The question of whether the internet facilitates or hinders
\nthe control of piracy is three pronged. Firstly, it must be acknowledged that
\nthe historical development of piracy and how technology has contributed to the
\nease of music and other forms of media reproduction distribution is not a new
\nphenomenon. This therefore means that specific reasons that set aside the
\ninternet as either a hinderer or facilitator of crime control require to be
\nidentified in order to fully illustrate the single handed impact of this
\ntechnology on the crime of piracy.<\/p>\n
Secondly, copyright protection law requires not only to be
\nexamined in terms of existing rules against copyright theft, but the specific
\ntreaties aimed at piracy within the digital era require detailed analysis.
\nThis also goes hand in hand with the examination of procedures specific to
\ninternet crime that are carried out by the international enforcement groups and
\ngovernment organisations that give the law their teeth.<\/p>\n
Thirdly and finally, as the question relates to whether or
\nnot the internet facilitates or hinders crime control, there will be an attempt
\nto explore the vague possibility that the internet may possibly be used as a
\npiracy prevention medium.<\/p>\n
Piracy is the breach of copyright that is perpetrated by the
\nillegal reproduction of, most commonly, music and video. The major
\ntechnological shifts are easily ascertainable as they tend to coincide with the
\nenactment of legislative amendments to tackle new mediums and the inauguration
\nof international institutions to protect and enforce the cause. An example of
\nsuch an institution is the International Federation of the Phonographic
\nIndustry (IFPI), which was set up in 1933,
\nand 1971, as a major turning point in video
\ntechnology, is the year of amendment of the Berne Convention and the Geneva
\nPhonograms Convention.<\/p>\n
This trend of tackling new technologies with new laws is also
\nseen with the WCT and the WPPT, which were enacted by the WIPO to tackle piracy in the
\nelectronic era. Piracy is now more widespread than ever with the use of the
\ninternet as the primary access and delivery point. The problem is an age old irony
\nin the law that facilitates the perpetuation of this behaviour by allowing the
\nsale and supply of recording and copying equipment but do not permit
\nreproduction for a purpose other than that permitted by the owner of the
\nintellectual property right.<\/p>\n
The typical set-up for hard copy distributions that began
\nlargely with cassettes and is now more prevalent with CD-R remains extremely
\nvaried in that it ranges from sophisticated crime syndicates with the ability
\nto access films, music and computer games prior to legitimate general release,
\nto the seemingly innocent copying of cassettes and CD’s for distribution to
\nfriends and family.<\/p>\n
The UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, carry a two-tiered motive for
\ncopyright protection, which is the moral overtone of recognition of authorship and the right to yield benefit in
\nthe form of financial remuneration. Aside from this, it is however
\nclear that motives for piracy differ greatly. On the one hand, there is the
\naverage individual seeking to save the cost of the product on the high street.
\nOn the other hand, organised crime, at the serious end of the scale, represents
\nfar higher dangers than the mere placement of the music and video industry into
\na position of lost profits that jeopardise future film production.<\/p>\n
The piracy concept, whose illegality is not entirely clear to
\nhardliners who resent the profits of record labels, becomes more than obvious
\nwhen taken into consideration with the dangers of organised crime. This
\nclearly designates piracy as a global danger that increases the financial
\ncapabilities of terrorists.<\/p>\n
There are three main types of piracy distribution via the
\ninternet. The first in the web file transfer protocol (ftp), which is the
\nprocess of creating a link-up to the site address that plays pirated music when
\naccessed. Such files can only be accessed or
\nplayed when the there is a link-up to the net but with the advent of
\nbroadband, the disadvantages of this were effectively eradicated on account of
\nability to access without disruption to the phone line. The creation of
\nunlimited access subscription, together with faster download speeds, solved the
\nproblem of limitations and periodic buffering that interrupted free flow of
\nreal-time file transfers.<\/p>\n
A second method of illegal distribution is that of the more
\ndamaging, illegal music providers, such as free download sites that generated
\nrevenue from separate advertising enticed by the huge volumes of traffic
\nthrough their sites. These often contained huge databases of music that were
\neasily downloadable. Similarly, P2P network up-loaders actively supply music
\nand DVDs on their own sites for the benefit of others to download.<\/p>\n
Finally there is the medium of hard copy CD-R distribution.
