the input and output of traded files, Grokster and its counterparts allow users to trade directly with one another.
After it was sued by a group of entertainment companies, a lower court granted summary judgment in favor of Grokster. The court based its decision on a 1984 Supreme Court decision that Sony Corp. could not be sued over consumers using its Betamax video recorders to make illegal copies of movies because the VCRs also had legal uses (Matt 2004).
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court’s reasoning. The appeals court also found that Grokster and StreamCast did not “materially contribute” to their users’ infringement because the users themselves searched for, retrieved and stored the infringing files. But the Supreme Court said proof that infringement was encouraged by the file-sharing companies “overcomes the law’s reluctance to find liability when a company merely sells a commercial product suitable for some lawful use.” Conclusion The music industry is certainly going on the Digital highroad and the pros and cons are still being weighed.
It certainly has come a far cry from the ages of the vinyl record and phonograms, a rooms worth of records can now be stored in the palm of your hand in a dazzling variety of formats! While royalties need to reach their respective artists and the people who toil to bring out their passion to the masses, this is one bone of contention which needs a thorough examination and a viable solution must be brought very soon. In my humble opinion iPods and MP3 players are a blessing in disguise and steps should be taken to bring more easily accessible and varied content to our pocket players. Audio CDs might become obsolete as Sony’s Blu-ray next-generation DVD will be adopted for the physical delivery of new music brought at the store. It most certainly looks like a far more superior delivery format and will blow away any Audio CD competition. Resources Christopher Jensen; The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same: Copyright, Digital Technology, and Social Norms. Stanford Law Review, Vol.
The Business plan on Copyright Infringement Napster Users Music
In mid-1999, 19 year old Northeastern University student Shawn Fanning designed a computer program that allowed one to log on to a central server, and be able to download mp 3 music files from another computer at lightning speed, with great ease. He called this program Napster, after his old high school nickname. Since it's inception, Napster has sparked court cases involving every major record ...
56, 2005 Mark A. Lemley, R. Anthony Reese; Reducing Digital Copyright Infringement without Restricting Innovation Stanford Law Review, Vol. 56, 2004 Matt Born; First Blood to Napster in the Battle for Online Music Sales. Daily Telegraph (London, England), May 21, 2004 Matt Born; Music Fans Download 200 Million Songs in a Year. Daily Telegraph (London, England), January 20, 2005 Thom Gillespie; Rip, Mix & Burn Your Education. Quarterly for Education and Technology, Vol.
10, Summer 2005.
