Govind Belbase
<May 2021>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Recent debates over MP3 music files.
Mp3 debate is a symbol of combat between invariable and vying of copyrights paradigm on the Internet. Theory of materialism[1] demonstrates invariable is not true, true is pace of electron; and electronic media vying created this debate between “mp3.com” and “RIAA.” Science fiction evolve based vying must be adopted.

Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) is a trade association whose member record companies control the sale and distribution of approximately 90% of the off line music in the United States.

MP3.com, Inc. (“mp3.com”) is a publicly held company, which operates a commercial Internet company, and a commercial Internet site at http://my.mp3.com from January 12, 2000. “My.mp3” allows a user to listen via the Internet, to the tracks of almost any commercial audio CD of his or her choosing, and to download digital copies of those CD tracks. It is a freely available technology for compressing sound music or speeches into a small file about one twelfth size preserving the sound quality of the original.[2] It substantially reduces the amount of time to transmit the file and the amount of memory, storage and other system resources required to handle the file without degrading the fidelity of the music contained in the compressed file. MP3 says that the Moving Picture Experts Group, an independent industry technical group working under the joint direction of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electro-Technical Commission (IEC) Joint Technical Committee on Information Technology, has approved technology for data compression as a non-proprietary, international technical standard.[3]

> “What is truly exciting is that once you own a CD, it can be listened to any where in the world through mp3.com”, mp3.com chairman Michael Robertson said when the service was introduced. “Not only will music fans be able to listen to them through the wide assortment of new Internet appliances that are being developed for the market.”[4]

RIAA have filed suit against mp3.com, Inc for copyright infringement with demanding an award of damages, including, without limitation, statutory damages for wilful infringement of $150,000 per work infringed and “injunction” in federal district court in New York on January 21, 2000.[5]

Mp3.com, Inc have filed suit against RIAA inclusive for defamation, trade libel interference with prospective economic advantage and unfair business practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 ETSEQ) in superior court of the state of California county of Sandiego on Feb.7, 2000.[6]

Walkman style mp3 players are widely available for around £100 and demand for music in mp3 format is booming. New technology of “mp3” is known as MPEG Audio Layer.

Fact in issue between both cases is same, which is the question of ‘is the new technology of “my.mp3.com” infringes copyrights?’ And one of the main question of relevant fact is ‘are the new technological music available in the Internet on web site “my.mp3.com” are unauthorized productions?

“Mp3.com, Inc” argues that: Among its services, they enters into direct arrangements with musical artists that permit these artists to record their performances and make them available directly to consumers online in the MP3 compressed format through the MP3.com website. In this manner, thousands of musical artists and groups that were previously unknown to consumers and that had never entered into recording contracts with major record companies are now able to reach, and become known to, the listening public. Other MP3.com services allow consumers to assemble, organize and add to their own personal music collections online from any Internet-connected device, and to access these collections through secure Internet connections. MP3.com's music services have substantially enhanced consumers' interest in recorded music, improved consumers' access to their individual music collections, and provided unprecedented new levels of portability and availability of personal music collections. In this way, MP3.com follows the home VCR, cassette tape machine, and personal and auto CD players in the evolution of new technology that expands consumers' ability to use and enjoy recorded entertainment.[7]

> On the other hand, RIAA claims that in order to create and offer this "upgraded" service MP3.com copied the tracks from some 45,000 commercial CDs onto the computer servers that operate the MP3.com site and the My.MP3 service.[8]

At first this debate depend upon facts. If the aforementioned “mp3” argued fact would be proved than new technology of mp3 is lawful by virtue of main copyright holders are artist and here is no dispute about breach of contract. Notwithstanding, if the fact would be proved that mp3.com copied the tracks from some commercial CDs of RIAA members than legal questions emerge between conventional copyright paradigm and the Internet practice.

About the question of unauthorised production by mp3.com, Inc, the verdict of the Rio case [‘Recording Industry Association of America, Inc., et al. v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc., 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 13131 (9th Cir., June 15, 1999)]’[9] is correlated.

In Rio case the Ninth Circuit court determined that the Rio did not directly reproduce a "digital music recording". The Rio operates by downloading a digital audio file from a computers' hard drive. As such, a computer hard drive is the source of the digital audio files on the Rio. The court concluded that this source is not a "digital music recording" within the meaning of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) and accordingly determined that the Rio does not directly reproduce the requisite digital music recording necessary to subject it to the AHRA.[10]

Main difference between ‘mp3 debate’ and ‘Rio debate’ is that the Rio technology was untransformed and mp3 technology is transferable and this difference has already work out by the precedent. According to Rio precedent mp3 does not reproduce while consumers may reproduce by downloading, but “the purpose of the Act is to ensure the right of consumers to make analogy or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, non-commercial use.”[11] The Copyright Act of 1971 prohibits anyone but the copyright owner from making a copy of a recording. An exception to that law was created by Congress in the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which prevented consumers from being sued by record companies for making copies of recordings for their own use. "The copy was made by MP3.com, not by the consumer," notes Lon Sobel, editor of Entertainment Law Reporter. "I couldn't imagine how they thought that what it was doing was legal."[12]