\nLitigation records also show that the vast majority of raids and lawsuits are
\ncarried out against the more regular form of pirate operations where tangible
\nmediums are created for the black market. Further to this, despite clear requirements for effective
\nremedies to act as a deterrent to the practice of copyright infringement, the
\noverwhelming cost of seizure and destruction of pirated goods is inhibiting to
\nthe cause. It may at first seem that such
\nactivities are not in keeping with the analysis of the internet as a medium
\nthat possibly hinders or facilitates the control of this crime. However, it
\nmust be remembered that the internet as a medium of electronic transmission is
\nan ideal way in which crime syndicates can transmit entire albums,
\ninstantaneously overseas, in order for foreign operations to manufacture
\nthousands of copies of their own.<\/p>\n
As well as the process of instantaneous transmission
\nfacilitated by email attachments for the purpose of sending music to be
\ndistributed in CD-R form, piracy that is facilitated by the internet phenomena
\ndiffers profoundly from the more traditional methods of piracy distribution on
\naccount of its intangible counterpart. The first reason is the simple fact
\nthat there is instant access from the comfort of ones own home to remote files. This has effectively turned the
\nconcept of illegal activity on its head by making it EASIER than the usual
\nlegal act of purchasing music and DVDs in a store. Prior to the internet,
\nthose who sought pirate copies of videos and cassettes had to physically seek
\nthe distributors whereas, until the enforcement of copyright laws in the
\ninternet in 2004, they were effectively more readily
\navailable than legal high street mediums. Ease of access led to a huge slump
\nin media revenue in 2003 and 2004.<\/p>\n
The second reason for the profound difference between
\ninternet and analogue piracy is that, old considerations of the analogue
\nmediums such as, poor quality, illegal video cassettes that spoil your viewing
\npleasure, are no longer an issue as digital
\nreproduction from the internet is capable of producing perfect copies of both
\nmovies and music. This is however more a result of the digital era as opposed
\nto the internet, when coupled with the concept that a single track, when
\nuploaded, has a global reach, it becomes clear that the internet, as a
\nworld-wide medium for the distribution of near perfect reproductions, which is
\na highly dangerous tool that greatly hinders control of the crime of piracy.<\/p>\n
There are four international treaties that
\ncurrently protect the interests of copyright owners. The first is the Berne
\nConvention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works that is administered by
\nthe WIPO and is the main protector of rights of authors
\nand composers to authorise or prohibit reproduction, widespread communication
\nand adaptation of their works. Secondly, the Rome Convention for the
\nProtection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
\nOrganisations is the treaty that protects the record producers
\nthemselves by creating rights for payment for the broadcast of products under
\ntheir labels. The third general international provision is that of the
\nUniversal Copyright Convention (UCC) which also protects
\nauthors and other copyright proprietors against unauthorised reproduction.
\nFinally, there is the TRIPS Agreement, which is administered by the World
\nTrade Organisation (WTO) and protects all trade related aspects of
\nintellectual property rights and binds obliged WTO members to the provisions of
\nthe above Berne Convention. The treaty also provides for a right to authorise
\nor prohibit commercial rental of works and also sets out detailed requirements
\nrelating to enforcement such as the requirement for remedies and procedures
\nthat adequately deter piracy.<\/p>\n
The Geneva Convention for the Protection of
\nProducers of Phonograms Against Unauthorised Duplication of their Phonograms the
\nGeneva Phonograms Convention,
\ncame into force in 1971 and was created to combat the increasing phenomena of music piracy. It is
\nmore in tune with traditional methods of distribution, such as unauthorised
\nimport and distribution but the internet acts as a potential way round this by
\nfacilitating electronic transmission.<\/p>\n
There are two WIPO Copyright Treaties which are
\nspecifically drafted for the purpose of bringing copyright theft regulation
\ninto the digital age and therefore merit the greatest attention. The WIPP
\nCopyright Treaty (WCT) protects authors and the WIPO Performances and
\nPhonograms Treaty (WPPT) protects performers and phonogram producers.
