The premise of this article is a study done by the authors which explored seven variables that influence music piracy rates across different countries. The seven variables they looked at were economic development, income inequality, individualism v. collectivism, level of education, intellectual property protection, music CD price, and music market size.

     The economic development factor is one of the most common influential factors for piracy. Researchers hypothesize that the higher a countries economic development, the lower its rate of music piracy. Individuals who are rich have no need to obtain pirated copies of music. They also found that patent protection has a very strong correlation to high economic development. Therefore more developed countries seem to have stronger patent laws.

     With the income inequality factor the authors hypothesized that the rate of music piracy would be greater in countries with higher levels of income inequality. Developing countries usually have a much smaller middle class than developed countries. In an income inequality setting, the higher income groups are more likely to have access to technical devices which can be used to pirate music.

     The authors found that the rate of piracy was greater in some countries that had a higher per capita income than others. They therefore concluded that piracy cannot be explained by only economic variables. They looked at countries that are more individualistic such as the United States and compared them to other countries such as China who have more of a collectivist culture and found that collectivistic countries have significantly higher rates of piracy. Collectivistic societies put a greater emphasis on sharing within a group which could explain the higher rates.

     Another predictor of piracy that the authors used was education level. They explained that people who are more highly educated are more developed both ethically and morally and therefore are more likely to view piracy as an unethical behavior.

     The fifth predictor was intellectual property protection. There is no uniform standard of protection for intellectual property therefore some countries have stricter laws to protect from intellectual copyright infringement. The countries with the stricter laws have lower rates of music piracy.

     The next predictor mentioned was the price of music CDs. In some countries CDs are relatively expensive and therefore not as available to the general public. Because of this people are more likely to buy pirated CDs which are cheap and easier to obtain.

     The last predictor that the authors explain is the size of the music market in the country. They suggest that people in countries with a large music market might see music as a social value and therefore want to enforce copyright laws in order to protect from piracy.

     This article helped me to gain an understanding as to why music piracy rates are higher in some countries but not in others. It  shows a perspective of piracy not seen in more westernized cultures such as the United States.

     This act is an addition to the United States Copyright Law. The addition is chapter 10 which is "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media." The act is broken up into four subchapters A, B, C and D.

     Subchapter A gives definitions of terms that are used within the act. The terms are clearly defined so that they can be used within the explaination of the act itself with little confusion. For example, A digital audio copied recording is defined as "a reproduction in a digital recording format of a digital musical recording, whether that reproduction is made directly from another digital musical recording or indirectly from a transmission."

     Subchapter B gets into the main point of the act stating what can and cannot be copied. This section states that it is illegal to import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device that does not comply with the Serial Copy Management System or any other similar system. The device must also meet the standards set by the Secretary of Commerce. Finally, digital music recordings cannot be encoded with inaccurate information.

     Subchapter C deals with royalty payments. It explains who pays them, how much is payed under certain conditions , and who receives these payments. According to this section, the amount of royalty payment for each recording device is two percent of the transfer price. Also only the first person to manufacture or import and distribute a device is required to pay the royalty. A royalty tax of 8 dollars is required for each digital recording machine. The royalty tax is paid by the manufacturers of the digital media devices and then distributed to copyright owners whose music is being copied. Because of this tax, copyright owners cannot claim copyright infringement against the use of audio recording devices in the home.

     Subchapter D explains the arbitration for violations regarding the terms set up in the previous sections.

     This act gave guidance to the music industry but it did not include computers because they are not considered digital audio recording devices. This poses a problem because of the explosion of the internet which occured in subsequent years.

     In this article the European Economic Community council of ministers gives support for audio visual anti-piracy measures. In certain countries such as Germany, France, and the United Kingdom piracy is on the decline because of the strict penalties that have been adopted but piracy from outside countries continues to be a problem. One of these problems is the illegal copying of compact disks using technology known as DAT or Digital Audio Tape machines. Japanese manufacturers began to launch these machines all across Europe. According to the International Federation of Phonogram and Videogram producers (IFPI) a problem with expired copyright works in Denmark could cause pirating problems for other EEC countries.

     According to the article many countries began to propose legislation to combat the piracy. The Dutch for instance introduced a levy on the sale of blank video and audio tapes. The Cultural Commisioner gave proposals for anti-piracy penalties. Other proposals included ways to find and get rid of pirate material, a framework of cooperation between the copyright holders and authorities, and a computerised register of audio visual work. In the UK the illicit sale of cassette tapes has declined due to a rapid decrease in prices. Other countries have implemented prison sentences for up to two years.

     The major problem with the music industry is the use of DAT machines because of their ability to make perfect copies of compact disks in a short amount of time. The music industry wants all imported machines to have an anti-copying device, but the commission does not necessarily agree with the proposal. The commission does not want to put something into place that will ban legitimate copying.

