Digital Music: A New Era
Music sharing over peer to peer networks is a part of everyday life. I know myself, I used to, and still do trade numerous albums online. After all, our culture partially revolves around music. From Shakespearian sonnets to roadside bands, music allows us to express our emotions freely. In the recent past, the entertainment industry has been bearing down on the "illegal" trade of music, suing hundreds of users. It would seem the music industry has come to a realization it's losing a portion of its monopoly to ordinary individuals since the arrival of Napster. There is possibly a bright future for peer to peer networks. In order to understand this technology we must understand how it evolved and any implications for future development.Peer to peer networking (P2P) is defined as, "A communications model in which each party has the same capabilities and either party can initiate a communication session ". In more simplistic terms we could characterize P2P networking as an express communication route between computers, where neither side is the client or server. P2P networks officially surfaced in the late 1970's and early 1980's with the rise of USENET and FIDONET. Both applications were create
If these opinions are correct, we're not ripping off musicians, only the monopoly that preys upon their talent. The leading argument behind music sharing is, music is supposed to be about free expression, not about sales and profits. Many associations have an equally valid argument against music sharing. Digital music sharing can be argued as an advertising device that draws fans to otherwise empty concerts. d surrounding the general idea of mass application sharing between cooperative machines. Until the governments of the world take a firmer united stance on what is legal and what's not, the file sharing networks that are still children in their own right will continue to mature. Realistically speaking, recent lawsuits have only dented the music sharing community slightly. Unlike today, acquiring digital music in late 1990's was difficult because you either had to be in a music sharing group (cooperative sharing between select machines) or locate individuals on IRC who had the select music. Though the technology took nearly a decade to explode, by late 1996 there were over 4,000 real time users and approximately eighty scattered servers world wide. The music industry was quickly struck down by a Los Angeles Judge stating, "The defendants distribute and support software, the users of which can and do choose to employ it for both lawful and unlawful ends. " The ruling was a major blow to the music industry, but not a huge surprise considering US copyright laws stated that the responsibility lay with the users of the product and not the manufacture itself. Less CD's sold, means less profits just not for the artists, but for the companies that sell the product. " The fact is the only artists making money off records are the large stage bands such as Our Lady Peace and Blink 182. The ruling in fact was paralleled by the 1984 Supreme Court ruling that was the landmark of the policy that protected manufactures of copying hardware products such as VCR's and photocopiers from infringement lawsuits.
Common topics in this essay:
Networks Music,
United America,
Peace Blink,
Little Jarkko,
Supreme Court,
Morpheus Limewire,
Grokster StreamCast,
Shawn Fanning,
Italian Napster,
USENET FIDONET,
music sharing,
music industry,
digital music,
peer peer,
peer networks,
peer peer networks,
sharing networks,
relay chat irc,
file sharing,
simply impossible,
sharing cooperative,
argument music,
argument music sharing,
music sharing networks,
music sharing community,
|
Acceptance Essays