\nThe main rights granted extend the copyright theft notion to distributions of
\ncomputer programs, unauthorised internet use and the protection of electronic
\nmethods of protection such as locked documents that hinder ability to remove or
\nalter programs.<\/p>\n
Unauthorised distribution of media products was
\nalways illegal on account of the above international treaties and 2004 saw a
\nconcerted effort on the part of IFPI after a slow reaction by
\ngovernments to react to the obvious drop in record sales that became greatly
\nexasperated by increased technological capabilities of broadband in the
\ndownloading of music and video files.<\/p>\n
Since 2004, there has been a huge increase in
\ninternet piracy prosecutions, which are a direct result of the work of
\ninternational organisations representing the cause. Further to this, a number
\nof initiatives, designed to curtail public use of pirate services, have also
\nbeen implemented across the world.<\/p>\n
The IFPI is an organisation that was set up by
\nthe International Standards Organisation (ISO) in order to represent the
\nrecording industry in over 75 countries that contain nearly 1450 record
\nlabels. Among its priorities is the specific focus to concentrate on the
\nprosperity of the recording industry in the new digital era. In order to
\nachieve this objective, its activities include, anti-piracy enforcement,
\ngovernment lobbying to the cause and litigation against copyright thieves. An
\nexample is of a crackdown that took place in Spain
\nfollowing an IFPI circulation by the Spanish Recording Industry Group, AFYVE,
\nof IFPI’s Copyright Use and Security Guides. This awareness campaign, which
\nwas targeted at Spanish universities, aided in teaching educational
\ninstitutions of the dangers of transmitting copyright material. The crackdown
\nwas on an operation that was intruding on University networks to transmit
\nthousands of pirated music and video software.<\/p>\n
The IFPI encourages use of an International
\nStandard Recording Code (ISRC)
\nwhich is encoded onto a product thereby providing it with a unique serial
\nnumber. The use of this method is an ideal tool for the identification of
\nillegal copying in pirate industries. However, it is clear that this method of
\ntagging has drawbacks when taking into consideration the phenomenon of
\ninternet piracy. This is because internet piracy churns out millions of
\nillegal copies of music and music videos that are scattered all over the
\nworld. The key to enforcement no longer lies in the identification of the copy
\nas illegal, but in the coordinated location of website engineers responsible
\nfor uploads and illegal download services and the immediate shutdown of their
\noperations.<\/p>\n
One of the key methods used by the IFPI of
\nlobbying for government to enforce and even create their own copyright laws is
\nprovided via the regular compilation of market research and global industry
\nstatistics that illustrate record sales declines as a result of pirate
\nactivities. The way in which this is channelled is via a number of regional
\noffices that are located across the globe and they work closely together with
\nnational groups. It is however true that all of this cannot work without
\neffective enforcement mechanisms that will countermand the effect that the
\ninternet has on hindering crime control.<\/p>\n
Following vast crackdowns, there have been a
\nnumber of instantaneous closures of illegal sites dedicated to piracy
\nof music and film but many still remain hidden without search engine guides.
\nThis was clearly a form of reducing the power of the internet as a medium for
\npiracy but would it be possible to use the internet to aid in law enforcement?
\nIn truth, the only strength that could be drawn from the internet’s power is
\nits possible use as a method for detecting transmissions and intercepting them
\nvia a cyber police scan. However, there are a myriad of human rights factors
\nto take into consideration, especially in relation to privacy under Article 8
\nof the European Convention for Human Rights. In any case, where one route for
\nthe transmission of albums and DVDs is located, the pirates will simply create
\nanother.<\/p>\n
There is no way of preventing pirate
\ntransmissions via the web. On the contrary, it has been established that the
\ninternet is a powerful tool for the facilitation of instant access to entire
\nalbums for networks of colluding crime syndicates.<\/p>\n
Analysis of the ways in which piracy may be
\ncarried out via the net also shows that mechanisms of enforcement are all
\ngeared towards reducing the power of this medium as opposed to exploiting it by
\ncreating a cyber watchdog.<\/p>\n
Finally the sheer power of the internet in its
\nglobal reach, convenience of use and transmission of perfect quality copies,
\nmake it the most threatening addition to copyright infringement tools, thereby
\nrendering it a clear hindrance to control of the crime of piracy. It is also
\nworth noting that this hindrance will only increase as the sophistication of
\nthe information highway will one day facilitate more widespread downloading of
\nfull DVDs.<\/p>\n
Internet Law and Piracy Essays – Use Our Free Law Essays To Help You With Your Law Course<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[85],"class_list":["post-1007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essaysgeneral-law","tag-uk-law"],"yoast_head":"\n