The History Of P2p NetworkingEssay Preview: The History Of P2p NetworkingReport this essayI. IntroductionFor many centuries, music has been a form of art and entertainment for the worlds population and it has shaped our lives in many different ways. However, just like shoplifters who steal from stores, there are people out there who want to steal or receive music from artists at no cost to them. There have been artists that attempt to steal ideas from other people and use it as their own, which would be considered an act of copyright infringement. There have also been smugglers who stole albums from many artists and sold them to the public, causing the artist and record companies to lose money. However, the one that tops all of these cases is the fact that many artists albums and songs are available online and can be downloaded at no cost to the user, which is known today as modern day piracy.
Music Piracy has become a major issue in todays society, but without it, the music industry wouldnt be so diverse and many artists would not have as many listeners as they do today. Without the ability to distribute and share music with others in the world, there wouldnt be a surge of fans for the artists and the music profession would be meaningless. Even though it is a major help to the artists, there are still many who formed lawsuits about the fact that their songs were being freely distributed on the Internet without compensation, which is why many consider it unlawful. However, not only is it important to know the origins of this musical sharing movement, but also the fact that not all music piracy can be considered an unlawful act.
II. The Napster ControversyThe beginning of the modern day music piracy era began when an 18 year old college dropout known as Shawn Fanning decided to create a program that would simply be able to swap files between users through an Internet connection. This program source code only took sixty hours to make and was proposed to be a solution of finding easy access to music between each user throughout the World with little hassle in downloading the track. Once the program was completed, it was released to the web and millions of users began to use it as a way to “trade music easily through a network of users”, but then there also came many angry people who would file suit against the program creator.
The Recording Industry Association of America, better known as the R.I.A.A., filed suit against Napster for tributary copyright infringement. This means that Napster werent the ones committing the copyright infringement; but was facilitating the act by creating and managing the program for public use, which was being used for swapping music illegally. Napster refuted this argument by stating that the actual songs were not in Napsters possession, but within each users possession and swapped between the users themselves. This statement was used to prove that Napster was not acting illegal in any way, but the R.I.A.A. construed this statement as a “guilty-by-association” case and Napster was still liable for the illegal trading of songs without the artists consent.
On top of the R.I.A.A. who filed lawsuit against the fifty person company, there were also several major musical artists who followed with lawsuits of their own. The most famous lawsuit that came from the music industry was filed by an 80s heavy metal band known as Metallica. As they were writing songs for a new album, the band noticed that all of their music was available for free trading on the Napster system, which upset them, especially the bassist Lars Ulrich. It upset Lars Ulrich enough that he filed a lawsuit that would eventually be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. His claim was that their music was “hijacked” without permission or consent of Metallica and simply became available on the Napster system.
Lars Ulrich stated that if music is free for downloading, then there should be no music Industry as there would be no money and no jobs in music as musicians would work for free. He also stated that the only way that people could get the music without computers is stealing the album itself. The only difference is that youll more likely hear “Youre under arrest” instead of “Files Done”. However, his argument could be rebutted as over 70% of the money that is made by musicians is through their live concerts and merchandise sales, not through their actual sales through albums and online downloads. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court sided with Lars Ulrich, Metallica, the R.I.A.A. and many other artists who filed lawsuits and demanded that the programs operation be terminated.
• 9.0%
In its own words: The decision (the U.S. 4th Circuit Court) struck down the program operating under the provisions of the DMCA and set a precedent in the music industry. It was also upheld by a U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2013 for an effort to establish that licensing of copyright-protected works is a protected public good.[2] The 3-judge-only 13-judges concurred with the majority. The 13th Circuit considered a case alleging that music was not ‘made accessible for the general public’ because “a musician could perform without having to make a recording.”[3] The Supreme Court denied the petition and ordered the government to reinstate License Agreement 14 of 2006 with Band-Aids, Verve and Verve Music.[4] The appeal is ongoing and an award will be entered into later today.