     In Denmark a record company known as All Round Trading are exporting unauthorized cds because of the expired copyright problem mentioned earlier in the article. Certain disks in Denmark were only covered under copyright for 25 years and are now unprotected, but in other countries the disks are still under copyright law. The record company argues that since the disks are on sale in one EEC country they can freely be exported to other EEC states under the Treaty of Rome which allows for the free movement of goods. The Commission believes that the action is clearly illegal whereas the IFPI believes that the case may need to go to court in order to be clarified.

     This article makes reference to early music piracy and strategies that were implemented in different countries to help combat the problem.

     This court hearing was held on July 19, 2000 to discuss the damage caused by internet pirates and the future problems that the piracy could cause. Towards the beginning of the hearing it is recognized that piracy is an international dilemma and that the United States must have allies in order to combat this problem. The phrase "The United States stands to become the proverbial boy with his finger in the dam" demonstrates that the United States cannot contain the explosion of piracy by itself and that it needs global cooperation. Since it has been very difficult to estimate the actual losses from internet piracy, the hearing features expert panalists and the work that they have done to determine these losses. Another question that is looked at in this hearing is whether or not the average individual who downloads music illegally in the privacy of his own home should be treated in the same way as organized crime syndicates who are involved in pirating on a much larger scale.

     One expert that spoke was an assistance U.S Trade Representative named Joseph Papovich. He explained that the main policy of his group was to press other governments to provide better intellectual property protection and enforcement. They are trying to implement the World Trade Organization's (WTO) TRIPS agreement which requires the enforcement of copyright and intellectual property protection. They have had great success with the implementation of these new rules, but getting developing countries to enforce these new strategies has been a problem.

     The Hearing basically only demonstrated how bad the losses have been and certain individuals gave examples of programs that have been implemented and what they are doing to combat the problem. This court hearing is important to my topic because it demonstrates how the government was preparing to deal with the piracy problem just as the internet music industry was beginning to expand.

     According to the article piracy of records began in the late 1930s and early 1940s when collectors of jazz music began to pirate records that they wanted but were not being reissued. Not much was done to stop these pirates because of the great expense and difficulty of legal action. Pirates were almost impossible to track down because of their frequent address and name changing. The introduction of long playing records aided in the expansion of pirating. These records were cheaper to produce and thus made for more profiting. In the early 1950s bootleg records were being distributed nationwide. One of the major pirating operations was Paradox industries which formed in New York under a man named Dante Bollettino. He marketed his records under the label "Jolly Roger." He basically took over the piracy market. He even had his own place of business in New York City.

    Record companies made many attempted to stop these pirates. In 1952 a case known as The Columbia Paradox case, the record production company Columbia and Louis Armstrong filed a lawsuit against the bootlegging company Paradox Industries and their president Dante Bollettino. Columbia was successful and the case led to the introduction and passing of the Bennett Bill which made record pirating a criminal offense.

     Many jazz addicts and critics said that pirating was not unethical. They said that pirates were just providing a desired work of art to a small audience because the major record companies are not willing to reissue the records. The record companies on the other hand said that some records were pirated even though they were easily obtainable which means that records were not just being pirated on the basis that they were not being reissued. They also said that the pirates were only trying to make easy money by taking works that others had payed full price for.

     This article gives information about early piracy in a form of media that may not have been thought of as being pirated. It helps to explain where piracy started in the music industry and how companies dealt with this piracy which is important to my topic of how piracy has evolved through different forms of music and what was done to combat the copyright infringement.

     In this case the software company known as Grokster along with other companies distributed free software that allowed users to share files between their computers. The software was not intended for illegal downloading but users mainly used the software to download copyrighted files. The software companies knew that this illegal file-sharing was going on and they encouraged it through computer ads. A large group of entertainment companies headed by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios (MGM) sued Grokster and the other software companies for violation of the Copyright Act. They said that the software companies were intentionally distributing the software so that users could infringe works that had been copyrighted. The district court along with the Ninth Circuit court ruled in favor of Grokster and the software companies stating that the software could have been used lawfully therefore they were not liable for what users chose to do with it.

     Were the software companies liable for infringement? In my opinion they were liable. The fact that the software companies were encouraging consumers to continue to buy and use their product even though a great number of them were using the product for the wrong purpose makes them partially responsible for the user's actions. The encouragement by the companies was only a way for them to get more consumers and thus make more profit.

     The case went to the Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of MGM Studios and the entertainment companies that the software companies were liable for the infringement acts of their users. The court said that although the Copyright Act did not make someone liable for another's infringement, secondary liability applies. The fact that the software was so widely used makes it difficult to deal with each individual infringer therefore the secondary source, the software companies, must be liable.   

