Introduction
The United States copyright law and the doctrine of fair use were enacted to reduce or prevent the use of someone’s copyrighted materials without their consent. Any person who needs to use or cite another person’s intellectual property must have due rights from the copyright owner. In case individual wishes to access such materials for various purposes such as news reporting, teaching, scholarship or commentary, and news reporting, it is important that such an individual first obtain the owner’s permission. The concept of fair use was developed in Great Britain in 1709 as test copyright. The concept was developed to solve the Gyles v Wilcox suit on fair abridgment. The doctrine later evolved to become the fair use doctrine and was therefore adopted by the United States common law. Later on, this doctrine was to be incorporated into the 1976 copyright act. According to the Copyrights laws of the United States (Section 17), when any copyrighted material is used in a fair manner, such as in research, as a comment(s), criticism, teaching, or for a scholarship, in this case, the act is not deemed as a contravention of copyright laws.
The use of copyright materials under the fair use concept must be determined depending on the intended use of the material. For purposes of ensuring that the concept remains valid, the materials should be used for educational purposes that result in no monetary gain to the user. The nature of the materials should be established, along with the extent of the copyrighted materials used as a whole, and the effect of the materials used in the potential market of the copyrighted materials. The copyrighted work should not be used for commercial purposes (Linda, 2009, pp. 42-45).
The case of UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com
The concept of fair use has been misunderstood and misused. Some firms steal copyrighted materials pretending that they are using them under the concept of fair use. A good example is the case of UMG Recordings, Inc. v MP3. Com. The case involved the duplication of almost every music Compact disk that was made in its effort to initiate a service entitled, ‘Beam-it or MyMP3. Com’. The service was meant to give users the right to use their private music albums online all over the world. The MP3.com Company, under the disguise of the fair use concept, was using UMG recording copyrighted work to launch their services. The UMG recording argued that the MP3.com violated the law of fair use because all the compact discs were copied as opposed to the copying of excerpts as required in the fair use concept. They further argued that the use by MP3.com had a commercial inclination as it was revenue-supported. MP3.com defended itself by arguing that its actions were supported by consumer protection concepts which allowed it access and use of copyrighted materials of main record labels and music publishers. However, the MP3.com Company was held liable for intellectual property infringement laws. MP3.com without the proper application of the law through its MyMP3.com service, converted compact disk recordings to computer files so that its customers could assess them over the internet. Through the service, the customers could be able to store, customize and listen to music contained in compact discs all over the world as long as the customers had access to the internet. The MP3.com Company purchased very many popular compact disks in which the UMG recordings held intellectual property rights. The MP3.com deliberately ignored to request for the use of copyrighted materials from UMG recording which held the copyrights (Linda, 2005, pp. 98-101)
The MP3.com subscribers failed to prove ownership of the compact disc version of the recording. The subscriber was supposed to insert a copy of a commercial compact disk into the computer CD-Rom drive or buy the compact disk from an authorized dealer appointed by the copyright holder. The subscriber can then access from the internet the copy of the UMG recording compact disk. The action of MP3.com for not acknowledging the copyright owner of the compact disks amounted to infringement of the copyright laws and hence it tried to steal the material under the fair use law. MP3.com in its defense argued that it was acting under the fair use of the United States copyright laws. The company failed to defend its allegations according to the copyright Act specifications. The Mp3. com failed to substantiate the fact that the purpose and character for use were not for commercial purposes. The subscribers to My Mp3.com are not charged a fee but the move was meant to draw attention and increase its subscription base with an aim of advertising and hence increasing its profit. It was however confirmed that the new use of the compact discs repeats the old and transforms it by giving it a totally new meaning. The MyMP3.com service provided a transformative chance by which its subscribers were required to enjoy the sound recordings from their compact disks without the physical use of the compact disks. The service provided unauthorized transmission of copyrighted materials from the compact disks into another medium. MP3.com however argued that it did not change the original form of the music. It only changed the packaging of the recordings for effective transmission through another media. By so doing, MP3.com Company provided innovations but not transformation. Regarding the nature of the copyrighted work, Mp3.com Company maintained that the creative recordings were close to the center of the intended intellectual property is protected and it was far from the actual work and hence the fair use concept was applicable. The amount and sustainability of the materials in relation to the copyrighted work were not enough to warrant an infringement of the copyright laws (Anderson, 2009, pp. 125-129).
