Are the current copyright laws still necessary in todays music and film

industry?
On November 4th 2014, the third and final founder of the popular file-sharing website
known as Pirate Bay, Hans Fredrik Lennart Nerj was arrested by Thai immigration police at a
checkpoint when trying to cross from Laos to Thailand. He was transported to Bangkok and
is said to be extradited to Sweden. Sentencing has yet to occur for this man (Russell, 2014).
In 2009; a Swedish court had convicted Nerj of aiding copyright infringement and had
received a one year sentence as well as a fine of 46m kronor (4m) in damages to the
entertainment industry and was found guilty of copyright infringement (Press, 2014). After
the ruling, all three of the founders went into hiding. Pirate bay has been a main source of
interest and controversy since its start up in 2003 as it is one of the most popular sites where
people online can search, download and even contribute media. This is known as file
sharing, and also online piracy (Unknown, How popular is thepiratebay.se?, 2015).
File sharing and online piracy is defined as the practice of making computer files
available to other users of a network, in particular the illicit sharing of music and video via the
Internet and as most people know this is illegal because it is unauthorized by the artist or
make of that said media and from a legal standpoint its very rare for copyright infringement
to be tackled head on as it was regarding the pirate bay case (Duhaime, -). Usually, the
cases are confronted via lawsuits from the actual creator of the media, even if the creator is
a huge company. For example, in 2004 major motion-picture corporation MGM studios filed
a lawsuit against file sharing service Grokster and Streamcast for their role in the copyright
infringement that was done upon some of MGM studios movies. The case was considered
by the Supreme Court having already won in two previous courts. The court ruling was given
in favour of MGM studios in 2005 stating that the services provided by Grokster and
Streamcast would and could be held liable for copyright infringement since they had
functioned and advertised themselves as a way for people to acquire media illegally. This is
an example of civil law but not criminal (-, 2005).
The punishment for copyright of course varies from country to country and even case
by case. However, convictions usually include jail time and/or severe fines for each instance
of infringement. For example, a USD$ 150,000 fine is set for every instance of copyright
infringement. Article 61 of the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights requires that all countries are required to establish criminal procedures and penalties
in case of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale (Li,
2009). There have been cases where some copyright providers have asked states to
1

provide criminal punishment for any copyright infringement on any level. This includes some
jingles and literary quotes. You might feel obligated to think that these decisions were made
quite recently maybe in the 20th Century but in 1710, The Statute of Anne was the very first
statute to provide for copyright regulated by the governments and courts rather than by
private parties like it had been done before (Copyright Infringement and Remedies, 2015).
UK
The copyright law for the UK was the Copyright, Designs and Patents act of 1988.
This act was created to ensure that people are rewarded for their efforts and endeavours
and to give protection to the copyright holder if someone tries to steal or copy their work.
The Act itself states the duration of the rights themselves, this obviously varies from media to
media for example in literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works its 70 years after the last
remaining author of the work has died and only in 1992 was this article extended to include
computer programs. Taking this into consideration on the actual act, it does not include any
reference to file sharing online. In fact the act does not even include the words online. Its
debatable that we can assume that act refers to the online world as well however in law,
especially copyright law; specificity is of utmost importance due to the abundance of
loopholes that can be taken advantage of by anyone with any legal background whatsoever
(UK copyright law: A summary, 1988). In Chapter II Rights of Copyright owner, clause 18:
Infringement by issues of copies to the public. It states, quite obviously, that infringement is
done by issues of copies to the public however it does not state the means of how they can
be provided to the public, whether this be online or in person and even the punishments
show that in order to catch the people who infringe copyright by peer-to-peer file sharing it
takes a lot of manpower and this is something that authorities do not have in relation to
copyright (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, 1988) .
In order to combat the threat that is online piracy the United Kingdom has
introduced the Digital Economy Act of 2010 which commenced on the 8th of April 2010. This
act addresses the policy issues related to digital media, pertaining to and including copyright
infringement, Internet domain names, Media content, local radio and video games. It was
rather controversial because of the part of the act which addresses copyright infringement,
and in this regard, it has been challenged in the High Court under a juridical review. The
provisions establish a system of notifications to Internet subscribers who are alleged to have
downloaded infringing content over peer-to-peer file-sharing systems. The objective was for
copyright holders to gather enough evidence that could be used in a court of law against
subscribers to the website who had repeatedly infringed (Digital Economy Act 2010, 2010).
Under DEA section 3 the allegations are to be transmitted to the Internet Service Providers
2

