UK Copyright and File Sharing Essay Example

1988.

Introduced in 1998, Napster was the pioneering form of file sharing. Developed by US university student Shawn Fanning, it enabled users to share music through a peer-to-peer (P2P) system. This involved connecting their computer program to Napster servers' central host. With this application, users could search for and download songs based on their preferences.

The Napster server used search criteria to scan its song index and transfer files between users and remote Napster peers. Sharing was enabled by requiring users to upload their music collection to other peers, creating a centralized P2P network. Although Napster connected peers through a main server, it did not host the music files themselves. According to Ingram (2001), Napster had 17 million users in the US alone by February 2001. However, some months later, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued Napster, resulting in the company's closure through a court injunction.

The emergence of P2P websites like eDonkey, Kazaa, and LimeWire in the early 2000s was greatly influenced by Napster. However, a new era of P2P file sharing began with the development of the BitTorrent protocol. This protocol improved the availability, integrity, and accessibility of shared content. Unlike Napster, BitTorrent operates as a decentralized network where users contribute parts of files and share them until everyone completes their download. To participate, users need to install a client on their computer and obtain a small file called a "torrent" that connects to a "tracker." The tracker identifies other users who have segments of the file and facilitates uploading to the user's client for assembly. In contrast to Napster's original protocol, BitTorrent allows simultaneous downloading from multiple

users who possess the file, resulting in significant enhancements in transfer speeds.

The British government has passed legislation to decrease the use of file-sharing methods, as they have become more popular in recent years. However, according to research conducted by the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy, "at least seven million people" (Telegraph, 2009) illegally download content. To prove this point, a website called "ITunes Registry" was created to collect usage statistics from 5,600 users who volunteered their information. A blog found on the internet (see Appendix II) discovered that, on average, 64% of the songs in users' collections were never played. Thus, it would be unfair for users to pay for music they do not listen to. This suggests that a significant portion of the music users listen to is likely obtained illegally from the internet.

The reliability of this source is doubtful because users had to manually upload their statistics from iTunes software, which may not accurately represent all iTunes users, especially those who are less tech-savvy. The research might also overstate British usage patterns and lack accuracy. However, it does provide broader evidence of the extent of P2P file sharing and the challenges faced by the government in prosecuting numerous file sharers. Intrigued by my findings, I decided to interview someone who succinctly summarized why people engage in online piracy, stating, "Why would I buy something when I can get it for free?" (Appendix I).

The creative industries have suffered significant financial losses due to file sharing, resulting in the loss of millions of pounds in retail sales revenue. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) took action by shutting

down Napster after recognizing these challenges (BBC News, 2003). European research conducted by Hunt (2010) also confirms the negative economic impact on these industries caused by file sharing. Specifically, it is predicted by the International Chamber of Commerce that online piracy could lead to a loss of 250,000 jobs in the UK by 2015 (Hunt, 2010).

In 2008, a study revealed that around ten billion Euros were lost. However, it is important to consider that some figures may be misleading due to the assumption made in the report that illegal downloads are equal to legitimate sales. Previous research indicates this assumption is incorrect, as 64% of illegally downloaded music files on iTunes remain unheard. Although the '10 billion Euros' encompasses all pirated content and not just the music industry, doubts may arise regarding the accuracy of financial and job loss statistics. Nevertheless, it is clear that these creative industries have suffered greatly, resulting in numerous legal actions against file sharers under the Copyright Act within approximately the past five years.

Research suggests that the alleged negative effects of file sharing on different industries have been overstated. The music industry company, The Leading Question, found that individuals who engage in file sharing actually spend more money on buying music downloads compared to regular fans. This discovery, along with other studies, indicates that illegal sharing of music may not significantly harm sales within the industry. Additionally, this research might also be relevant to the film industry as many movies are accessible through P2P networks.

According to a BBC News research in 2005, the findings on "music fans" may not represent all file sharing users.

However, illegal music sharing has significantly decreased recently. A study by Music Ally shows that between December 2007 and January 2009, music file sharing declined by 5%. Among individuals aged 14 to 18 years old, this decrease was 16% during the same period. It should be noted that these statistics may not apply to other forms of shared content due to major changes in the music industry in 2008 and 2009. To combat file sharing, many websites started offering affordable individual music tracks instead of promoting expensive albums. As a result, more fans began purchasing single track downloads rather than using illegal methods (The Leading Question, n.d.).

Although the creative industries argue that file sharing is greatly impacting their profits, the actual harm is not likely to have extensive economic repercussions. However, it is important to consider the government's responsibility and potential legislation to address and limit this activity.

The act of illegally sharing copyrighted content in the UK can result in prosecution under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act of 1988. This legislation is designed to acknowledge the efforts of creators and places limitations on how others can utilize their work. A wide range of artistic creations can now be safeguarded under this act, including photographs, video games, TV shows, and software. Once a piece of work is protected, unauthorized actions such as copying, modifying, distributing, or publicly presenting it are prohibited without consent from the copyright holder (Ayres, 1999).

