My thesis for this project is that artists and copyright holders are finding it beneficial to waive their copyright in some cases of new technology, even though the industry as a whole tries to take the stance that uses of technology should be restricted. The example of this that I focus on is MP3 blogs, which tend to make available for download unauthorized material, and how major labels are beginning to reach out and even provide such blogs with material in the hope that they will benefit from the promotion. At the same time, however, major labels and the RIAA continue to attack peer-to-peer systems which very similarly, although on a much larger scale, allow users to download unauthorized material. This type of case shows that while the industry states that it wants to restrict use of technology, it is actually finding ways to use the same technology to promote its artists. Many new artists are able to gain exposure and there is opportunity that was never before available to the average person. That is the original intent of copyright law, which is to promote progress and encourage creation, something which excessive copyright on songs, and restrictions on technology such as the anti-device provision in the DMCA impede.

            This essay describes what an MP3 blog is, and how record labels want to capitalize on the promotion that they provide while fighting file sharing at the same time. The essay discusses the types of copyright infringement and fair use and how they apply to MP3 blogs, as well as the factors that cause the court to view MP3 blogs more favorably than peer-to-peer networks. It discusses law suits against Napster and also by the RIAA against peer-to-peer users.  The article explains what establishes liability for infringing use, and the different expansions of the Copyright Act which have been brought by copyright owners in addressing new technologies. It then discusses some of these acts and gives some examples of violators. The next section explains the defense used when copyright owners bring suits, which is fair use, and it lists and describes the four factors in deciding fair use on a case by case basis.

 

            This essay incorporates basically every aspect of my research into why copyright holders are willing to waive certain copyright in cases such as MP3 blogs, while they continue to fight against much of new technology such as peer-to-peer services. It describes what MP3 blogs are and how they are used and different sites that can link to the unauthorized music.  It shows what the copyright holder needs to look for in order to bring a suit against infringing users, and also explains how the user of the work can try to use fair use as a defense.

            This article is written by Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA as a response to a speech by Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in which Shapiro stated that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. Sherman says that statement is wrong and misleading. Shapiro says that legal downloading from record companies and legitimate online music companies is fine but there is a problem with unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, and sites Title 17 of the United States Code. Sherman writes that the fair use argument employed by Shapiro makes falsely seem as if copyright owners are against fair use, and that the fair use claim is unsupported when it comes to unauthorized use. Sherman argues against Shapiro's claim that downloading is different from taking a tangible property by writing that both owners have been deprived of something of value. Sherman refutes Shapiro's use of the first amendment and also says that companies are in fact aggressively pursuing a more flexible business model that does take advantage of new technology. Shapiro writes that the industry using technology and the internet is beside the point and that the real issue in what Shapiro is saying is that "digital stealing isn't really stealing" and the last thing we need is more polarizing rhetoric.

 

            For my research on why copyright holders are willing to waive copyright in some instances such as MP3 blogs because the new technology has benefits in promotion, this article is a firm example of the view from the record labels about copyright law and internet uses. It is written by the president of the RIAA, Cary Sherman and gives an argument in favor of strong copyright law, and a rebuttal to a speech by the Consumer Electronics CEO Gary Shapiro in favor of weaker copyright law. It provides the viewpoint of the music industry about downloading, but it is interesting in that it does not mention anything about record companies such as Warner who at times chose to solicit certain independent blogs and will send the bloggers music with the hope that the blog will help promote the record label's artist for free.

