The document discusses the history of copyright law as it relates to technological advances in the music industry. As technology has evolved from piano rolls to MP3 files to online streaming, it has enabled easier copying and sharing of music, which recording labels have tried to prevent through establishing and updating copyright laws. However, copyright infringement has still flourished with new technologies. The recording industry has sued file sharing sites like Napster and taken legal action against individual downloaders, but has struggled to fully stop illegal music sharing online. The future of the music industry remains uncertain as copyright infringement remains widespread.

1. Aleia Hollands
Mrs. Corbett
4th Period AP Literature
November 18, 2011
Copyright Infringement in the Recording Industry
Technological revolutions made in the recording industry since the late 1990s aimed to
increase the growth of music and the profits of the recording labels. However, despite these new
advances, music sales decreased over two billion dollars since 2000 (Sanders 296). In an age
where technology constantly grows, it becomes easier for people to connect from all over the
world and in a matter of seconds. Thus, technology makes stealing music, known as copyright
infringement, that much easier. Technology,which intended to boost recording labels’ profits, did
quite the opposite and ultimately has become their downfall. Now labels have established a three
step process to fight the growing copyright infringement. Their goals include establishing up-to-
date copyright laws carrying out lawsuits against music file sharing networks and the individuals
who illegally download music in order to set an example for all others.
Copyright originally intended to protect the creativity of the author or producer of a work
and also to protect the actual work itself (Jackson 194). Lawmakers assumed that if anyone could
take a work and call it his without giving credit or payment to the original creator, then there
would be no incentive for artists, authors, musicians, and other inventors to continue in their
profession. Also, anyone could take a work and alter it without the creator’s permission.
Therefore, England established the first copyright law in 1710 (Jackson 193). However,
copyright laws left the public without access to a majority of creative works; therefore, the
United States law introduced the concept of Fair Use. “Fair use allows someone to copy, without

2. Hollands 2
permission, portions of the author's expression in limited circumstances for purposes such as
criticism, comment, teaching, news reporting, or research” (Jackson 194). This law was
introduced after certain debates about the First Amendment of free speech and whether or not
people were allowed to quote or use piece of a work in order to research or critique a work. Fair
Use exceptions also allow teachers to use portions of copyrighted works for the purpose of
education. However, if a person uses the work for commercial or profitable means then Fair Use
does not apply (Ghosh 188). Once copyright was introduced into the United States, it expanded
as technology grew.
As these copyright laws, specifically for music, passed into being, musicians, labels and
companies would inevitably challenge them. First, the Apollo Company began selling piano rolls
in 1908.Piano rolls allowed a piano to play music without a pianist present. This introduced the
issue of whether or not the piano rolls should be copyrighted. Initially, the Supreme Court ruled
that the rolls were not a tangible product, such as sheet music, and therefore could not be
copyrighted. However, the Copyright Act of 1909 extended protection to “mechanical
reproductions of music” (Ghosh 185). Then, the issue of cassette tapes occurred when people
could record music onto tape. Congress responded by making an amendment to the 1909
Copyright Act to include sound recordings. However, bands remained unsatisfied because fans
could record their live performances and share them. In 1994, Congress amended this as well by
extending the amendment, making it illegal to “record live performances without the permission
of the performing musicians” (Ghosh 187). These disagreements about copyright law only began
the drawn out legal battles caused by new technology.
MP3 files created an uproar among recording labels when they emerged in 1998 as a
threat to the labels’ sales. These Moving Picture Experts Group Level 3 files, shortened to MP3

3. Hollands 3
files, significantly reduced the size of audio files without impairing the quality of the music.
Soon after the emergence of the condensed files, MP3 players created a way to store the digital
music files on a portable device. Not only could they hold the files, but the players could store at
least an hour of music, and the owner could exchange the music as often as he or she wished. In
1998, recording companies began to sue the makers of the MP3 players; however, they lost the
case because the files were not always obtained by illegal means (“Music and Movies”).
Musicians such as The Beastie Boys, Tom Petty and Prince decided to release their new albums
before the albums’ actual release dates when they realized how popular these files had become
among their fans. However, these artists’ record labels found out about these online releases and
asked the musicians to remove the files from the internet. Tom Petty’s label reported that “the
advance Tom Petty single was downloaded 150,000 times in the forty-eight hours that it was
available” (Fischer 848). Online digital files presented opportunities for increased piracy of
music as well as paved the way for further digital music technology.
As radio stations became popular, debate occurred as to whether or not musicians should
get a profit from their songs playing over the radio. This debate initiated when a musician, Paul
Whiteman, recorded his music but did not wish for his music to play over the radio. In an attempt
to prevent this, he attached a notice to each of his records stating “Not Licensed for Radio
Broadcast” (Kilgore 558). When W.B.O. Broadcast aired his songs, Whiteman sued the radio
station. However, the judge ruled that Whiteman would not get paid for the use of his songs
because the station bought the record and the station simply “put that copy to its intended use”
(Kilgore 559). Then, after MP3 files were introduced, programmers created online radio
stations that could stream from a computer. These stations would either play exact songs
that the user requested or played songs that the station would recommend based on the
user’s taste in music. Record labels felt threatened by this freedom of choice by users,

