Introduction
Copyrights are legal frameworks that allow access to exclusive control and ownership of work in music and film industry. Such statutory provisions seek to govern commercial aspects such as sharing, distribution, reproduction, and sale of artworks (Levitt 2). Under this legal framework, artists and custodians of artwork get an opportunity to derive maximum and exclusive benefits with regard to their work. Copyright laws protect artists against exploitation and undue pressure from market forces. However, there are individuals who seek to circumvent such frameworks by acquiring copyrighted materials without consent (Levitt 4). Acquisition of protected artwork without permission suffices as copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is a recurrent reality in contemporary society because of various factors. One such factor is the current development and sophistication of technology.
People have increasingly resulted to use and application of internet. Internet use presents challenges that make it difficult for authorities to control and monitor transfer and sharing of artworks (Levitt 11). According to legal guidelines, it is unacceptable for any individual to share or duplicate artwork without consent by rightful holders of the copyright. There is correlation between plagiarism, piracy, and copyright infringement. All these terminologies hold interchangeable meanings and applications because they entail unlawful acquisition of materials, often by false pretence. Authorities and regulatory agencies have a duty and responsibility to initiate and implement legal structures and frameworks that deter all instances of copyright infringement (Levitt 12). This research paper seeks to analyze and evaluate various aspects of copyright infringement. It shall focus on realities that characterize and govern copyright infringement in contemporary music and film industry. The essay shall achieve the above objectives by discussing and evaluating two famous cases in film and music industry. This essay shall incorporate relevant materials from credible and authoritative academic publications. This shall also involve current trends and best practices with regard to copyright laws.
Discussion
As earlier mentioned, this essay shall discuss various aspects and perspectives with regard to copyright infringement in the entertainment industry (Levitt 16). The first case involves copyright infringement in the music industry. The case shall evaluate basic principles that apply to violations regarding copyright statutory requirements.
American Association of Recording Artists v. Napster Case
Copyright infringement is a ubiquitous and recurrent challenge in contemporary music industry. In most cases, copyright infringement involves large marketing and distribution companies against individual artists (Miller 26). In such cases, distribution and production companies engage in unlawful acts that ultimately lead to loss of economic and legal gains by rightful owners of artwork. The case that pits the American Association of Recording Artists against Napster is famous for the high stakes that suffice for both parties (Miller 26). For several years, American Association of Recording Artists has sought compensation from Napster for distribution and sale of copyrighted music without permission from rightful owners of such music. The association accuses Napster of piracy and illegal distribution of patented music. In order to understand the essence and rationale of this case, it is important to establish main factors that fuel discord and acrimony between the two entities (Miller 27).
The American Association of Recording Artists is an entity that caters for issues that affect recording and performing artists. The organization preoccupies with agitation for equality and recognition of artists in various areas of engagement. It strives to forestall all possible instances of violation and infringement with regard to copyright provisions (Miller 32). The organization is instrumental in developing and implementing oversight frameworks in order to guarantee preservation of artists’ rights and privileges. On the other hand, Napster is a commercial entity that supports transfer and sharing of music by internet users. Through such structures, internet users share and download music at will. During its inception, the company intended to promote sharing of files and information between internet users. However, the liberal nature of the internet makes it difficult for regulatory agencies to impose and guarantee discipline and adherence (Miller 36).
In this case, the American Association of Recording Artists accuses Napster of illegal distribution of music without following acceptable legal channels that govern compliance to copyright provisions. In its submission, the association argues that Napster is responsible for gross and blatant abuse of copyright laws by its users (Miller 36). Evidently, the company abets sharing and distribution of music content in absence of proper oversight by various regulatory agencies. The company even allows its users to develop album compilations from music tracks by various recording and performing artists. Further, the users share and distribute such albums within the extensive online network (Miller 43). In light of such activities, the company is culpable with regard to guidelines and provisions of copyright laws. Such acquisition and distribution of copyrighted materials without consent from rightful owners is illegal, immoral, and unethical. Performing artists deserve fair treatment and compensation whenever an individual or commercial entity seeks to use their materials (Cross 65). Such provisions play an important role in ensuring proper handling of materials whose rights belong to a different entity. The American Association of recording Artists has a duty and responsibility to protect and guarantee all rights and privileges of its members. In this case, the association seeks to secure compensation for members whose music and artwork fuels illegal deals as undertaken by Napster (Cross 65).
Copyright regulations provide a safe haven for artists aggrieved by machinations of unscrupulous commercial entities such as Napster. By using copyrighted music for personal gain, Napster creates avenues for violation and infringement of existing laws and provisions with regard to copyrights. This case is unique and monumental because it involves two entities with divergent interests. On one hand, the American Association of Recording Artists aspires to preserve and defend rights and privileges of its members (Cross 67). It intends to guarantee adherence to copyright provisions at all costs. On the other hand, Napster is intent on distributing and sharing music without fulfilling requisite guidelines that govern such undertakings. This reality necessitates elaborate legal proceedings in order to define various rules of engagement with regard to sharing and distribution of copyrighted materials (Cross 69). The case against Napster is one among recent efforts to reign on commercial entities that benefit from copyrighted materials without invoking necessary institutional frameworks that regulate and entrench compliance to copyright provisions and requirements. The case acts as a warning signal to those who abet piracy, whether individually or through collective endeavour (Cross 76). The legal system has a duty and responsibility to oversee trial and prosecution of culprits in order to institute and effect compliance with regard to existent copyright provisions. Successful completion of this case shall offer an opportunity for all stakeholders to demonstrate their willingness to combat piracy and other forms of copyright infringement. It shall also assert the essence of copyright laws in relation to preservation of individual right to ownership (Cross 84).
