The Mp3 Controvercy

MP3 technology, short for MPEG-1 Layer 3, first appeared on the Internet in the late 1990’s, and as time passed users could retrieve the musical works of artists or groups by accessing a website or file-sharing utility. This not only gave exposure to these musicians, but it also gave smaller, less known artists chances at exposure. Mp3.com began some years later, a website initiated for the soul purpose of allowing local musicians with recorded albums or demos to publish their works to the mainstream Internet, and gained much popularity as MP3 became more eminent. Then MP3s became a national sensation with the release of Napster, a program that allowed users to trade songs with other users across an Internet network. A political storm approached as more and more MP3 users collected songs on their computers and purportedly stopped buying albums.

Somewhat of a bad mark has been put on the “MP3” name by the government and recording industry because of the negative implication it has had in the last decade. Two federal laws have been the center of debate in conjunction with online music. The first, a 1976 revision of the Copyright Act, made duplication of any copyrighted materials legal for educational purposes and non-commercial intent (Jost 773). The second law is the 1992 law, or the Audio Home Recording Act, which legalized duplication of audiotapes for back-up purposes (Jost 774). MP3 advocates believe that these laws support their cause, stating that any copying of copyrighted material (compact discs included) is legal as long as no profit is made from such actions. Yet those who support anti-MP3 laws say that the duplication of CDs and downloading of MP3s reduces the value of the works, thus violating copyright laws. It is difficult to say who is right in this argument, but looking at recent sales statistics may disprove one side of the argument.

Recording Industry Association of America Inc. (RIAA) President Cary Sherman made the statement that “online piracy was the main cause of a seven percent dip in CD shipments this year,” but refuses to release their full study results (Music 1). The RIAA also released a study that told of a six percent increase in sales of full-length audio CDs in the United States and almost a ten percent rise in the value of CDs sold in 2000 (Alderman 152). Other studies on sales have proven to be wishy-washy, and a drop in sales could be caused by anything from the current recession to lack of diversity. If statistics cannot help us to reach a conclusion in this debate, maybe those directly affected by the issue may shed some light.

Jeremy Wagstaff, a writer for Far Eastern Economic Review, believes that to keep up with ever-growing music piracy, the music industry has to incorporate websites and free downloads into their marketing scheme, where users can listen to songs by bands before buying records (38). This gives consumers a possibility to listen to a song or two, or even the whole album before wasting their hard-earned money on something they may not even enjoy. Spending almost twenty dollars on an album that may contain only one song that the listener wants to hear is unreasonable. But how can a medium between cheating the artist and ripping-off the consumer be found? Some labels are lowering prices to encourage the purchasing of albums and in result the sale of CDs escalates exponentially. Many artists are also allowing their works to be downloaded on the net because they trust that the exposure will increase their sales (Das 746). Many sites like Epitonic.com are emerging, which offer users multiple songs to try out before they buy. Instead of embracing technology, the rejecters of the MP3 will not accept that this new powerful resource could be used to raise the quality of music in general while helping popular artists gain even more exposure.

Misuse of technology can be observed in the cases of Eminem and System of a Down. Eminem, a popular rap artist, released his latest album “The Eminem Show” a week before schedule because it was leaked to the Internet. His fan base is made up of mainly teens and college students (coincidentally also the mass majority of MP3 downloaders), so he cannot publicly object to the incident without risking loss of sales. Instead, he was forced to issue his album early and implicate new copy-protection technology. System of a Down, a politically inspired rock-metal band, had their next album (as a work-in-progress demo) slipped onto the Internet months ago. Taking action against music piracy, they are now releasing the finished album without cover art and in the form of a burnt CD called “Steal This Album.” Both cases were evidently copyright violations, but these are not commonplace occurrences. Yet not all cases of MP3 use are also misappropriations.

My father, Steve Brown, became an MP3.com artist three years ago. He has now sold many albums worldwide, and his songs have been played over 80,000 times since introduced to the Internet. His reaction to MP3.com and Napster is greatly a positive one: The sites allow artists to reach an audience and share their art, which is the goal of virtually any musician. I have also released a composition of electronic music to the Internet on mp3.com, and although it has not recieved as much attention as my father’s works, I have enjoyed creating a work of art that others can enjoy.

Amy Hormon declared in her New York Times article that, “the fact that you copyrighted something simply may no longer entitle you to control it or get paid for it” (1). This has always been true because the copyright laws are so hard to enforce on so many people. But is it true that “if you don’t protect intellectual property, most people won’t bother creating things” (Cothran 149)? What happened to the musician or artist, who wrote, sang, played, painted, or sculpted for his or her own enjoyment and for the enrichment of others. Of course it is not their only purpose, but it is part of their motivation. I believe that as long as there are people to indulge in the music, there will be musicians to create it. And the Internet is just a forum to disperse that music. The general public should open its eyes, especially those older, less in-touch individuals, so that we do not lose the great privileges we have from regulation-free Internet.

The approach the courts have taken on this issue is controversial because those who make the decisions are not up to date on the subject and have not given the broader picture much thought. Judge Marilyn Patel’s decision to close Napster has only given rise to hundreds of other sites just like it. It is not these individual clients’ fault that the