The internet is often considered a "Copyright free Zone" due to its convenient access to protected works. Google, the widely used global website and search engine, permits users to copy images through

its "Image Search" service. Even though the webpage acknowledges that these images may be copyrighted, the average computer user typically ignores this information since there is no explanation of what "Copyright" entails. This lack of awareness regarding copying images from Google or participating in Peer-to-Peer file sharing poses a substantial problem that necessitates government intervention in the form of copyright legislation and enforcement against infringement.

The private sector publishers are facing a challenge in addressing file sharing and recovering their lost revenue without government intervention. The increase in internet users has led to a rise in copyright infringement. The World Wide Web acts as a vast network of international information communication, making it challenging for content publishers to enforce their rights due to different national laws affecting various websites.

Despite retaining the right to protect their content, I find it impractical for these publishers to pursue legal action against infringers because of the sheer number of individuals involved in sharing content. This issue lacks a single perpetrator and, from my perspective, even prosecuting ten thousand individuals for copyright violation would not deter others from breaking the law.

The UK's Copyright Law has remained the same since 1991, despite the growing need for updated legislation to address internet copyright infringement. To acknowledge the challenges faced by creative industries and tackle this issue, Lord Mandelson, the government's business secretary, has taken on the responsibility of implementing new laws. This led to the introduction of the Digital Economy Bill on June 12th, 2010. The objective of this bill is to reduce illegal file sharing by "70%" (BBC News, 2010) within one year.

The proposed bill aims

to hold Internet Service Providers (ISP's) responsible for dealing with file sharing. Khan (2009) states that ISPs must send multiple letters to offenders, and if this proves ineffective, they can limit their internet access. Furthermore, the bill empowers the government to block any website from British public access if they consider it necessary.

The new bill has caused dissatisfaction among numerous ISPs, who argue that the costs of communication and reducing connections for 10,000 to 40,000 subscribers could lead to consumers paying up to i??500m (Fiveash, 2009). This reduction in profit margins is a significant concern for ISPs. Furthermore, Google Inc. and other companies question the need for limiting access to websites since users will inevitably find ways to bypass these restrictions. Many ISPs have already voiced their concerns about the bill to the government. TalkTalk, an ISP, has taken a stronger stance by refusing to comply with the bill and actively campaigning against it online. They urge individuals, businesses, and other ISPs to reject it. A group of ISPs plans to formally challenge the bill after the upcoming general election.

Despite the government's plans for the new bill facing considerable scrutiny, there are supporters who believe in its potential. Specifically, the music industry is cautiously optimistic that the Digital Economy bill will supplement the progress already made in reducing music piracy among youngsters. They believe that this bill will effectively discourage current methods of P2P sharing. They also anticipate that the creative industries will flourish now that the music industry can invest additional revenue into developing new digital content. While I personally do not share the belief that the industry will flourish

and expect much of the extra revenue to be reinvested, I do think it will help in repairing the damage suffered by the music industry in the past decade. (cmumusicnews, 2010)

Although the Digital Economy bill may bring advantages to the music industry, it can also benefit all file sharers. Typically, these individuals worry about the potential risks of being caught and having their computers infected with malware. Malware is unwanted software that compromises data confidentiality, integrity, and availability. It commonly enters a victim's computer through file sharing. By discouraging content sharing, the government not only reduces the risk of computer misuse but also protects individuals' computers from malware.

Online piracy has been a subject of intense debate lately, and regardless of the measures taken by the government, there will always be considerable resistance to their efforts. The creative industries aim to overcome their decreasing sales by eradicating file sharing entirely, but this is an unattainable solution. Ceasing content production altogether is the only way to accomplish this objective, which is highly improbable. Numerous file sharers are oblivious to the fact that they are participating in illegal activities. Instead of implementing ineffective and potentially unethical regulations, wouldn't it be more productive to engage with these individuals?

The internet is a decentralized network that cannot be easily regulated. As long as computer nodes are connected physically, the ability to share files remains. The government should reconsider disconnecting file sharers due to implementation challenges. While censoring the internet may discourage some casual file sharers, people will always find ways to continue sharing files regardless of the government's actions. Moreover, implementing internet restrictions similar to

those in China raises ethical concerns regarding internet censorship in Britain.

The government's attempts to protect creative content, like the Digital Economy bill and Copyright act, are not a cost-effective strategy. These measures will not effectively achieve their desired goals. However, I fully support the government's commitment to educating the public about copyright infringement through continuous advertising.

Appendices

Appendix I: Interview with an anonymous University of Warwick student

Do you distribute music, movies, games, or software from your computer?

