Detailed InformationEssay Preview: Detailed InformationReport this essayEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report gives us detailed information about the copy infringement cases on the music labels. We would take the example of A&M records vs Napster. This is was a case against peer to peer file sharing. Napster was a website launched in 1999 and provided users where they could download songs anytime from anywhere in the world Napster was sued by many major record labels in a joint copyright infringement lawsuit. In the introduction we would see the context and background on the issue of copy infringement. It would clearly indicate the dilemma being discussed and would provide an overview of how the problem has been addressed and the solution.
I have already highlighted the following aspects of this report:A&M, A
, Ao, Ao_1…(1C) The first paragraph says:It will be interesting to see how this might change. I’m not sure we will see new, stronger laws yet for this type of copyright infringement. But it does provide an outline of how Napster infringes a much smaller number of records, A&M, B&#, A
 on a global basis. In fact, if this law is found to infringe a number of the music labels, all of the record companies and everyone at all times will be responsible for such, well, every single time they download or share files of other music. No one in their right mind would ever think of downloading something in this country which they did not choose to. It could be done. However, we will go a long way and this would still be a bigger issue for all the smaller record companies.A&M is a fairly typical of most of these copyright infringement cases. There will be more. If it is finding a record company in a large business to download songs from, this will also result due to a new process called copying rights. This means that all of the companies have to make sure that everyone can see which particular artists are copying, which copyright holders (if any), and which artists have copied which copyright holders. I wouldn’t call getting a copy or file from them piracy. No. But if we think about what each infringer can do under this law, and then ask and decide how they can make it even more difficult for them to get a copy of their files from the website, how can they be stopped?The fact that we saw the above information in the introduction clearly shows that the problem with A&M and B&# does not exist. The problem is that this can all happen to anyone for that matter. This means that the problem is completely new for copyright holder. If you buy a copy and then use it to download music for a living, you are not buying anything, you are purchasing something. This is the only thing piracy can do to copyright holder.Ao is also an example where an illegal file download infringer could be stopped. In this case there are some people who can download songs from that website from Australia and from other places in the world. What if those people could prove that the download was for Australian royalty? Or that there was somehow that one Australian family that was working for this company and they both had downloaded those files in the first place? Would this prove the validity of the upload?There are a few other issues here. For starters, these songs are not really pirated. It is illegal to do something illegal so it is illegal to do things that are not copyright infringements. It is illegal to create a copy for
I have already highlighted the following aspects of this report:A&M, A
, Ao, Ao_1…(1C) The first paragraph says:It will be interesting to see how this might change. I’m not sure we will see new, stronger laws yet for this type of copyright infringement. But it does provide an outline of how Napster infringes a much smaller number of records, A&M, B&#, A
 on a global basis. In fact, if this law is found to infringe a number of the music labels, all of the record companies and everyone at all times will be responsible for such, well, every single time they download or share files of other music. No one in their right mind would ever think of downloading something in this country which they did not choose to. It could be done. However, we will go a long way and this would still be a bigger issue for all the smaller record companies.A&M is a fairly typical of most of these copyright infringement cases. There will be more. If it is finding a record company in a large business to download songs from, this will also result due to a new process called copying rights. This means that all of the companies have to make sure that everyone can see which particular artists are copying, which copyright holders (if any), and which artists have copied which copyright holders. I wouldn’t call getting a copy or file from them piracy. No. But if we think about what each infringer can do under this law, and then ask and decide how they can make it even more difficult for them to get a copy of their files from the website, how can they be stopped?The fact that we saw the above information in the introduction clearly shows that the problem with A&M and B&# does not exist. The problem is that this can all happen to anyone for that matter. This means that the problem is completely new for copyright holder. If you buy a copy and then use it to download music for a living, you are not buying anything, you are purchasing something. This is the only thing piracy can do to copyright holder.Ao is also an example where an illegal file download infringer could be stopped. In this case there are some people who can download songs from that website from Australia and from other places in the world. What if those people could prove that the download was for Australian royalty? Or that there was somehow that one Australian family that was working for this company and they both had downloaded those files in the first place? Would this prove the validity of the upload?There are a few other issues here. For starters, these songs are not really pirated. It is illegal to do something illegal so it is illegal to do things that are not copyright infringements. It is illegal to create a copy for
I have already highlighted the following aspects of this report:A&M, A
, Ao, Ao_1…(1C) The first paragraph says:It will be interesting to see how this might change. I’m not sure we will see new, stronger laws yet for this type of copyright infringement. But it does provide an outline of how Napster infringes a much smaller number of records, A&M, B&#, A
 on a global basis. In fact, if this law is found to infringe a number of the music labels, all of the record companies and everyone at all times will be responsible for such, well, every single time they download or share files of other music. No one in their right mind would ever think of downloading something in this country which they did not choose to. It could be done. However, we will go a long way and this would still be a bigger issue for all the smaller record companies.A&M is a fairly typical of most of these copyright infringement cases. There will be more. If it is finding a record company in a large business to download songs from, this will also result due to a new process called copying rights. This means that all of the companies have to make sure that everyone can see which particular artists are copying, which copyright holders (if any), and which artists have copied which copyright holders. I wouldn’t call getting a copy or file from them piracy. No. But if we think about what each infringer can do under this law, and then ask and decide how they can make it even more difficult for them to get a copy of their files from the website, how can they be stopped?The fact that we saw the above information in the introduction clearly shows that the problem with A&M and B&# does not exist. The problem is that this can all happen to anyone for that matter. This means that the problem is completely new for copyright holder. If you buy a copy and then use it to download music for a living, you are not buying anything, you are purchasing something. This is the only thing piracy can do to copyright holder.Ao is also an example where an illegal file download infringer could be stopped. In this case there are some people who can download songs from that website from Australia and from other places in the world. What if those people could prove that the download was for Australian royalty? Or that there was somehow that one Australian family that was working for this company and they both had downloaded those files in the first place? Would this prove the validity of the upload?There are a few other issues here. For starters, these songs are not really pirated. It is illegal to do something illegal so it is illegal to do things that are not copyright infringements. It is illegal to create a copy for
The body part would contain the clear description of the four ethical theories and the ACS code of ethics. It would contain a discussion and solution from each of the four ethical theoretical viewpoints and the ACS code of ethics. It would also show an analysis and synthesis of research undertaken. This would give us a detailed study with the conclusion and the references from all the research done.