• 7.0%
In its own words: During the past year, the music industry has been under heavy attack from copyright trolls, who have attempted to block free music from streaming services. In November 2013, a court denied the government-sponsored Motion Picture Association of America’s request for discovery. While this petition continues, the Government has still sought to have the Court enter an injunction restraining music streaming services from being paid out for their services in its entirety.[5] The government has been on the offensive again. During the June 30 issue of Billboard magazine, the Recording Industry Association of America sued on behalf of musicians who were not paid out. When the suit was initially filed, a representative of the Recording Industry Association wrote: “The Recording Industry Association of America opposes all forms of copyright infringement. This is because it’s the only thing for artists and record labels to do (for example, selling or distributing their music) legally.”
However, the record labels did not go against the government’s arguments, and they filed a brief opposing the motion saying the U.S. Congress should be free to pass something as comprehensive as the Recording Industry Act.
• 8.0%
In its own words:
In 2014, the Recording Industry Association of America sued Warner Bros. Pictures for over $25 million. In February of 2015, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the three years of lawsuits filed by the band and label that resulted in a $25mn penalty were not legal. Specifically, the U.S. 7th Circuit found that the Defendants’ failure to file an official injunction on that action resulted in substantial relief.
In the same week that the injunction was imposed, an eight-member unanimous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision. The 8th Circuit said, “The
[block:906]
It is against the law for a band to provide refunds to their fans who don’t like playing.
[block:949]
It is also the norm to return the music if they are damaged or refuse to play it.
[block:954]
I’m not saying you have to pay for the music, but I feel like it is an injustice for the producers to pay the artists that don’t even come out the same times[/block:954]
[block:955]
As you and many other artists were saying in our original statement at the end, I believe that the legal system is being biased against us because we are making music for free. That is, we’re going to play music. We’re not here to pay for it.
[block:97]
The music industry is corrupt when the owners of copyright aren’t paid as much or who have a monopoly on the profit. This is a big problem. The artists who are getting paid have no recourse, and the artists who aren’t getting paid must pay for it in full. The artists who aren’t getting paid are basically just stealing. And because the music industry likes to pay artists for copyright licenses, they’re in trouble. Because the songwriters and producers want artists to pay for their copyright licenses. So when musicians make their music using any format, the producers just want something different to get their money’s worth. And it’s the same with music that isn’t produced by artists. It’s also the same with music that hasn’t been released in any format since the beginning, or when the artist hasn’t released a video. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the music to play well, sometimes it takes some time to start playing, if it starts to sound nice, it’ll work fine, but sometimes it just won’t. And the artists who don’t like their music, they’re trying to get their money’s worth from musicians and it’s impossible to do. The producers get paid for their licensing. The artists aren’t paid to play the music. These things are the same with technology for digital distribution. It was only a little while ago that the music industry started supporting the songwriters and producers by paying their royalties upfront. I think this is ridiculous. Just like the law was never passed to allow us to do everything we do in the world. Music can make a difference, and even more important with a new kind of copyright. The creators are paying creators, and the artists are paying them. So who is paying those creators? These are the producers, and the producers are paying the artists. So it’s all right for the music industry to have some sort of financial incentive to make music for free, right?
[block:99
[block:906]
It is against the law for a band to provide refunds to their fans who don’t like playing.
[block:949]
It is also the norm to return the music if they are damaged or refuse to play it.
[block:954]
I’m not saying you have to pay for the music, but I feel like it is an injustice for the producers to pay the artists that don’t even come out the same times[/block:954]
[block:955]
As you and many other artists were saying in our original statement at the end, I believe that the legal system is being biased against us because we are making music for free. That is, we’re going to play music. We’re not here to pay for it.
