Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:00:23.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Double Punch of Law and Technology: Fighting Music Piracy or Remaking Copyright in a Digital Age?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Bach*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Empresa

Abstract

The battle between the recording industry and those illegal sharing music over the Internet has gripped headlines over the last few years like few others related to the digital age. At its core, it is a battle about the meaning of property and thus a battle over the heart of the emerging information economy. This article critically examines the double punch of law and technology – the simultaneous and interwoven deployment of legal and electronic measures to protect digital content – and asks whether it is merely a defense strategy against piracy, as the industry asserts, or rather an attempt to fundamentally redefine the producer-consumer relationship. Based on some initial evidence for the latter proposition, the article analyzes reasons for concern, outlines the current politics of copyright policymaking that have given producers the upper hand, and sketches elements of a strategy to fight music piracy that does not infringe on basic consumer rights.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © V.K. Aggarwal 2004 and published under exclusive license to Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bar, François. 2001. “The Construction of Marketplace Architecture.” In Tracking a Transformation: E-commerce and competition in industries, edited by The BRIE-IGCC E-conomy Project. Washington, DC: Brookings Press.Google Scholar
Benkler, Yochai. 1999. “Free as the Air to Common Use: First Amendment Constraints on Enclosure of the Public Domain.” New York University Law Review 74: 354412.Google Scholar
Benkler, Yochai. 2001. “The Battle over the Institutional Ecosystem in the Digital Environment.” Communications of the ACM 44 (2): 8490.Google Scholar
Bhatia, G. Krishan, Gay, Richard C., and Ross Honey, W. 2003. “Windows into the Future: How Lessons from Hollywood will shape the Music Industry.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 17 (2): 7080.Google Scholar
Boyle, James. 2002. “Fencing Off Ideas.” Daedalus 131 (2): 1325.Google Scholar
Boyle, James. 2003. “The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain.” Duke Law Journal 66: 3374.Google Scholar
Braithwaite, John, and Drahos, Peter. 2000. Global Business Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 1995. Green Paper of 27 July 1995 on Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
Commission of the European Communities. 2003. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and Council on measures and procedures to ensure the enforcement of intellectual property rights. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
DeLong, J. Bradford, and Michael Froomkin, A. 2000. “Speculative Microeconomics for Tomorrow's Economy.” First Monday 5 (2).Google Scholar
Doern, G. Bruce. 1999. Global Change and Intellectual Property Agencies. New York: Pinter.Google Scholar
EFF. 2003. Unintended Consequences: Five Years under the DMCA. San Francisco: Electronic Frontier Foundation.Google Scholar
European Communities. 2001. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society.Google Scholar
IFPI. 2003. The Recording Industry Piracy Report 2003. London: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.Google Scholar
IFPI. 2004. The Recording Industry: World Sales 2004. London: International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.Google Scholar
Information Infrastructure Task Force - Working Group on Intellectual Property Rights. 1995. Intellectual Property and the National Information Infrastructure. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 1997. “Should Europe Worry about Adversarial Legalism?Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 17 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, Michael L., and Shapiro, Carl. 1985. “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility.” American Economics Review 75 (3): 424–40.Google Scholar
Ku, Raymond Shih Ray. 2003. “Consumers and Creative Destruction: Fair Use Beyond Market Failure.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18 (2).Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 1999. Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 2001. The Future of Ideas. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. 2004. Free Culture: how big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary. 1989. Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Liebowitz, Stan. 2003. “Will MP3 Downloads Annihilate the Record Industry? The Evidence so Far.” In Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, edited by Libecap, Gary. New York: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Litman, Jessica. 2001. Digital Copyright: protecting intellectual property on the Internet. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Matthews, Duncan. 2002. Globalising Intellectual Property Rights: The TRIPs Agreement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Menn, Joseph. 2003. All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster. New York: Crown Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Merriden, Trevor. 2001. Irresistible Forces: The Business Legacy of Napster and the Growth of the Underground Internet. New York: Capstone.Google Scholar
Newman, Abraham L., and Bach, David. 2004. “Self-Regulatory Trajectories in the Shadow of Public Power: Resolving Digital Dilemmas in Europe and the United States.” Governance 17 (3): 387413.Google Scholar
Oberholzer, Felix, and Strumpf, Koleman. 2004. The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales: An Empirical Analysis. Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation. New York: Farrar & Rinehart InC. Google Scholar
Premkumar, G. Prem. 2003. “Alternative Distribution Strategies for Digital Music.” Communications of the ACM 46 (9): 8995.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, Bill, Trippe, William, and Mooney, Stephen. 2002. Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology. New York: M&T Books.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Pamela. 1999. “Intellectual Property And The Digital Economy: Why The Anti-Circumvention Regulations Need To Be Revised.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14 (2): 519.Google Scholar
Samuelson, Pamela. 2003. “Digital Rights Management {and, or, vs.} the Law.” Communications of the ACM 46 (4): 4145.Google Scholar
Sell, Susan K. 1995. “The origins of a trade-based approach to intellectual property protection: the role of industry associations.” Science Communication 17 (2): 163–85.Google Scholar
Sell, Susan K. 2003. Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Carl, and Varian, Hal R. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, Lionel S. 2003. “DRM as an Enabler of Business Models: ISPs as Digital Retailers.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18 (2).Google Scholar
Spar, Debora L. 2001. Ruling the waves: cycles of discovery, chaos, and wealth from compass to the Internet. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Vaidhyanathan, Siva. 2001. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
van Wijk, Jeroen. 2002. “Dealing with Piracy: Intellectual Asset Management in Music and Software.” European Management Journal 20 (6): 689–98.Google Scholar