Sony Corp. Of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc
This landmark case involved two influential moviemakers in the United States. The gist of the case revolved around Sony’s decision to develop and distribute a technological device that had ability to replicate materials within the film industry. Sony had embarked on this venture as a diversification strategy in order to remain relevant in the market (Haupert 12). Other companies within the industry found it preposterous for Sony to produce and distribute a device that sought to undermine basic provisions and requirements with regard to copyrights in the film industry. During that period, there were numerous congressional undertakings that sought to introduce strict regulations on copyrights. Other players instituted a lawsuit that sought constitutional interpretation on the conduct by Sony (Haupert 12). They also sought to effect successful termination of production and distribution of this device. They lodged a formal complaint before the California District Court. They argued that Sony should take responsibility for all copyright violations since they were the sole manufacturers and distributors of the device. They also invoked the Lanham Act to compel the courts to reign on Sony for applying strategies that supported principles of undue and unfavourable competition (Haupert 16).
However, the latter application did not satisfy legal merit and therefore edged out of the lawsuit. This meant that the lawsuit primarily focused on copyright infringement by Sony against other players in the film industry. After a two-year period of legal presentation and submission of facts by both parties, the jury ruled in favour of the defendant. According to the landmark ruling, individual domestic recording did not embody any form of contravention with regard to copyright legal requirements (Haupert 22). In fact, the ruling upheld previous provisions on access and acquisition of information in public domain. Later exploits within legal circles necessitated a revision that annulled the ruling under the auspices of the Ninth Circuit Court. The revision ruled that Sony had a duty and responsibility to ensure adherence to copyright regulations. The ruling faulted Sony for contradicting ideals that seek to protect its core business in the film industry. According to the ruling, Sony’s venture contributed to outright negation of existent copyright statutes. Consequently, the court issued guidelines for legal action regarding damages and copyright licensing (Haupert 27).
This case was very sensitive and crucial in determining future action in cases that came before courts on similar grounds. After complete and elaborate presentations in court, the jury could not arrive at a conclusive decision regarding the matter. This situation arose from recurrent contradictions that characterized legal structures during that period (Haupert 34). Most members of the jury felt the necessity to invoke provisions of the Ninth Circuit regarding piracy and other forms of copyright infringement. Justice Harry Blackmun had the responsibility to draft a document to articulate opinions of those who held affirmative opinion. On the other hand, Justice Paul Stevens had to draft a document to root for the dissenting school of thought. The document written by Stevens was multidimensional and therefore offered room for alteration to favour either side of the legal tussle (Haupert 39). This legal gimmick was tactical and aimed at self-preservation in case certain individuals felt it necessary to shift their position of opinion with regard to the matter. There was concern that the judgement could incriminate individuals for soliciting material for domestic use. They felt that making such a judgement could jeopardize and contradict provisions that upheld acquisition of information for individual use. On the other hand, there was need to assert existent laws that governed infringement through application of technological devices (Haupert 42). According to this rationale, domestic duplication of artwork constituted gross infringement of copyright provisions and regulations. There was opinion that copyright infringement laws were applicable in situations where individuals reproduced artworks for commercial purposes. According to this school of thought, duplication for domestic use did not constitute any form of infringement. Complexities in this case emanated from the fact that it focused on the producer of the technology as opposed to the user of such technology (Haupert 42).
Another school of thought argued that the contentious gadget had other uses that did not necessarily abet copyright infringement. The plaintiffs had a duty to prove that users bought the gadgets with a primary motive to infringe on copyright regulations. The main argument revolved around motive of purchase by users. There was disagreement over whether Sony developed the gadget solely for infringement. The court argued that there was need to create balance between desire for protection of copyright and freedom of commercial entities to engage in independent commercial activities (Haupert 48). The court ruled that Sony’s involvement in development and distribution of such gadgets does not facilitate infringement of copyright. The court further argued that such gadgets had other complementary applications that do not necessarily contribute to infringement of copyright. For instance, there are legal procedures that help individuals to seek permission and rights from the rightful owner of such rights.
Therefore, using Betamax after such compliance is ethical and morally acceptable (Haupert 54). It satisfies all legal provisions that govern infringement of copyright. People could use the gadget for other legally acceptable procedures and undertakings. Based on this premise, the court ruled that Sony’s involvement in production and distribution of Betamax embodied fairness and normal conduct with regard to commercial practices. The ruling alluded to past rulings and submissions before the Supreme Court. It had particular interest on testimonials presented before it by Fred Rogers in support of ventures similar to one undertaken by Sony (Haupert 57). This case evoked public interest because of its nature and inclination. The case was very important because it created a precedent that informed future rulings in similar legal disputes. It also helped in creating impetus for strict conformity and adherence to copyright infringement regulations. It also laid ground for reforms on laws that sought to define thresholds for compliance with regard to copyright statutory provisions. However, the ruling in this case attracted public interest because of its sensitive nature (Jentz 34).
Conclusion
Copyright infringement has been a major concern for stakeholders in the music and film industry. In order to allay copyright infringement, there are statutory structures and frameworks that govern acquisition and retention of rights for individuals whose operations suffice with regard to the industry (Jentz 42). The above cases demonstrate various complexities that manifest in operations within the film and music industry. It is important for authorities to engage in undertakings that support the desire for proper regulation of copyrights. They should also sensitize people on the essence and rationale of copyright provisions in order to reduce cases of contravention and malpractice among players in the industry.
Works Cited
Cross, Frank. The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases. London: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
Haupert, Michael. Entertainment Industry: A Reference Handbook. Newyork: CENGAGE, 2013. Print.
Jentz, Gaylord. Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized Cases. Newyork: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Levitt, Steven. The Impacts of Copyright Infringement. London: Taylor & Francis, 2012. Print.
Miller, Roger. Business Law Today. Newyork: Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.