READING Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

READING - Assignment Example Of great interest is the position that Kal Raustilia and Chris Sprigman (2012) take, contrary to conventional knowledge and mainstream belief. Raustilia and Sprigman are of the persuasion that it is not possible to quantify losses attributed to piracy and copyright violations and that statistical provisions by proponents of Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect IP Act (PIPA) which show that copyright infringement costs the US 200 billion dollars and 750,000 jobs annually, cannot be relied upon. Raustilia and Sprigman (2012) cite Tim Lee’s assertion that statistical figures should neither be taken at face value, nor unquestionably relied upon since such figures are almost always prone to approximations, double and triple counting. Raustilia and Sprigman continue that in some instances, music piracy may serve as substitute for legitimate transactions, and that the same can also trigger increased savings, since, instead of money being spent to purchase music, music is downloa ded on the one hand. On the other hand, increased savings may catalyze economically significant initiatives and undertakings, and thereby covering for the supposed loss of jobs and revenue which piracy may have caused. Nevertheless, a critical look at factors that underpin legislation which proscribe the infringement of copyright rules and logical reasoning leave the proposition which Raustilia and Sprigman advance as too impractical to be effected. In the same vein, it is most probable that Raustilia and Sprigman had not thought deeply about the implications that would come with the violation and collective disregard of copyright laws. In the first place, Gorski (2011) illustrates that the need to safeguard creativity and originality defeats the standpoint that Raustilia and Sprigman (2012) advance. It must be realized that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code, the NET Act and the Copyright Act of 1909 do not merely seek to ensure that all who ac cess music buy them, but to actually protect originality and creativity. Always, music is a culmination of training and creativity which are valuable resources. It is preposterous to argue that the training and creativity which an individual uses to earn a living should be treated as valueless. In this case, Raustilia and Sprigman’s proposition that music piracy can help generate financial or economic value does not suffice since such an arrangement alienates the original thinker, creator and director of an original piece from his work. The kind of advancement which Raustilia and Sprigman make is tantamount to robbing Peter to pay Paul, if not worse. In a separate wavelength, it is important to note that legislative pieces such as the Copyright Act of 1909, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code and the NET Act are the very provisions which created the existence of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and mandates RIAA to disc harge its duties and responsibilities. RIAA shows clearly that the music industry alone have forfeited millions of dollars to piracy. RIAA further divulges that in 2002, music revenue fell by 7% since the sale of CDs declined from 882 million to 803 million units. The report that RIAA provides in this case may be used to vindicate the statistical provisions that the proponents of SOPA and PIPA advance