Copyright or Copy Wrong? Who's to decide?

The increasing amount of information, technology advancements, and media availability has caused approximately fifty-million Americans to participate in peer-to-peer activities such as (P2P) illegal file sharing. File sharing is not illegal within itself or within its host program or domain. It is the content of these files that has sparked a huge sociopolitical debate on the extent and usage of copyrighted material. This information is not only free and highly accessible to virtually anyone with a computer and an internet connection, but it has become increasingly harder to track such usage. The problem of this issue lies within the legalities and widespread accessibility of copyright infringement.
The entertainment and media industries are highly concerned with the vast array of illegal file sharing and copyright infringement. So, organizations such as the RIAA have placed an enormous pressure on the United States government to pursue harsh punishments and fines on copyright infringement. Furthermore, beyond criminal conviction, the RIAA and many entertainment labels have taken this matter into the civil courts as well. Infringement occurs when an individual or organization uses tangible material derived from, copied from, or illusorily replicated from an original work without proper attribution and the expressed written consent of the copyright holder.
Infringement is happening everyday whether it is intentional or unintentional. The problem with this is that if so many people are doing it and it is culturally accepted than what is wrong with it? One issue is not only the amount of people that are infringing, but it is the users’ obliviousness to legal violation and the severity of the consequences for doing so. Many people believe that it is within their constitutional right to do so, and many people believe that the internet is the public domain and therefore have the right of fair use. This is in fact very wrong. In addition, the interpretation of constitutional law is vague and the public awareness of law is limited. According to Kevin S. Brady, Esq. an Attorney at Law from Minneapolis, Minnesota (2004), “Although the law in this area is sparse, it is reasonably likely that you could be liable for infringement for making a copy of software, books or videos, and giving the copy to another person, even if it’s for free.” This leaves me to ask where one can metaphorically draw a suitable line for illegal file sharing and copyright infringement since the laws are so vague and the general public is either unaware of their breech or simply does not care.
Moreover, with the extent of illegal file sharing happening, most users are unaware that there could be criminal sanctions taken against them even if they have only obtained or shared just one infringed file, but also that it is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their guilt. Brady goes on to comment that, “As of yet NET (No Electronic Theft act) has not been applied against casual file sharers. Although many such file sharers offer content well in excess of the $2500 value, it is nevertheless difficult to prove that file sharers had actually shared content.”
In contrast, there lies the position of the entertainment industry upon these matters. The use of illegal file sharing has placed a detriment on the profits of these organizations. Not only are the losing capital, but it is almost as if their copyrights were nonexistent. They obtain such copyrights to increase profit, advance technology and promote developing cultural ideals. With an estimated fifty-million people indirectly stealing their material that would have been sold otherwise, it is only fair to the industry that they receive payments for their works, as well as reprimand the infringement violators.
With such a strong argument on both sides, it leaves many ideals and paradigms left, unregulated, not clarified, and many questions left unanswered. This calls for immediate governmental processes to mediate the situation. The government must be able to accommodate both sides of the highly debated argument. In reiteration, the first problem lies within the copyright laws and its enforcement. Brady furthers this argument stating, “The enforcement of these copyright laws is rather spotty, and the case law is sparse, if any exists at all.” Also, illegal file sharing needs to be publicly addressed and ascertained and the victims of infringement need to be accommodated as well.
I myself enjoy the availability of obtaining free entertainment sources through the means of P2P file sharing programs along with millions of other Americans. I have downloaded copyrighted material from P2P file sharing programs for personal gain, but most of that material was downloaded in search of what I intended on receiving. Although I have not done so since I have become aware of the severity of copyright infringement, I believe their must be an asserted middle ground solution. Therefore, I propose that foremost there should be a clear, cohesive, and concise statute that declares all the stipulations of the use of copyrighted works, and limitations on file sharing technologies. Upon that, rather than creating technology that confines the use of copyrighted material, there should be a clear cut and well expressed warning of copyright infringement within the booting process and startup menu of internet accessible technology. Like me, the fact remains that many others use this technology in search of their intended file. Additionally, the RIAA should create a search engine solely devoted to enabling the user to search and sample songs in order to find their intended file. With this creation, they would then be able to post hyperlinks to file sharing programs that allow the user to purchase such copyrighted material with expressed consent. I believe that this would promote proper use of file sharing technology, in turn resulting in increased profit which would allow them to encrypt and secure their material. As a result of all the elements included within my proposal, I can conclude that this would curtail the amount of user infringement on the internet as well as establishing a compromised solution to both arguments.