The PRS says because of his uploads, , tracks were illegally downloaded. Wayne's arrest brought on a massive anxiety attack. An ambulance was called. He pleaded guilty on the spot and promised to make it up to the music industry. In , he was convicted of copyright infringement and one count of fraud, and was jailed for 12 months.
The warden of the prison and fellow inmates often said to Wayne they thought his sentence was "a bit steep", but Wayne says what happened to him is justified. So much work goes into making music. I was taking away from them people - not just the artist, but also the guy that sits at the mixing desk - a lot of people," says Wayne.
And while illegal downloading has been around for the past two decades, the nature of the crime continues to change. More Technology of Business. File-sharing sites like The Pirate Bay were widely used to illegally download music, but they have waned in popularity thanks to successful efforts to shut them down. However, they have been replaced by websites and apps that allow users to download music taken from licensed streaming sites including YouTube and Spotify. Stream-ripping websites make money from advertisers, touting a mix of legitimate products, scams and pornography.
YouTube is the most common site from which to steal music, points out Simon Bourn, the PRS's head of litigation, enforcement and anti-Piracy. Rippers use YouTube's own software interface to steal, and the site's owner Google is not doing enough to prevent this, he claims. Persistent thieves might be deterred by blocking their IP address, he suggests.
While it would be trickier, Mr Bourn argues, it would still be possible. Above I said I wanted to put the law aside for a moment. Because the law, and particularly the U. All the labels have left is the law. Eventually the reality of the Internet will force the laws to change, too.
One way or another the music labels will eventually surrender , and recorded music will be free. Until it is, I refuse to feel guilty for downloading and sharing music.
One that eventually I should be paid for. Most peer-to-peer users could never afford the fines and court fees associated with their violations. The RIAA says it will not actually seek compensation from the perpetrators they sued, who include a year-old. Nevertheless, the peer-to-peer revolution has brought with it an epidemic of illegal file sharing. With so many otherwise-lawful citizens breaking the law, legislators must examine the motives behind this situation and act carefully.
The legal argument behind this question is laid out in the case of Universal City Studios vs. Sony , in which the Supreme Court ruled that as long as a device has substantial non-infringing use, it is not liable for any copyright infringements. This law has been debated since then. Should the developer be judged based on the majority or the possibility of legal use? If the proportion of illegal to legal use of the product should be considered, then what is a good proportion to deem acceptable?
A simple solution would be to say that if the majority of uses are for legal means, the product should be deemed usable. But one must consider the intensity of the infringements as well. To put it into simple human terms, can lives saved outweigh one murder? What about ten murders? Or cancer cases? There is no way to assign valuation for death, but perhaps there is a way to come up with a figure that represents the economic ramifications resulting from an abuse of a copyright.
0コメント