Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Intellectual Property Rights District Court - 2,882 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Digital Bootlegging and Its effects on the Music Industry Before the advent of MP 3 files it would require 1. 400 megabytes to represent just one second of stereo music in CD quality. MP 3 is short for Moving Picture Experts Group, Audio Layer III. Standard MP 3 compression is at a 10: 1 ratio, and yields a file that is about 4 MB for a three-minute track. In 1987, Prof.

Dieter Seitzer of the University of Erlangen created the MP 3 format to replace pre-existing MPEG audio coding. The reason MP 3 files became so popular so fast is that when one creates an MP 3 file, or ripped, from a compact disc, there is no loss in quality. Every copy made thereafter is identical to the last, so unlike old tapes the quality is the same from the first copy to the hundredth copy. One of the advantages in Mp 3 players is that they have no moving parts, so there is none of the jumping or skipping found in CD players. Usually the player comes with a program designed to extract CD files, encode them to Mp 3 then send them to the player. The Mp 3 files are downloaded from the PC into the units memory.

The type of memory is called Flash memory and the player typically comes with 32 to 64 MB base memory with the option of upgrading. A small LSD display is used and in some players there is the option of using ID 3 tags that tell the listener the song details. The units are generally small enough to fit in the palm of your hand and are very economical, running for up to 16 hours on the one AA battery. One problem with Mp 3 players is that there is a limit to how many songs they can hold.

A 32 MB memory chip can only hold around 8 songs and when the cost of a larger chip is around two hundred dollars, this is a major downfall. The average Mp 3 player costs about $ 300, which is less than the better sounding MD players but more than the less reliable CD players that could be a good medium. The players are very robust, durable and reliable making them a good buy for an active person. To eliminate the problem of not holding many songs there are new Mp 3 players, which have hard drives in them. The Creative Labs jukebox HD Mp 3 player has 6 gig of memory that can hold on average 1500 songs and the possibility of a 12 -gig upgrade. These HD players cost nearly $ 1000 and when the cost of a normal Mp 3 player is $ 700 less, these will not become mainstreams for a few years.

Another form of Mp 3 players is the new Mp 3 CD players that play normal audio CDs and also CDs with Mp 3 files on them. Mp 3 CDs can be easily made at home with a burner and can hold up to 180 songs. These players have all the functions of a normal Discman making them a very useful product. The MP 3 file format is legal, in every sense of the word. Copyright laws apply to MP 3 files the same way they apply to compact discs, tapes, and other music mediums. According to United States copyright law, from the moment of creation, a piece of music is protected.

It is illegal to own any material that is copyrighted without paying royalties to the creator. From a legal position, because all major artists register their music with the United States Copyright Office, thus providing a document declaring their claim, there is no dispute in the fact that music artists deserve royalties for their works. Most often MP 3 files are copied song tracks from a music album, distributed in CD, cassette, or LP record format. These files are copied and distributed to other Internet users free of charge and without permission. Therefore, these files are illegally obtained by the individual users. Recording companies and artists wish to seek retribution against those who are most responsible for their significant monetary loss.

It was estimated by Brian Robertson, President of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) that one billion dollars a year are lost due to MP 3 technology. Since the Internet is accessed world wide, and finding individuals responsible for the pirating, action can only be taken against those American companies that provide the forum to break these laws. In January of 2000, several major record companies, including Time Warner, Sony, Seagrams Universal, and BMG filed a lawsuit against MP 3. com. MP 3. com offers a service called My.

MP 3. com. This service allows users to access a CD from any computer that has access to the Internet. A federal court judge in April decided that the My. MP 3.

com service on MP 3. com does infringe the United States copyright laws. Napster case, which has triggered a lot of controversial responses in the judicial circles of United States as well as in many other countries, certainly demonstrates that MP 3 s has changed the music industry significantly. Napster, Inc. was founded by Shawn Fanning.

He developed the original application and service in January of 1999 while he was a freshman at Northeastern University. Encouraged by two of his friends and with a cash donation from a family friend, he quit college and moved to the Silicon Valley and started the company in May of 1999. The company instantly blossomed on web and received 300, 000 hits in one day. Shawn realized the commercial potential and pursued the development further into an individual site. Napster was the worlds leading file sharing website. Not only did it enable users the ability to file share but it also provided instant messaging, chat rooms, and Hot List user bookmarks.