            This is a speech given by Gary Shapiro, the President and CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association about growing tension between copyright owners and new technology. Shapiro speaks about how new reproduction technology and transmission technology has increased the fears of the music and motion picture industries. He draws parallels to new technology in the past such as the VCR, and CD and cassette recording. Today with mass availability of copies of music and movies, the content community has used congress, courts, and the media to challenge new technologies. Shapiro says that he believes that hardware and software companies have an interest in working together to see more products,  and that they can misuse source protection and DVD encryption to sell more products while limiting new technologies. Shapiro says that lawsuits have shut down file -sharing services, threaten peer-to-peer networks, challegenged as illegal devices which allow consumers to skip commercials, and has subpoenaed ISPs to identify downloading subscribers. Congress has introduced legislation that will require technology to be shaped by a government-mandated copy protection system. Shapiro comments on the language used by Hollywood and the music industry using words like "piracy" and "stealing" to describe downloading. Shapiro asserts that downloading is neither illegal nor immoral. He says that downloading is not taking away a copy of the product from someone, and in some cases helps promotion. His principles for policymakers to follow ask that a very high amount of evidence be found before restricting technology.

            For my research on MP3 blogs and why copyright holders are willing to waive some of their copyrights and allow the blogs to post their music this speech shows a view which is far to the fair-use and weak copyright law. It is clear support for allowing the new technologies and the internet to be created and exist, and for there to be significant evidence of a negative effect on the copyright holder before the technology is restricted. The key line by Shapiro for my project is when he submits that downloading off the Web is neither illegal nor immoral. He sites fair use as being given on a case by case basis and that in many cases of downloading the use has "been shown to be neutral or beneficial to the copyright owners, and have either been tolerated or accepted as fair use." He also discusses how downloading can even lead to further sales, when people buy the whole CD from the song he or she heard on the internet.

    This article deals with peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing and the film industry.  The ninth circuit court ruled in the case of MGM v. Grokster.  The court ruled that some file sharing Internet services are not liable for copyright infringement committed by their users.  This is a big blow to both the music and film industries.  David Bell and Jeffery Sullivan acknowledge this decision as “legally correct,” but they are also aware of its implications for the entertainment industries.  The sellers of copying equipment are not liable for the use of the equipment in copyright infringement, as decided by the Supreme Court in Sony v. Universal.  Since Grokster and Streamcast were found to have substantially legitimate uses, they fell under the precedent set by the Sony case..  Next, MGM tried to prove vicarious copyright infringement through direct infringement by a primary party, direct financial benefit by the defendants and the ability of the defendants to supervise the users.  This was not proven because the relationship between software provider and user is decentralized and the software provider has no obligation to monitor the actions of its users.  This ruling was appealed. The appeal questions if the defendants are responsible for secondary copyright liability because of the large amount of infringement.  Here, Bell and Sullivan explain the standards for secondary liability.   They argue that the court was to narrow in its definitions for knowledge of infringement and contributions to primary infringement.  Next the article deals with pervious rulings on the case and the necessity of proving legitimate uses if one is to use the Sony verdict in its favor.  The article deals with if and how the Supreme Court should address and respond to this case. The next part of the article explains existing legislation.  It states that copyright holders cannot recover loses from secondary copyright infringement.  It also looks at cases of the record industry against Internet Service Providers, noting the protection of software companies and ISPs.   The article looks at the Induce act, which was brought up fro review recently and would make software companies liable for encouraging copyright infringement.  The article shows the pros and cons of this piece of legislation.  Other pieces of legislation brought up in the article are the Piracy Deterrence and Education Act, the Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.  The article concludes with an explanation of the possible effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the case.
    The article provides a detailed explanation and example of the copyright issues brought up by P2P technology.  There is a good analysis of the case as well as explanations and references to copyright law and how these issues are being dealt with outside of this specific instance.  The language is a little legal at times, but the article is very comprehensive and informative. 

This article, appearing in Wired Magazine, describes ongoing grassroots efforts to make Eyes on the Prize available to the masses once again. Locked from DVD production and TV screening due to copyright issues, new copies of Eyes on the Prize are currently not able to be sold. To counter this restriction, a group of file-sharing activists associated with Downhillbattle.org is posting the documentary online. The files will be made available through BitTorrent for downloading via the Internet. In conjunction with this action, a public screening of the film has been scheduled in Washington DC.