Intellectual Property Law: Protection Of Derivative Works
PARA 4002 - Intellectual Property
University of Cincinnati
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
The advent of digital technologies has changed operational principles of many industries and
businesses. Primarily, this has concerned the way how users access and retrieve information,
which switched on different techniques on data protection and digital distribution. Many
cultural industries were forced to adopt different strategies for survival, as their past age
distribution schemes became irrelevant. It is still arguable whether digitalisation of copyrights,
speaking a business language, was an opportunity or a threat, but some processes that happened
through the recent decades are worth analysing in order to come to a logical conclusion. So, it
is argued that derivative works should be actually protected, since spreading awareness through
inspiration is still an own work of the individual.
To explain this reasoning, it is worth considering the case of music industry. Music industry as
a cultural construct has been always related with targeting different groups of listeners
depending on their cultural preferences. Promoting music to masses has put a start to the
evolution of selling music albums and records through establishment of phonographic industry,
where the rise of companies like Warner Music Group, EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, and
Universal Music Group has been observed. The main problem existed before an advent of
music digitalization is that records were provided in limited amount carried on audio tape, CD
or LP, which were a subject for a pricing policy determined by the copyright owners. In this
way, for example, a single record by a good reputation singer could cost five times more than
an album of an industry starter, which has certainly had clear elements of industry
monopolisation. The first historical milestone that changed the perception of music industry as
costly monopoly could be dated in 1998, when Shawn Fanning introduced Napster. Napster
introduced user-friendly interface that allowed free downloading and transferring MP3 files
between individual users connected through Internet, which included copyrighted videos and
music files. Since copyright owners have not been compensated for this revolutionary online
distribution method, introduction of Napster has been considered as an advent of digital music
piracy. Napster has brought a start to the great development of P2P (peer-to-peer) sharing
services that allowed data sharing through a simple installation of the program to personal
computer and stable Internet connection. Kazaa, Morpheus and Bit Torrent has adopted more
advanced algorithms of data exchange which allowed trading music online and exchange of
larger data formats of a higher quality. Such shift in data availability has struggled both music
industry leaders, and the entertainment industry overall, which has small but valuable
percentage of country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) index. Industry leaders in conjunction
with governments have been trying to seek for possible problem resolutions in forms of P2P
witch hunting, prohibiting digital piracy and heavily criticizing this in media. Users, in their
turn, appeared to be more resourceful, asking for the rationale behind copyrighting music that
has been already purchased. Debates around the legality of music sharing through P2P
applications concern two sets of rights: economic and human. Regarding the music industry,
the first group of rights includes, for instance, the rights of reproduction, broadcasting, public
performance, adaptation, translation or recitation, while the second concerns author's right to
object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his work.
Economic and human rights are subsets of copyright principle, which formulates the rules for
existence of cultural industries. These rules assume that copyright owners (authors and
composers) interact with related rights owners, mostly performers or broadcast organization,
which in their turn a granted license to deliver the product to the customers, which are listeners.
Introduction of P2P sharing has actually damaged this process, since the need for license has
disappeared. Industry related institutions, like collective management organizations (CMOs)
responsible for copyright laws against the unlicensed digital product distribution, have started
to seek for techniques of multi regional licensing with online music available across the world.
Another fact, which is not clearly covered by policy makers in CMOs, is the mediating effect
the file sharing has on listeners. While having an opportunity to listen to the record and evaluate
its quality prior to the purchase, listeners are likely to engage into the more interactive
experience sharing. PRS Music, for example, confirmed that revenues from live concerts have
been growing even in times of P2P sharing evolution, so physical presence is still important
for the digital age. Users actually have more ways to interact with music companies by
downloading licensed content, and more important they would be willing to do that as a simpler
mean of communication. For the music industry, it means that instead of heavy policy making
and criticizing P2P file sharing. CMOs should seek for more intense collaboration with IT
companies on development of applications that are using advanced encryption algorithms that
prevent unauthorized content access. Andersen (2010) articulated an example of Digital
Economy Act, which had an adverse effect through "permitting the slowing down or temporary
suspension of broadband connections to households" attempting to regulate unsolicited access.
Another perspective is that governments frequently introduce initiatives to protect copyright
laws, but alternatively attempt to limit the freedom of information sharing. Stop Online Piracy
Act, also known as SOPA, is a United States bill introduced to Senate on October 26, 2011,
and aimed at expanding the powers of the legislation to prosecute online property theft and
allow copyright owners take legal action against piracy intermediaries (including search
engines, payment services, and ISPs). An intermediary in this case is any agent that supplies
money and traffic to web sites that have pirated content The bill is capable of forcing such
intermediaries cut off their connections with pirate sites; otherwise, the bill holds that they are
to face lawsuits.
Generally, the Act has a good intention of protecting copyright holders against illegal action. It
should also be stated that the Act is targeted at protecting intellectual property rights as well as
jobs at content making (films, music and books as well as other forms of copyrighted material).
It can be acknowledged that businesses need more strong protection against piracy, especially,
against piracy on foreign websites; moreover, search engines have to trim their incomes from
advertisement on piracy holding sites. The Act will ensure that search engines would display
only legal content when asked for a film or song download. However, the Act has certain
drawbacks that lie primarily within the premise of providing an enough definition of piracy.
This leads to a situation when legal websites, unaware of the fact that they are holding illegal
content, are going to be prosecuted for links that users post. In the Web 2. 0 era, when social
networks appear to be the locomotive of the Internet, this provision endangers the very nature
of online networking. This may not be the issue for large companies; meanwhile, start-ups will
find it difficult to bear the costs of lawsuits. Another issue arises for websites that host links to
content stored on servers overseas. Since American law is unable to fight Internet piracy
overseas, SOPA will be used to combat local content owners that lead users to unverified
sources of information. The greatest fear of SOPA opponents is that the Act would enable
legislators and prosecutors to close search engines and Internet domains for links that are
posted by users. One more problem that arises with SOPA being put to action is tightly
connected with Internet architecture. The main problem is that the Act requires Internet Service
Providers (ISPs) to install filters to pirated content. Those filters would limit access to pirated
content on the "hardware" basis. However, this suggests that such filters could damage the
internal addressing system of the Internet. Such forms of filtering are likely to increase costs
and provoke new security issues for ISPs. The Act received enormous attention online, both in
the United States and globally. It was opposed by multiple renowned Internet domains and their
owners. Among the opponents were Wikipedia, Google, Mozilla and Reddit that blacked out
their websites and posted links to the bill as well as multiple infografics explaining the major
problems behind SOPA. Eric Schmidt (Google's CEO) stated that the Act was a shortcut for
online censorship. In general, fears of SOPA center on the assumption that the Act limits
freedom of speech in the United States.