The service has since amassed 20 million registered users who have downloaded the free software. This software enabled the users to swap MP 3 s with each other, while the MP 3 s were never stored on the site. The company did not own or sell any music. The company employed thirty-nine people with an executive team of six persons. Napster, Inc.

was funded though private investors led by Hummer Winbald Venture Partners, with additional investments from Angel Investors LP and others. As part of the investment by Hummer Winbald, two of the partners assumed positions on Napster, Inc. s executive team. On December 6, 1999, the RIAA, that includes 18 affiliates of 5 major recording labels, filed an action seeking damages and injunctive relief against Napster, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Napster's peer-to-peer file-sharing technology and Internet directory service made Napster contributory and vicariously liable for Napster users alleged copyright infringement, and related state violations. On January 7, 2000, Jerry Leiber, Mike Stoller, and Frank Music Corp.

filed a second action alleging similar claims. Both plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction on June 12. On July 26, the District Court granted the motion. Napster was to refrain from operating by order of the court. But, on July 27, Napster filed an emergency motion for stay and the emergency panel granted the motion. The trial was to take place in October of 2000 and Napster continued to operate under its emergency motion for stay.

The Riaa's mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members creative and financial vitality. In support of our mission, we work to protect intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists; conduct consumer, industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA fights piracy that it defines including four specific forms. One of these forms is defined as online piracy is the unauthorized uploading of a copyrighted sound recording and making it available to the public, or downloading a sound recording from an Internet site, even if the recording isnt resold. Online piracy may now also include certain uses of streaming technologies from the Internet. (Company Profile, 2000) The RIAA claimed that Napster was enabling and encouraging copying and distribution of copyrighted material. The RIAA experts contended that it was technically possible to use the Napster system that only indexes or allows songs that have been authorized.

The RIAA did not want to shut Napster down but have Napster play by the same rules as everyone else. The RIAA claimed that Napster's New Artist Program, which obtained permission from 17, 000 artists to distribute their music, would stay intact. The RIAA claimed that Napster was hurting CD sales. The Riaa's claim was legitimate because the District Court has agreed with them. However, in a study by Mark Lantonero from The Norman Lear Center Annenburg School for Communication at the University of Southern California, titled Survey of MP 3 Usage: Report on a University Consumption Community, the results were opposite. The sample frame for the study consisted of 3, 300 USC students.

College students were the biggest users of Napster due to their access to faster university servers that maintained faster connections. The margin of error based on the sample size was approximately 2. 5 %. The study found that 63 % of the students who download MP 3 s were buying the same number of CDs and 10 % were buying more. 39 % said that after listening to MP 3 s they often would buy the CD. This was because 39 % rated CDs higher quality than MP 3 s. Although the sample size was small (3, 300), other surveys have proved these results to be accurate. The RIAA claimed that not only is Napster affecting CD sales but also having an adverse effect on the ability of legitimate companies to deliver and market music online. (RIAA, 2000) The courts, to determine a finding of fair use, review the four factors.

Courts have routinely held that wholesale copying and distribution of the work as a whole is not a fair use. The RIAA was using this against their claims that Napster was infringing. The First Sale Doctrine allows a consumer to resell or give away the copy of the music that the consumer has purchases. But it doesnt allow you to give away a copy and keep another copy for yourself. The Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992 covers devices designed or marketed for the primary purpose of making digital musical recordings and provides these devices and their manufacturers with some protection against copyright infringement.

The devices covered are supposed to incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. The manufacturers are also supposed to pay a royalty to copyright owners. General-purpose computers are not covered by the AHRA. But Napster claimed that the AHRA did not limit the scale of noncommercial consumer copying of music. The Sony Corp. of America v.

Universal City Studios, Inc. Supreme Court case of 1984 was being used in Napster's defense. The Sony Corporation manufactures home video tape recorders (VTR's). Universal City Studios owned the copyrights on some of the television programs that were broadcasted on the public airwaves. Universal City Studios brought an action against petitioners in Federal District Court, alleging that VTR consumers had been recording some of respondents' copyrighted works that had been exhibited on commercially sponsored television and thereby infringed on Universal City Studios copyrights, and further that Sony was liable for such copyright infringement because of Sony's marketing of the VTR's. Respondents sought money damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of the VTR's.