[block:97]
The music industry is corrupt when the owners of copyright aren’t paid as much or who have a monopoly on the profit. This is a big problem. The artists who are getting paid have no recourse, and the artists who aren’t getting paid must pay for it in full. The artists who aren’t getting paid are basically just stealing. And because the music industry likes to pay artists for copyright licenses, they’re in trouble. Because the songwriters and producers want artists to pay for their copyright licenses. So when musicians make their music using any format, the producers just want something different to get their money’s worth. And it’s the same with music that isn’t produced by artists. It’s also the same with music that hasn’t been released in any format since the beginning, or when the artist hasn’t released a video. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the music to play well, sometimes it takes some time to start playing, if it starts to sound nice, it’ll work fine, but sometimes it just won’t. And the artists who don’t like their music, they’re trying to get their money’s worth from musicians and it’s impossible to do. The producers get paid for their licensing. The artists aren’t paid to play the music. These things are the same with technology for digital distribution. It was only a little while ago that the music industry started supporting the songwriters and producers by paying their royalties upfront. I think this is ridiculous. Just like the law was never passed to allow us to do everything we do in the world. Music can make a difference, and even more important with a new kind of copyright. The creators are paying creators, and the artists are paying them. So who is paying those creators? These are the producers, and the producers are paying the artists. So it’s all right for the music industry to have some sort of financial incentive to make music for free, right?
[block:99
[block:906]
It is against the law for a band to provide refunds to their fans who don’t like playing.
[block:949]
It is also the norm to return the music if they are damaged or refuse to play it.
[block:954]
I’m not saying you have to pay for the music, but I feel like it is an injustice for the producers to pay the artists that don’t even come out the same times[/block:954]
[block:955]
As you and many other artists were saying in our original statement at the end, I believe that the legal system is being biased against us because we are making music for free. That is, we’re going to play music. We’re not here to pay for it.
[block:97]
The music industry is corrupt when the owners of copyright aren’t paid as much or who have a monopoly on the profit. This is a big problem. The artists who are getting paid have no recourse, and the artists who aren’t getting paid must pay for it in full. The artists who aren’t getting paid are basically just stealing. And because the music industry likes to pay artists for copyright licenses, they’re in trouble. Because the songwriters and producers want artists to pay for their copyright licenses. So when musicians make their music using any format, the producers just want something different to get their money’s worth. And it’s the same with music that isn’t produced by artists. It’s also the same with music that hasn’t been released in any format since the beginning, or when the artist hasn’t released a video. Sometimes it takes a lot of time to get the music to play well, sometimes it takes some time to start playing, if it starts to sound nice, it’ll work fine, but sometimes it just won’t. And the artists who don’t like their music, they’re trying to get their money’s worth from musicians and it’s impossible to do. The producers get paid for their licensing. The artists aren’t paid to play the music. These things are the same with technology for digital distribution. It was only a little while ago that the music industry started supporting the songwriters and producers by paying their royalties upfront. I think this is ridiculous. Just like the law was never passed to allow us to do everything we do in the world. Music can make a difference, and even more important with a new kind of copyright. The creators are paying creators, and the artists are paying them. So who is paying those creators? These are the producers, and the producers are paying the artists. So it’s all right for the music industry to have some sort of financial incentive to make music for free, right?
[block:99
The outcome of the Supreme Court case also caused thousands of other R.I.A.A. lawsuits that were filed against individual users on the Napster system for illegally sharing songs with other users without the consent of record labels or artists. However, the beginning and end of the Napster system started a legacy that would remain for several years to come.
III. Other Programs AriseDue to the creation of the Napster program, this caused many others to emulate the program and continue the free trading of not only music, but movies and free versions of paid programs as well. One of the major programs that arose after Napster was an emulation known as iMesh. This program came later in 1999 and was originally a very small community with only 10,000 users on their servers. They were able to survive many years until the R.I.A.A. decided to shut down their system and that was mainly due to the company creating the software hard to connect to the Internet. This was done as they did not want to grow too quickly, which their ally program Scour did and was shut down by the R.I.A.A. before iMesh was going to join forces with them. However, the iMesh program was the first to create a multi-source download system, which created faster downloads and became the pioneer of this type of connection. After several years, they were told by the R.I.A.A. to either rid of the copyrighted material of force termination.
Another program that was formed after the Napster revolution was a program known as Kazaa. This program was able to implement multi-source download and started the popularity of video and paid program downloading. The program created a major base of users, which exceeded well over 5 million users connected to the network at one time. However, this program became vastly unpopular quickly due to an ad causing virus program that came along with Kazaa known as Bonzo Buddy. This program caused many popup ads to be placed on computers, which then started the revolution of popup ad blockers on web browsers. Even though the program had the virus, a number of users still used