     This case shows a pretty advanced form of piracy in music software. The fact that the court system was able to use secondary source liability to persecute the software companies shows the attempts of the court system to keep up with the advancement of piracy in order to fight it.  

     Beginning on page two of this journal article the author discusses anti-piracy technologies that major music labels are integrating or testing out in order to combat online file sharing. Certain copyright protection systems already implemented by Sony and Bertelsman Music Group (BMG) encode CDs with electronic implements so that they can only be played on a CD player. Sony developed their own anti-piracy technology which they called "key2audio." This piece of technology prevented the use of CDs on personal computers and DVD players. A later version called "key2audio4pc" allows for use on computer but not multiple computers. The music label BMG Entertainment used another company known as Midbar technology to develop a program called Cactus Data Shield. This program prevents individuals from reformatting songs into MP3 files so that they can either make copies or make them available through file-sharing. Two other companies Macrovision and TTR Technologies developed different versions of a technology called Safe Audio. Safe Audio Version 2 allows for use in CD players and PC CD-ROMS but adds background noise to the playback sound if a copy is made to the hard drive or a CD burner. Version 3 allows CDs to be played in CD players but not in CD-ROMS. The Safe Audio technology had difficulty selling in the United States due to fear of consumer's negativity towards the product. As a result of this the Macrovision company released the product SafeAuthenticate which allows CDs that are authenticated by the product's software to be copied to the hard drive and played using Windows Media Player.

     In the conclusion of the article the author talks about the fact that technology is constantly becomming outdated and although it is frustrating for the technology industries they have to learn to adapt to the situation. He states that the anti-piracy software and inhibition of recording devices just brings frustration to consumers and retailers. She suggests that Congress should research what has worked and use that to make changes in order to adapt to the time period.  

    Toward the end of Chapter two, Hinduja defines what is considered copyright infringement. On pages 33 and 34 he quotes from the United States Copyright Office the rights of an owner of a copyright. These reasons include the right to reproduce the work in copies, to prepare works based upon the original work, to distribute copies, and to perform and display the work publicly. After this brief outline of copyright infringement, he goes into the copyright of sound recordings and digital music distribution.

    Sound recordings have copyrights on the musical work which includes the notes and lyrics and also on the actual recording which is everything that goes into the production of a song written to a medium such as a cd. Hinduja gives examples of music piracy involving MP3s. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the legal concepts are copyright infringement and vicarious liability. A person who makes MP3s available for distribution for example is violating copyright infringement. Vicarious liability occurs when a person who is able to control the actions of a copyright violator fails to do so. To further explain digital music piracy, Hinduja cites numerous examples of legislation and gives a brief explaination of each example.

    In chapter 7, Hinduja talks about how the music industry has struggled with the rise in popularity of the MP3. According to many supporters, the music industry was too late in their embracement of MP3 phenomenon and that they would have experienced a greater increase in revenue had they not spent time trying to combat the "digital music revolution."

    Hinduja also gives advice on different marketing strategies to increase revenue in the music industry. He gives examples of a few musicians and their strategies to market their music. One example he gives is David Bowie and his use of the internet to expand his popularity on a global scale. Bowie offered free downloads for songs off of upcoming albums and also live concerts to fans who visited his website. He also held contests such as opportunities for fans to write lyrics to have the chance to be included on one of his new albums.

     The book provides useful information on the subject of piracy and gives strategies that could be useful to the music industry in order to fight piracy.

     In this article Kai Lung Hui and Ivan P.L. Png argue that although the demand for cds decreased with piracy, the impact of piracy on cd sales was much smaller than the industry estimates. They believe that the music industry lost only about 6.6% of its revenue to piracy. According to the IFPI in 1999 the music industry estimated a loss of 4.1 billion dollars to pirating.

     In the beginning of the introduction Hui and Png give a few reasons as to why the publishers' losses to piracy may not be as large as what they claim. One reason is that if piracy were prevented users of pirated products may stop using the products instead of switching to the legitimate items. Another reason deals with the publishers' pricing strategy. Hui and Png also argue that piracy could actually boost the demand for legitimate items. Piracy steals from the demand of legitimate items because potential buyers switch to pirated products, but it also increases the demand for legitimate items because it intices more people to buy and increases their willingness to pay. Another issue that is looked at in this article is how prices are adjusted in response to the pirating of products.

     In the second section of the article, Hui and Png look at two models of information product piracy. The first model called end-user piracy deals with private copying. The second model known as re-seller piracy deals with pirating by third-party members. Through extensive statistical analysis of these two models, Hui and Png came up with two hypothesis to test the demands for legitimate and pirated items.

     This article is full of extensive data and research but it combats my topic that piracy has had a great effect on the music industry. This article argues that piracy has had much less of an effect on the music industry than what has been stated.