The District Court denied respondents all relief, holding that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement, and that petitioners could not be held liable as contributory infringers even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief. The RIAA was claiming that Napster did not have any non-infringing uses that were commercially significant. The RIAA also claimed that copying off a television program was different than copying and distributing off a CD. Napster was claiming that they were comparable to Sony because they were providing the directory that enables users to use it for non-infringing purposes. The question that came to the court from these arguments was whether Napster was encouraging copyrighted material to be distributed through Napster's directory.

When looking at a copy of the Napster Copyright Policy it stated that: Napster respects copyright law and expects our users to do the same. Unauthorized copying, distribution, modification, public display, or public performance of copyrighted works is an infringement of the copyright holders rights. You should be aware that some MP 3 files might have been created or distributed without copyright owner authorization. As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others. (Napster Copyright Policy, 2000) Users agree to this policy before they are able to download the software. Napster presented evidence of the following authorized uses, all of which qualify as non-infringing: As of July 3, 2000 more than 17, 000 artists authorized Napster to use their music.

Independent managers and record labels use Napster to promote and distribute their music. Hundreds of artists allow digital taping of their live performances and trading of these recordings among their fans. The main purpose of Napster was to permit the transfer of secure file formats, subject to the creators conditions governing access to the file. Napster stated the copyright rules directly to the users and cannot be found at fault for individual copyright infringement.

All things considered, Napster was not at fault but a victim of the law lagging behind technology. Napster's image has been tarnished in the media and non-users looked on Napster as piracy. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has recognized Napster's right to freedom of speech by the First Amendment. If Napster were to shut down, the freedom of the users whom authorized their works on Napster would be lost. Napster needs to get their message out to the public. Under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if an Internet service provider receives a complaint about a user who is allegedly violating a copyright, the ISP is supposed to immediately remove that user from its service.

But if that user thinks he or she has been misidentified and submits a legal counter notification, then the copyright holder has 10 days to decide whether to take legal action. If the copyright holder doesnt initiate legal action against the user, the ISP must reinstate the user. Despite all the arguments that were supposed to defend Napster, the court decision was to close the site down. This was only the first of several lawsuits to come for Internet file sharing. Napster has set the table for what was yet to come. Shutting down Napster was not the answer to the problem; there would be several other companies just like it to find away around infringement lawsuits.

However, that very case certainly showed that the MP 3 is here to stay, and that there is actually no way how Internet file sharing can be stopped. Bibliography: 1. Brown, Janelle (2000, May 10) Napster Throws Metallica a Curveball. Retrieved September 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 2.

Cohen, Adam (2000, July 31) Taps for Napster? Time v 156 no 5. Retrieved September 23, 2000 from First Search Database (Per Abs 0040 - 781 X) on web 3. Cohen, Warren (2000, March 6) Napster is Rocking the Music Industry. US News and World Report. Retrieved September 23, 2000 from First Search Database (Per Abs 0041 - 5537) on web 4.

Company Profile. (2000) Retrieved September 26, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 5. Downey, Gregory. Internet and Related Technologies. New York: Harper Perennial, 1999. 6. Grimaldi, James V (2000, July 27). Napster Ordered to Shut Down.

The Washington Post. Retrieved September 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 7. Latonero, Mark (2000, June) Survey of MP 3 Usage: Report on a University Consumption Community. The Norman Lear Center.

Retrieved September 17, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 8. Napster Copyright Policy. (2000) Retrieved September 26, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 9. RIAA (2000). Anti-Piracy. Retrieved September 23, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 10. RIAA (2000).

Napster Lawsuit Q&A. Retrieved September 23, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 11. RIAA (2000). Who We Are. Retrieved September 23, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 12. Tiger, Daniel A. (1996 - 2000) Fair Use in Copyright.

Retrieved September 18, 2000 from the World Wide Web: web 13. Thompson, Anthony. Mp 3 and its Usage. New York: Scientific Press, 2001. 14. Winner, Arthur.

Internet Debates in the United States. Michigan: Zondervan Publishers, 1999. 15. Winner, James. How to Fight CD Piracy?

London: Books, Inc, 2001.


Free research essays on topics related to: intellectual property rights, world wide, sound recording, district court, copyrighted material

Research essay sample on Intellectual Property Rights District Court

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com