In short the fact on “Rio debate” was: Defendant manufactures the Rio PMP 300 (the "Rio"), a portable handheld device capable of receiving, storing and replaying digital audio files. To operate the Rio, a user down loads digital audio files from a personal computer to the Rio's hard drive. These files can then be "played back" and heard through headphones connected to the Rio. Utilizing MP3 sound compression technology, the Rio can store approximately 60 minutes of music in its hard drive at any one time. The hard drive's memory card can be removed and reinstalled in other Rios, permitting downloaded audio files to be exchanged among Rio owners. The Rio does not possess any digital audio output capability, however, and therefore cannot be used to create additional copies of downloaded files. So plaintiffs, two trade organizations representing creators, manufacturers and distributors of sound recordings, claimed that defendant's marketing of the Rio violated the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq.

> In very short period ‘my.mp3.com’ became a culture as a consequence of consumers consume cheap and best supply. The debates around the Elvis case clearly illustrate the development of the tools (intellectual property laws) by which the actual policing of popular culture takes place. Once the intellectual property enters the public domain it ceases to be a property because no one has the monopoly right of ownership.[13] One example of ‘make the content easier and cheaper to buy than to steal’ is that rethinking is the suggestion by Gene Hoffman, CEO of EMusic, Inc. (formerly GoodNoise, a digital music provider): “We think the best way to stop piracy is to make music so cheap it isn't worth copying”.[14]

The net is the newest avenue for emerging and established recording artists to deliver their product to the public.[15]Copyright has, of course, evolved to deal with new technologies in the past. Photography, sound recording, and broadcasting have all posed some challenge for copyright law and theory, for both technological reasons and having to do with evolving notions about what “authorship” was. Even though copyright’s adoption to these technologies sometimes required adoption of some “sui generis” rules, previous new technologies have not threatened the viability of the core concepts of copyright law. The doctrine of fair use can be extended to deal with this kind of situation.[16]

Invention of photocopy challenged the press paradigm and press could not restrict society to use it. In the same way, video effect picture hall. Now, mp3.com music on the Internet transcending conventional practice and use it is right of society. Sue of RIAA is only attempt to invariable and hindering society development. Law is a branch of sociology and it must adopt social change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Karl Marx, and theory of development by Darbin

[2] BBC news on line, Tuesday 18 January 2000, 16.10 GMT, You are in business, Transforms music industry, www.bbc.co.uk/

Or- BBC news online, 24 January 21.54 GMT, what is mp3 again? [3] By staff, Affidavit of mp3.com, Ink , www.mp3.com, Mp3.com,vs. RIAA 08-02-21, htpp://www.mp3.com/news/extra/mp3com-reaa-020800.html

[4] Michael Learmonth, www.cnn.com/SEARCH, from www.idg.net/go.cgi?id=13176 January 26, 2000, 2000-analysis: why the RIAA sued mp3.com.

[5] by staff, www.mp3.com, RIAA vs. Mp3.com, 00-01-21,http://books.nap.edu/html/digital-dilemma/chwhtml

[6] by staff, www.mp3.com, Mp3.com,vs. RIAA 08-02-21, htpp://www.mp3.com/news/extra/mp3com-reaa-020800.html

[7] Supra 3, N. 10

[8] Supra 5, N. 2,3

[9] By Martin H Samson, Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon LLP

[10] Ibid.

[11]see. Ibid.

[12] by Michael Learmonth- www. Cnn.com/news -January 26

[13] Dr. David Wall, Reconstructing the Soul of Elvis: The social development and legal maintenance of Elvis Presley as intellectual property

[14] National Research Council of USA, music: Intellectual property’s canary in the digital coal mine, http://books.nap.edu/html/digital-dilemma/ch2.htm 8 A similar comment came from Steve Grady, vice president of marketing for EMusic, who concluded that "the best way to combat piracy is to make it easier to buy rather than to steal" (Patrizio, 1999a)

[15] Marie A. D’ Amico, March 1997, Playing music on the net. www.findlaw.com/info/helpers/indes.html

[16] By Pamela Samuelson, COPYRIGHT, DIGITAL DATA, AND FAIR USE IN DIGITAL NETWORKED ENVIRONMENTS http://www.droitunmontreal.ca/crdp/en/equips/techonologie/conferences/ae/sanuelson.html/

 
 
There are no data records to display.
   
Comment:
Date:
Name:
LastName:
Address:
City:
PostalCode:
PhoneNumber:
EmailAddress:
WritingId:
Insert  Cancel

www.flykathmandu.co.uk

Received Comments



www.flykathmandu.co.uk
Please write email to belbase@flyktm.com to get permission to publish my article to your media.