Capitol Records, Inc. v. Sharon Villarreal

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Legal Issues Involved
Analysis of the Case
Courts Ruling
Works Cited

The name of the case is SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; UMG RECORDINGS, INC; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., CAPITOL RECORDS, INC.; and BMG MUSIC v. SHARON VILLARREAL, Defendant

The parties involved are SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT, a Delaware general partnership; UMG RECORDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation; WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC., a Delaware corporation; VIRGIN RECORDS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation; CAPITOL RECORDS, INC. a Delaware corporation; and BMG MUSIC, a New York general partnership, Plaintiffs, v. SHARON VILLARREAL, Defendant

The history of the case plaintiff had copied music and was taken to court and was sued. He did not get satisfied with the verdict of the court, he appealed.

The case has one judge, C. Ashley Royal and has issued an opinion.

Facts

The facts of this case are that the defendant, Sharon acquired and distributed copyrighted materials. The defendant used the internet to acquire and distribute music without permission. As it were, the internet is a vital tool in the promotion, distribution, and acquisition of music and has made it possible for more direct and faster contacts between artists and fans alike but this should be the consent of the distributor.

Legal Issues Involved

The legal issues involved are whether there was a violation of the Copyright Act and whether compensation sorted for and awarded was reasonable. The court’s main aim is merely to reinforce the existing rules against copying. The defendant by searching and copying music is illegal and court was determined whether copying took place. The major ethical issues related to the given case are:

The use of unfair means like copying and distributing music thus encouraging unethical practice,
Loss of revenue for the musician involved,
Inviting legal actions for unfair means

Distribution and copying of music require the adaptation of existent copyright laws. Copyright infringement in digital form has to allow unlimited right to access to owned digital copies with limitation on how such copies may be transferred to others (Liu 1243).

Copyright does not protect the ideas of a person but rather protects the original expression of these ideas. This means that the ideas of a person are not protected so long as he has not expressed them in a format that can be considered as existing evidence for his work. This applies in all fields including in the music industry. The protection is based on authorship rather than invention and protects original works which include: musical, literary, artistic, dramatic and such like intellectual works (Field 2). Protection exists for both unpublished and published works. The author of the work is in a position to prepare any form of derivative work which he is allowed to base it on the copyrighted work, produce copies or phono-records of the copyrighted work, publicly perform the work using digital audio transmissions incase the work is a sound recording, publicly display his copyrighted work and to earn income from the work by selling, leasing or lending copies to the public. The person also has a right to authorize another person to do the above. In the student study pack, there are exemptions where work belonging to some one else can be used without seeking the authority of the author but to a limited extent (U.S. Copyright Office 3).

Once work is created and put in a fixed form, copyright is automatic. According to the 1976 copyright Act, the publication is the act of distributing copies of phono-records or copies of work by sale, lending, leasing, or other form of ownership transfer to the public. The work is then protected during the lifetime of the author and 50 years after his death. This demands that any work in a permanent form should have the date of the first time it was publicized, written, or recorded (U.S. Copyright Office 5).

Copyright law exists in music production with limitations. There is the extent to which a distributor can have the right to a copyright belonging to another person (Hutchings 12). However, using these materials should not exceed the provisions in section 106 of the law. Assumptions regarding the use of copyrighted material for the educational purpose include the idea that one can use the material without limitation. However, this is not so and permission should be sought from the author if the material is to be used in such cases.

Copyright law indicates that one automatically acquires copyright when he produces work in a permanent form. This is regardless of whether he is the original inventor of the ideas. According to the law, copyright only covers ideas that exist in a tangible format such as writing and sound recording. However, if the company had produced their music in copies and retained an original copy, they would have the right to accuse the defendant of infringing the copyright. The law is aimed at promoting the accessibility of music to the public and the first person to undertake such a step own the copyright is the producers (Copyright office basics 2).

The defendant recorded and distributed the work which the plaintiffs had copyrighted. This means the producers have evidence against their claim and they are entitled to the copyright.

Analysis of the Case

The plaintiff had legal redress to the situation because their work was copyrighted and the copying required authorization. Copyright is acquired automatically when work is first created (Liu 1246). Therefore, the plaintiff had every right to accuse the Sharon of infringing the copyright. They have successful obtained a ruling which is being challenged in a higher court. Copyright laws give the vendor a right to sell, led or reproduce the music if he has copyright. Apart from this, the vendor has a right to authorize another person to produce copy or use parts of the copyright so long as he has a copyright.

Piracy came as a result of people’s curiosity and quest for acquire an intellectual property. It began as a harmless exercise among people who have the aptitude to understand copying inventions and original ideas created by others and exploiting vulnerabilities in order to access them. In the past, most pirating activities were concentrated on providing individual with services without having to pay for them. There were others whose intent in piracy was more serious because it involved stealing music for sell of unsuspecting artists. Because pirating was introduced to the public by showing its negative side, people looked at it as something unethical.

Pirating, however, is not unethical when the people who have the skills to do this will use them creatively and positively. Pirates can make conscious decisions to avoid harming others or making illegal gains. Even if there are laws that penalize copying, the decision to become ethical should come from those involved.

Like any other activity, copying has its good and bad sides. Due to the opportunities for making gains the easy way, many hackers are tempted to exploit their knowledge. As a result, many people have been arrested for doing this activity. The government and private organizations though recognize that their talents should not be wasted and provided many known pirates with employment suitable to their skills and abilities.

Courts Ruling

Under the above circumstance the court has made the right decision that the defendant has unfair practices of copying and distributing music. Most cases of copyright cases are solved amicably without involving the judicial system but sometimes when the losses incurred are heavy there is need to take the case before a court of law.

It is advisable to all people to always take a second look on those copyright laws before distributing music or any matter. The aim of ruling is to ensure the one does not gain from other people works as they use indirect copying or indirect copying. The court has truly performed the best of its ability and no doubt about that if it were not for ruling then this business problem would have worsened. But now the ruling has left one stone still unturned and that is the artist are protected.

Works Cited

Hutchings, Mary. ‘The copyright primer for librarians and educators’. American Library Association. Chicago: National Education Association, 1987.

Liu, Joseph. Owning Digital Copies: Copyright Law and the Incidents of Copy Ownership. William and Mary Law Review, 2001. P 1245.

Reinking, David. “Reclaiming a Scholarly Ethic: Deconstructing ‘Intellectual Property’ in a Post-Typographic World”. Illinois College of education. 1995. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!