MP3.com copied and played the copyright works and hence it was not under the fair use concept. The argument by the defendant held that the statutory right of the plaintiff has not been infringed by availing the compact disks to the potential market without prior licensing to enable their production. They further argued that as far as the derivative market is concerned, the UMG recording has not revealed that such licensing was needed and that its activities can only improve the sales of the UMG recordings since the subscribers could not gain access to those recordings made available by the MP3.com unless the subscriber buys their own compact discs to those recordings. American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 60 F.3d 913, 930 n.17 (2d Cir. 1995). In the case ruling the MP3.com was found to have infringed the copyrights of the UMG recordings. The arguments used by the plaintiff were actually not conclusive. The arguments on inspection however consisted of speculations that could not sustain the case. Even as the activity by the defendant resulted in a positive impact in the market of operation of the plaintiff, nonetheless, there lacked any compelling evidence to allow MP3.com to establish another market which would have resulted in accessing and benefitting from the copyrighted work produced by UMG records. This could have been the case even if the UMG recording could not have entered the market (Samuelson, 1995, pp. 27-39).
The copyright exclusive rights are stated in the constitution and the copyright act. The copyright laws restrain the development of derivative markets by denying a license to a copyrighted work or by accepting the terms that the owner decides. The offended party must however attach substantial evidence that they have tried to enter that market through various licensing agreements. MP3.com argued that it provides a very essential service to its customers and in absence of such services could bring piracy. The plaintiff argued that the copyright laws are enacted to protect intellectual property rights and interests. The UMG recording company has never shown interest to license its productions to companies like MP3.com. Licensing of copyright laws is made to ensure that the copyright holder enjoys the benefits the law accords to them as the copyright owners of any creative work. MP3 ignorantly assumed that they could misappropriate UMG recording property since there is consumer demand for compact discs. The concept of fair use however has resulted in a major conflict in the music industry and especially in music technology companies. MP3.com argued that under the issue of copyright misuse, UMG recording used its leading market position to prosecute the company shortly after it launched MYMP3.com services. The plaintiff observed that the defendant was out to gain reasonably. The plaintiff resulted in the issue of copyrights infringement so that it could gain. The MP3.com defense was rejected on the ground that it failed to show any evidence of misconduct or bad faith on the part of UMG recording (Evangelista, 2001 pp. 68-71).
Conclusion
Similar cases have been cropping up concerning music technology companies. The case of A&M records, Inc. v Napster, Inc, and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd clearly shows how the concept of fair use has been misunderstood. In the case of A&M records v Napster, Inc Napster was found to have infringed on the copyrights of the A&M records. In their defense, they argued that they were operating on the basis of fair use and therefore they had no case to answer. However, the judge who presided over the case dismissed the claim, and Napster was held liable for contributory infringement of the copyright laws. In the case concerning MGM Studio, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd was concluded that the Grokster and Streamcast companies were liable for prosecution as they induced copyright infringement. It was decided that they had infringed on the copyrights of several music companies while marketing their file-sharing software. The defendant companies in their defense quoted the concept of fair use. In all three cases, the defendant companies were citing the concept of fair use to infringe on the plaintiff copyright laws (Borland, 2005, pp. 79-83).
References
Anderson, N. (2009). use”. Ars Technica. Web.
Borland, J. (2005). “Last waltz for Grokster”. CNET. Web.
Evangelista, B. (2001). Napster runs out of lives – judge rules against the sale. San Francisco Chronicle. Web.
Linda, G. (2005). “Lively Debate as Justices Address Filesharing”, The New York Times.
Linda L, 2009. Music Companies: The Big Four Labels. Spinner. Web.
Samuelson, P. (1995). “Copyright’s fair use doctrine and digital data”. Publishing Research Quarterly, 11 (1): 27–39.