I engage in file sharing by regularly swapping music, movies, and games. Moreover, I actively contribute to the file-sharing community by seeding content, usually doing so twice a week.

How did you discover file sharing and when did you begin sharing your content?

Around 4 or 5 years ago, my friend introduced me to a method of obtaining free stuff. Despite having poor internet connection at the time, I now have faster access and use it more frequently.

Are you aware that file sharing is against the law?

Yes, I am aware that the original CDs are costly and it is convenient to download them. You can get authentic prints of movies. If I have the option, why would I buy something when I can get it for free?

Q. Does this discourage you from downloading content? How would you react to the government imposing harsher penalties for file sharing?

If the government starts imprisoning people and imposing heavy fines for sharing files, I would probably avoid doing it at home. However, I would feel safer engaging in file sharing on a public hotspot because

the chances of getting caught are lower. This is because multiple users share one IP address, making it difficult to identify individuals.

Is it possible for the government to decrease file sharing or is it inevitable? If reduction is possible, what steps should be implemented?

The expense of content today makes it difficult to prevent its sharing, as there will always be ways for society to share content.

Big music labels and industries are pressuring the government to introduce laws through lobbying. Sony, a recording artist that already earns significant profits, is unnecessary to make a fuss about file sharing.

Given the increasing number of individuals involved in file sharing, it has become challenging to effectively combat this practice. It is improbable that all participants in file sharing will be promptly incarcerated, correct?

Appendix II: Statistics collected from uploaded iTunes Information

The 2006 article "What's on your iPod?" by Plamere is available on the Sun Blogs website. You can access it at http://blogs.sun.com/plamere/entry/what_s_on_your_ipod. This information was retrieved on April 21, 2010.The tag `

` is utilized to centrally align the text "Webliography".

The image titled "digital-britain_1530933c.jpg" by Mandelson (n.d.) is available at this link. Accessed on 4th May 2010.

The source titled "Recording Industry giants vie for Napster user base" by Ingram,M (2001), is found on the World Socialist Web Site. The article is available online at http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/nap-m03.shtml and was accessed on 29 March 2010.The article "Illegal Downloads used by seven million in Britain" was published by The Telegraph in 2009. The online version of the article can be found at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/5406577/Illegal-downloads-used-by-seven-million-in-Britain.html. It was last accessed on April 2nd,

2010.The BBC News (2003) published an online article on 26 June about the music labels' efforts to catch internet 'pirates'. The article can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3021126.stm and was last visited on 1 April 2010.

According to Hunt (2010), Europe could potentially lose i??215 billion by 2015 due to illegal file sharing. The article, which was published on 18th March by thinkbroadband, can be found at http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4186-illegal-file-sharing-in-europe-could-cost-215-billion-by-2015.html. This information was last accessed on 7th April 2010.

The text states that the downloading "myths" are being challenged according to an article from BBC News published in 2005. The article can be accessed online with a link provided and was accessed on April 7, 2010. The text is aligned center on the page.The Leading Question (n.d.) reports that music sharing among UK teens has decreased by 33%. According to MusicAlly, the study can be found online at http://www.musically.com/theleadingquestion/downloads/090713-filesharing.pdf and was accessed on 7 April 2010.The text below, which includes and their contents, has beenand unified:

Alexa (2010) provides online search analytics for google.com. [Accessed on 4 May 2010]. Visit http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/google.com for more information.

The Digital Economy Bill Q&A is an online article from BBC News in 2010. It was accessed on April 1, 2010, through the link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8604602.stm.The article "Powers to disconnect pirates in Digital Economy Bill" by Khan, A (2009) was published online in the Telegraph on 18 November. It can be accessed at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/6597780/Powers-to-disconnect-pirates-in-Digital-Economy-Bill.html and was last accessed on 13 April 2010.

According to Fiveash (2009), ISPs are dissatisfied with the high cost, which amounts to millions of pounds, associated with the Digital Economy Bill. The article is available on

The Register website on 28 December 2009. Retrieved from http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/29/digital_economy_bill_isps/ on 13 April 2010.

The music industry has expressed its support for the Digital Economy Act, as reported by cmumusicnews (2010) on theCMUwebsite. The industry is welcoming the act and views it as a positive development. For more information, please visit http://newsblog.thecmuwebsite.com/post/Music-industry-welcomes-Digital-Economy-Act.aspx. Accessed on 27 April 2010.

Bibliography

The text below should not beas it contains specific formatting instructions using .

The book "Understanding Online Privacy: The Truth About illegal File Sharing" was authored by N.W. Fisk and published in 2009 by Praeger Publishers Inc. It can be found on Cremona Drive, Santa Barbara.

Reference:

Fisk, N.W (2009) Understanding Online Privacy: The Truth About illegal File Sharing. 1st edn. Cremona Drive, Santa Barbara. Praeger Publishers inc.