This paper examines how the Internet is reshaping the distribution of music and digital entertainment, with a focus on the legal and regulatory conflicts surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM). It analyzes landmark cases such as the RIAA's suit against Jeffrey and Pam Howell, evaluates the consequences of aggressive enforcement strategies by the RIAA and NARAS, and explores how companies like Apple and Microsoft have responded by building digital media ecosystems. The paper argues that sustainable distribution models depend on resolving DRM tensions, balancing copyright protection with consumer access, and expanding into video content alongside music.
The paper demonstrates evidence-based argumentation by weaving together empirical research citations (Oberholzer-Gee & Strumpf; Liebowitz; Chang & Assane) with industry case analysis. This approach strengthens claims about download behavior and enforcement effectiveness by distinguishing between what the data actually measures and what it omits — a sign of critical engagement with sources rather than mere citation.
The paper opens with a broad claim about DRM as the defining legal battleground, then narrows to a specific court case to ground that claim. It widens again to examine DRM technology, enforcement philosophy, and offshore piracy. The Apple and Microsoft sections pivot toward constructive industry models, and the conclusion synthesizes the DRM-free trend with the video-content opportunity. This funnel-and-expand structure guides the reader from conflict to resolution.
The future of Internet-based music and digital entertainment distribution is — and will continue to be — defined by the legal and regulatory conflicts surrounding Digital Rights Management (DRM). These conflicts are intensifying between advocates of free Internet use for distributing, copying, and enjoying digital music, and industry associations such as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (NARAS). The conflict has escalated into hundreds of lawsuits and mass letter campaigns containing pre-lawsuit instructions sent by both the RIAA and NARAS to entire universities. The use of electronic surveillance to monitor music downloads has grown increasingly Orwellian, with traffic in and out of peer-to-peer music sites now actively monitored (Banerjee, Faloutsos, & Bhuyan, 2008).
Many argue that all of this legal and regulatory activity is not actually stopping any behavior — it is merely diverting it toward more organized, commercially-based pirates of digital music (Chang & Assane, 2007). Furthermore, the legal and regulatory efforts of the RIAA and NARAS are making attorneys the real financial winners. One plaintiff sued by the RIAA noted that his case was managed by an incompetent attorney from an outsourced firm (Ward, 2007). These factors together illustrate that for Internet-based distribution of music and digital media to succeed, the underlying legal and regulatory issues must be addressed first.
Both the RIAA and NARAS argue that digitized music is bound by copyright law, meaning that unauthorized copying, distributing, or burning of additional CDs constitutes a copyright violation. This position alone has made the future of Internet music and digital media distribution heavily dependent on DRM-based technologies and workflows — technologies that have proven to add significant costs to distribution over time. Peer-to-peer music sharing sites such as Napster, however, are forcing the industry to reconsider whether DRM is scalable as a long-term enforcement method.
The case of Jeffrey and Pam Howell, who were sued by seven different music companies claiming the Howells had violated the copyrights of their songs by placing them in a shareable folder within Napster in 2006, illustrates how Internet-based distribution of music and digital content requires a solid legal and regulatory foundation before it can achieve sustainable growth. In May 2008, a U.S. District Court Judge in Arizona ruled in favor of the Howells, finding that actual sharing and distribution of the digital songs would have needed to take place for a copyright infringement to occur. The judge therefore rejected the motion filed by Atlantic Records, which had coordinated the lawsuit with six other corporations against the Howells.
In concluding the case, Judge Neil Wake specifically stated that merely making music available for downloading over the Internet does not, in and of itself, violate copyright. He ruled that the Howells were innocent of copyright infringement. What makes this case particularly noteworthy is that the group of companies alleged Jeffrey Howell violated copyrights by copying music from a CD to his home computer for personal enjoyment. Had this been deemed copyright infringement, virtually anyone who had copied music from a CD to a home PC or laptop would have been guilty of the same offense. The case was widely covered in blogs and mainstream media and is considered a significant win in placing checks and balances on the legal strategies of the RIAA and NARAS. As a result of this ruling, DRM-based methodologies and process workflows became more adaptable to the ways in which consumers actually enjoy music.
At the center of the legal and regulatory storm shaping the future of Internet-based music and digital content distribution is the debate over Digital Rights Management (DRM). DRM refers to a broad collection of technologies that music companies use to limit the use of digital media to only verifiable devices and platforms. DRM goes beyond simple copy protection; it encompasses the definition of rights related to the creative media in terms of playback and use. Companies including Apple, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), Microsoft, and Sony all maintain DRM technologies for protecting their digital assets, including operating systems, applications, and digital entertainment and music. The use of DRM technologies also carries significant ethical implications (Rosch, 2007; Dannenberg, 2006).
Sony's use of DRM that was surreptitiously downloaded onto users' computers whenever they attempted to copy a Sony music CD came to light during a system troubleshooting evaluation conducted by an advanced computer user (Buckler, 2006). This quickly escalated into a full analysis of how the Sony Rootkit functioned as a means of monitoring which music a consumer copied and from where. Sony was using DRM technology to monitor its customers' copying activity without disclosure, setting off a public relations fiasco whose effects lingered for years. The violation of consumer trust and the paranoia music companies harbor is plainly evident in the Rootkit incident and its lasting damage to the Sony Music brand (Buckler, 2006).
DRM has been used as both an enforcement and a monitoring technology, which has frequently led to allegorical comparisons to George Orwell's novel 1984. There is a clear need for much greater disclosure and transparency in how this technology is deployed, and this remains one of the many factors contributing to the fragmentation of Internet music downloads.
While peer-to-peer music sharing sites have been found in court to be in violation of RIAA and NARAS requirements, the growth of complete product-service ecosystems such as iTunes — and the anticipated launch of Microsoft's online music store — suggests that DRM's proprietary grip may be loosening as the monetization of digital music matures. Microsoft's strategy appeared too late to the market unless the company were to acquire digital music sources that could potentially include Hulu and even individual network content libraries. The consolidation of the digital music industry, however, was expected to accelerate as DRM-free songs became increasingly sold and repurposed. The greatest growth opportunity lies in providing comprehensive digital music ecosystems capable of rapidly supporting video content as well — a path that iTunes had already begun to demonstrate.
Apple Investor Relations. (2009). Investor relations and filings with the SEC. Retrieved May 7, 2009, from
Banerjee, A., Faloutsos, M., & Bhuyan, L. (2008). The P2P war: Someone is monitoring your activities. Computer Networks, 52(6), 1272.
Buckler, G. (2006, July). Bull from the entertainment industry. Computer Dealer News, 22(10), 11.
Chang, E. P., & Assane, D. (2007). Determinants of music copyright violations on the university campus. Journal of Cultural Economics, 31(3), 187–204.
Dannenberg, R. (2006). Copyright protection for digitally delivered music: A global affair. Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 18(2), 12–16.
Liebowitz, S. J. (2008). Testing file sharing's impact on music album sales in cities. Management Science, 54(4), 852–859.
Oberholzer-Gee, F., & Strumpf, K. (2007). The effect of file sharing on record sales: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Political Economy, 115(1), 1–42.
Rosch, J. T. (2007). Keynote address: A different perspective on DRM. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 22(3), 971.
Ward, S. F. (2007). Plaintiff to RIAA: Download this! ABA Journal, 93, 14–15.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.