4. Hollands 4
claiming, “If consumers could have the ability to listen to any songs they wanted to –
whenever they wanted to – for free, why would they ever bother purchasing CDs?”
(Hoffman 1521). Initially the Digital Millennium Copyright Act established one flat rate for
the interactive radio stations to pay record labels. However, this proved difficult for the
stations to pay due to their lack of profit from advertisements alone. In 2002, the Copyright
Arbitration Royalty Panel established a pay per song method which cost only $0.0014 per
song. Then, the Library of Congress rejected both of these plans and set a $0.0007 per song
royalty with a minimum payment of $500 per channel (Hoffman 1524). Royalties
successfully satisfied the recording industry, but it also caused many radio stations to shut down
due to lack of funds.
Recording labels spent their time, money and human capital on fighting for their
copyrights. Despite all of their efforts to establish law, people find ways to illegally download
and share music. Currently, the most common problem lies in peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
Shawn Fanning initiated these popular sharing sites when he created Napster in 1999. His
network allowed users to post their favorite songs as well as search for their favorite songs and
download them immediately without paying. After a short time he had millions of downloads.
However, Fanning’s genius site attracted the attention of The Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA). Fanning attempted to use the Fair Use defense, as well as claiming that his
network did “no irreparable harm to the labels” (Moseley 313). His attempts did not convince the
court and by 2001, the RIAA effectively shut down the ever-popular Napster. Despite the court’s
success, smaller and lesser known peer-to-peer sharing networks will always exist. Once the
RIAA eliminates one sharing website or software, someone creates another.
After the RIAA initiated the lawsuits against the file sharing networks, they continued
their plan against infringement by carrying out lawsuits against the individuals who illegally

5. Hollands 5
downloaded copyrighted music. One of the more popular lawsuits out of millions involves a
college student, Whitney Harper, who downloaded 544 songs and the music industry sued her for
34 of those songs for $750 each. Considering that the law allows a recording company to sue a
copyright infringer for statutory damages ranging anywhere between $750 at the least to $30,000
per song at the most, the proposed fines seem comparatively light. Harper claimed “innocent
infringement” which means that she, as a naïve and young adult, did not realize that she
infringed upon any copyrights. Then, Harper furthered her defense by saying that the record
companies did not give a visible or proper notice of copyrights. However, the courts ultimately
decided that because of the readily available knowledge on copyrights, Harper could not rely on
the innocent infringement defense, and her sentence remained at $750 in statutory damages for
the 34 songs that she downloaded (Sanders 300). Music and recording industries relayed their
message to the public that they would not tolerate copyright infringement. However, it remains
impossible to file a lawsuit against every individual person who illegally downloads music from
the internet.
Despite their best efforts, the RIAA and other recording labels and associations cannot
stop all of the copyright infringement when the internet provides such easy and quick access to
millions of people and millions of songs. Many people debate whether or not music should
remain copyrighted when copyright infringement seems inevitable and impossible to eradicate.
Ironically enough, music labels have proven that “the more a song is given away, the more it
sells” (Alexander 74). When musicians give music to the people for free, the band and the label
that produces them become increasingly popular. Popularity not only provides for more legally
paid for downloads but also more sales in merchandising and live performances. Fans of Napster
formed an alliance against the music industries, taking a “music belongs to the people” stance

6. Hollands 6
(Knight 185). Fans not only argue against paying for music, but they also argue against labels
receiving royalties from the musicians that provide the music. Five of the biggest recording
companies control over sixty percent of the music industry. (Fischer 846). Now, the “music
belongs to the people” movement carries out their attempts to revolt against the recording
industries. This movement has recruited the help of many famous musicians to help fight against
royalties through speeches and providing their own free music. However, it does not appear that
the recording industry intends to give up on their attempts to stop illegal downloading. Today,
without any truly effective way of preventing copyright infringement, one can only question
what will happen next for the music industry.