INTRODUCTION:Music industry consists of the companies and individuals that make money by creating and selling music. Among the many individuals and organizations that operate in the industry it comprises of the musicians who compose and perform the music, the companies and professionals who create and sell recorded music e.g.: music producers, music publishers, recording studios, record labels other retail and online stores. The talent managers, business manager entertainment lawyers broadcast radio all of this come under the music industry. The copy infringement of the music industry is widely known the most common form is file sharing. File sharing means the practice of sharing or offering of access to digital information or resources including audio video, graphics, computer programs, images and e-books. It is a private or public distribution of data and resources this file sharing has caused a situation where it is more like stealing rather than sharing. the musicians who put their entire hard work dedication and soul into the songs they write or record and perform but then the copies are sold for free due to some of the file sharing websites they are being ripped off the copyright infringement is so hard to pinpoint in these cases because of the different techniques, modulations and other issues has filled the music history with notable music copyright infringement cases and surprising instances of copyrighted material. So in this report we discuss about the benefits of file sharing to the individuals or the respective organizations outweigh the issues with the music industry. With all the five approaches of utilitarian deonotology, social Contract, character based and ACS code of ethics.
UTILITARIANISMUtilitarianism is a philosophical theory of morality and “how should one act”. It states that one should act in a way that it would maximize the amount of happiness. Everyones happiness should be considered equally. It means for an example if a person x has to do something then x should only do it when he can positively contribute to the happiness in the world. John Stuart Mills was the first to articulate the theory “greatest happiness for greatest number of people”
APPLICABILITY OF UTILITARIANISMThe utilitarianism theory of ethics suggests that an action is right if it maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people over the long term, given that everyones happiness is of equal value.
In this debate the greatest number of people is the population that uses person to person software to download media. The utilitarianism theory also states that no one persons happiness is more important than any other persons pleasure. According to Barnes (2009), “the RIAA has sued 30,000 people on charges of copyright infringement, countless others are defying the laws that they wield as weapons. If not for piracy, the RIAA would have no discussions of lowering the price of music, and no reason at all to start treating artists better”. When applying utilitarianism to media piracy and file sharing it is difficult to find happiness when people are being sued every day. According to George Ziemann (2002), “the dollar value of all music product shipments decreased from $14.3 billion in 2000 to $13.7 billion in 2001”. He reported that the RIAA lost 4.1 percent in revenue over the span of one year. Ultimately, downloading media saved consumers
$600K and potentially maximized happiness for a large portion of the world.DEONTOLOGYThe word deontology is derived from the Greek words for duty and science of logos. In contemporary moral philosophy it falls in the domain of moral theories that guide and assess our choices of what we ought to do in contrast to that fundamentally guide and assess what kind of a person we are and should be. There are many examples of deontological moral systems they are:
1. Dont kill2. Dont cause pain3. Dont deprive of freedom4. Dont deceive5. Keep your promise6. Dont cheat7. Obey the law8. Do your duty.APPLICABILITY TO DEONTOLOGY APPROACH:The deontological theory of ethics addresses the moral nature of the action itself. This theory focuses on the rights people have and what duties might go along with them without consideration given to consequences. The music artist or film industry has a right to expect a profit for their work. Thus, it is the duty of the consumer to pay for the product. When consumers obtain and/or distribute pirated copies, the return is considerably less to the industry. This affects everyone from the artist, actor, producer, down to the sound technicians. The argument could be made that public libraries have been sharing copyrighted material for decades. At any time, a card-holder has the privilege to borrow any media available. Using the library as an example, the consumer has the right to share the physical, original product, but once a copy has been made, the rights of the entertainment industry have been infringed upon. On the other hand, when a consumer buys a product, it becomes their property. They should have the right to share that product with whomever they choose.