English 1301.215
16 May 2014
Does Internet Piracy Really Harm Artist? There has been a continuous struggle within the world of technology called piracy. Piracy is the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc. In the article "Internet Piracy Harms Artists", Philip Galdston’s testimony to congress was quoted and he was arguing the case that internet piracy was hurting the artist. While it is true that piracy can hurt an artist substantially, Galdston addresses his testimony to Congress about himself, a songwriter, not an artist. Although one would not deny an artist being indignant, a songwriter is far from thoughts. Galdston makes valid and clear points however, they are non-convincing. Galdston should communicate his testimony to the record companies and artist, instead of congress. He is arrogant in his testimony, and gives no credit to the artists themselves. Although he makes effective points throughout his argument, they are often contradicting. Galdston could be applauded for trying to save the livelihood of songwriters everywhere, however it is not an issue for Congress, rather one for himself to fix. One of the biggest arguments Galdston makes is that he is losing money for the production of his songs from the record companies and illegal downloads occurring every day. He stated, “When I license a song to a record company. I receive nothing-no fee, no advance, no payment of any kind. My compensation in that situation depends entirely on the success of the recording. If I am compensated, the already low rate is set by statue” (Gale 2). He proclaims he is losing or not receiving the money, however he is the one choosing whom he sells his song to. He could be more pro-active in deciding who he will release his song to, or even offer it to. Galdston could research different companies and the percentages they offer per song. Furthermore, he could negotiate pricing when it comes to releasing his song to these companies. In addition, companies could sign a contract promising him more of a share for a particular song. If he is not happy with an acceptable offer, he can move to a different company.
Next, Galdston compares his songs being stolen to that of cable. “We’re probably most similar to the owners of satellite and cable systems, who face no liability when they use electronic countermeasures to stop pirating…,to prevent the theft of our property through peer-to-peer systems is inhibited by a high degree of liability” (Gale 4). The only problem with his argument to Congress is most people who purchase cable are over 18. Considering they are adults, they know the consequences of stealing cable if caught. Cable companies cater to adults, while music is a mainstream of young children and adolescents. Most of these individuals do not have jobs or an income; therefore, they believe their only option is to illegally download their favorite song as soon as it is available. They do not understand consequences if caught and will not be punished as adults. Even though Galdston is correct in comparing the theft from peer to peer, the audience’s cable and music appeal to and their theft are completely on opposite pages. While songwriters probably do not get a fair share of the money that they deserve, Galdston attacks the wrong people in his argument to the House. In my opinion, he should address the artist themselves. He declares, “”Real property is comprised of raw materials that are produced by someone else. You just can’t say that about songs. If I don’t dream it up from my heart and my head, the song will not exist” (Gale 2). He should be given credit for producing the song, yes. After all, he did come up with the words. He did take the time and energy to put the words to music. He went out and found what companies he was going to sell to. However, did he actually make the song what it was? Did he get the one