“Music, Video & Movie File Sharing: Trends & Implications”
In light of the rapid advancements in computer, digital and internet technologies, consumers and other end-users have begun to acquire illegal copies of copyright material in the privacy of their own homes.
Instead of purchasing such illegitimate copies from the street vendor, they have discovered that it is far more efficient and cost-effective to download them from certain internet websites or through peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks.
They may further decide to share these digital copies with others on the Internet or P2P file-sharing communities.
In the process, however, they inadvertently expose themselves to civil action for having committed primary acts of copyright infringement, and may even face criminal prosecution if primary infringers like themselves are found guilty of willful infringements of copyright. (Singapore Copyright Act section 136(3A))
If, however, you obtained the music from an illegal source (e.g. from a P2P website) where a licence has not been paid for or obtained, you would be infringing upon the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make a sound recording under s82 of the Copyright Act. If the amount of infringement is considered to be “significant”, you may be liable under both civil and criminal law. Upon a successful prosecution, the levy is as follows: 1st offence – fine not exceeding S$20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. 2nd and subsequent offence – fine not exceeding S$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.
=====================
I just came back from the 20th Annual Singapore Law Review Lecture 2007. This year, the topic for discussion was Intellectual Property Law, specifically, its implications on technology.
Mr Bryan Tan, top Technology lawyer and founding Director of Keystone Law Corporation (one of the best IT/IP law firms in the region), explained that the reason why IP issues related to technology (specifically the Internet) is such a difficult area is because the rights involved are actually many different rights bundled together. For example, in every musical recording, there are the literary rights in the lyrics, rights also subsist in the musical score, there is also the performance rights owned by the artist, not to mention the arrangement (owned perhaps by someone else?), the distribution rights owned by the production company, and the list goes on. In this way, when someone commits an infringing act, they may be committing many different infringing acts. One can just imagine the implications!
One of the questions raised during the Q&A session, which I found very interesting , was what was the difference, if any, between a person downloading content from the Internet (perhaps from a P2P website) and someone recording the same content when it is broadcasted on the regular TV channel (e.g. Channel 5 or Starhub Cable TV)? Presumably the former action is likely to be illegal while the latter is legal. Or is it?
Prof Ang, from the NTU Business School, suggested that the TV channel paid the copyright owner for the licence to broadcast the TV programme. As such, the right owner already had the opportunity to earn his due. It is likely that this did not occur in the former example. This seems to mean that he agrees with the presumption that recording a TV programme would, in fact, be legal. I did not, however, confirm this.
This answer wasn't really very satisfactory to me. In fact, it seems to raise many additional questions.
I personally believe that the presumption that the recording a TV programme may actually be wrong. If the TV station obtained a licence from the IPR owner, it would be for broadcasting only. Wouldn't this leave the person who recorded the programme without a licence to record the programme?
Alternatively, one could argue that since Starhub is offering a new service called "SmartTV" (where subscribers are able to record programmes and watch them at a later time), Starhub may be granting subcribers a licence to record those said programmes (similar to licences granted to purchases of music on iTunes etc). If this is true, then recording could be legal. But again, this wouldn't apply to those who are not SmartTV subscribers.
Another interesting point that was brought up by Bryan, in response to a question posed by a student at the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, was that we need to appreciate the economic factors involved. He explained that in many cases, musical artists such as Madonna would likely have assigned their rights to the record, production, or distribution company. Their resources are necessary to get the music to the masses. As such it would seem that when we hear about these artists objecting to the distribution of their IP material, it may be the record company behind the action.
The situation may change in the future as technological advances make the production and distribution of quality musical works much cheaper. Also with the reach of the Internet, it may be possible to get their music out to more for less (not having the costs of producing physical CDs would maximise profits and still offer consumers are cheaper rates; muscial file downloads also costs the producers virtually nothing).
In light of the rapid advancements in computer, digital and internet technologies, consumers and other end-users have begun to acquire illegal copies of copyright material in the privacy of their own homes.
Instead of purchasing such illegitimate copies from the street vendor, they have discovered that it is far more efficient and cost-effective to download them from certain internet websites or through peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing networks.
They may further decide to share these digital copies with others on the Internet or P2P file-sharing communities.
In the process, however, they inadvertently expose themselves to civil action for having committed primary acts of copyright infringement, and may even face criminal prosecution if primary infringers like themselves are found guilty of willful infringements of copyright. (Singapore Copyright Act section 136(3A))
If, however, you obtained the music from an illegal source (e.g. from a P2P website) where a licence has not been paid for or obtained, you would be infringing upon the copyright owner’s exclusive right to make a sound recording under s82 of the Copyright Act. If the amount of infringement is considered to be “significant”, you may be liable under both civil and criminal law. Upon a successful prosecution, the levy is as follows: 1st offence – fine not exceeding S$20,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. 2nd and subsequent offence – fine not exceeding S$50,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or both.
=====================
I just came back from the 20th Annual Singapore Law Review Lecture 2007. This year, the topic for discussion was Intellectual Property Law, specifically, its implications on technology.
Mr Bryan Tan, top Technology lawyer and founding Director of Keystone Law Corporation (one of the best IT/IP law firms in the region), explained that the reason why IP issues related to technology (specifically the Internet) is such a difficult area is because the rights involved are actually many different rights bundled together. For example, in every musical recording, there are the literary rights in the lyrics, rights also subsist in the musical score, there is also the performance rights owned by the artist, not to mention the arrangement (owned perhaps by someone else?), the distribution rights owned by the production company, and the list goes on. In this way, when someone commits an infringing act, they may be committing many different infringing acts. One can just imagine the implications!
One of the questions raised during the Q&A session, which I found very interesting , was what was the difference, if any, between a person downloading content from the Internet (perhaps from a P2P website) and someone recording the same content when it is broadcasted on the regular TV channel (e.g. Channel 5 or Starhub Cable TV)? Presumably the former action is likely to be illegal while the latter is legal. Or is it?
Prof Ang, from the NTU Business School, suggested that the TV channel paid the copyright owner for the licence to broadcast the TV programme. As such, the right owner already had the opportunity to earn his due. It is likely that this did not occur in the former example. This seems to mean that he agrees with the presumption that recording a TV programme would, in fact, be legal. I did not, however, confirm this.
This answer wasn't really very satisfactory to me. In fact, it seems to raise many additional questions.
I personally believe that the presumption that the recording a TV programme may actually be wrong. If the TV station obtained a licence from the IPR owner, it would be for broadcasting only. Wouldn't this leave the person who recorded the programme without a licence to record the programme?
Alternatively, one could argue that since Starhub is offering a new service called "SmartTV" (where subscribers are able to record programmes and watch them at a later time), Starhub may be granting subcribers a licence to record those said programmes (similar to licences granted to purchases of music on iTunes etc). If this is true, then recording could be legal. But again, this wouldn't apply to those who are not SmartTV subscribers.
Another interesting point that was brought up by Bryan, in response to a question posed by a student at the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy, was that we need to appreciate the economic factors involved. He explained that in many cases, musical artists such as Madonna would likely have assigned their rights to the record, production, or distribution company. Their resources are necessary to get the music to the masses. As such it would seem that when we hear about these artists objecting to the distribution of their IP material, it may be the record company behind the action.
The situation may change in the future as technological advances make the production and distribution of quality musical works much cheaper. Also with the reach of the Internet, it may be possible to get their music out to more for less (not having the costs of producing physical CDs would maximise profits and still offer consumers are cheaper rates; muscial file downloads also costs the producers virtually nothing).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home