by the copyright holders. The ISPs are then required by law to send notifications to their
subscribers, informing them of the allegation (Digitial Economy Act 2010, 2010).
USA
As far back as 1787, the United States Constitution provided for the protection of
copyrights "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The original reason for the
stated copyright laws was to encourage artists to create new works by instilling more or less
control of and the profit created from these works. Most, if not all, copyrights are territorial,
which means that they only extend to the outskirts of a specific state unless that state is part
of an international agreement. Today, however, this is less relevant, since most countries are
parties to at least one such agreement. While many aspects of national copyright laws have
been standardized through international copyright agreements, copyright laws of most
countries have some unique features. The duration of copyright is the whole life of the
creator plus fifty to a hundred years from the creator's death, or a finite period for
anonymous or corporate creations. Some jurisdictions have required someone to register
formally to establish copyright, but most recognize copyright in any completed work
regardless of methods of registration. Copyright is usually treated as a civil matter, though
some jurisdictions do apply criminal sanctions.
Most jurisdictions recognize copyright limitations, allowing "fair" exceptions to the
creator's exclusivity of copyright and giving users certain rights. The development of digital
media and computer network technologies have prompted reinterpretation of these
exceptions, introduced new difficulties in enforcing copyright, and inspired additional
challenges to copyright law's philosophic basis. Simultaneously, businesses with great
economic dependence upon copyright, such as those in the music business, have
advocated the extension and expansion of their intellectual property rights and sought
additional legal and technological enforcement.
EU and other parts of the world
The personal copying exemption in the copyright law of EU member states stems
from the EU Copyright Directive of 2001, which is generally devised to allow EU members to
enact laws sanctioning making copies without authorization, as long as they are for personal,
non-commercial use. The Copyright Directive was not intended to legitimize file-sharing, but
rather the common practice of space shifting copyright-protected content from a legally
purchased CD (for example) to certain kinds of devices and media, provided rights holders
are compensated and no copy protection measures are circumvented. Rights-holder
compensation takes various forms, depending on the country, but is generally either a levy
3

on "recording" devices and media, or a tax on the content itself. In some countries, such as
Canada, the applicability of such laws to copying onto general-purpose storage devices like
computer hard drives, portable media players, and phones, for which no levies are collected,
has been the subject of debate and further efforts to reform copyright law.
In some countries, the personal copying exemption explicitly requires that the content
being copied was obtained legitimatelyi.e., from authorized sources, not file-sharing
networks. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, make no such distinction; the
exemption there had been assumed, even by the government, to apply to any such copying,
even from file-sharing networks. However, in April 2014, the Court of Justice of the European
Union ruled that "national legislation which makes no distinction between private copies
made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be
tolerated." Thus, in the Netherlands, for example, downloading from file-sharing networks is
no longer legal.
The Flow of Money
To truly understand copyright, what needs to be understood is who owns it. Contrary
to popular belief, copyright is rarely owned by artists or people who have dedicated their
lives to making a work of art but rather, a majority of copyright is owned by big businesses
who seek to gain profit from these copyrights. So if a director wants to use Queens
Bohemian Rhapsody in a movie or maybe even just a scene, he cannot simply use the
section he wants but rather has to pay copyright use. He doesnt however pay Queen but
rather EMI music which is a British multinational music and recording company. In fact, with
an average high end royalty with a record company, usually they would only pay musicians
$1 for every $10 made from an album sale. This statistic varies depending on the deal but at
most it goes up to 20%. This is shocking enough but these percentages only apply to
physical album sales. With iTunes, for example, a $9.99 download would give the artist 94
cents which is less than a 10% cut of the profits. The record company would $5.35 and
Apple would keep the remaining $3.70. To put that into perspective, in order for an artist to
make the same amount as a McDonalds employee: they would need to sell 13,999 songs a
month. To add another statistic, on spotify a listener would need to listen to one song
4,053,110 times in order for the artist to earn a monthly salary equal to the American
minimum wage. At face value, these numbers are staggering but when you read in between
the lines you realise that this kind of distribution of money is very common in other
businesses. Even though the sandwich makers who work at Subway are technically the
ones doing the most work, they are not the ones who have net worth of $1.5 billion.

Now a popular argument for downloading music legally is that the artist needs to
make money but considering these numbers it doesnt look like the artists are really getting
the short end of the stick. In fact, most people would conclude that artists are actually losing
out when it comes to sales of music. This results in the artists having to tour more or get an
endorsement deal from a perfume company or Coca-Cola and as a result earn some money
from advertising. Even these easy endorsement deals requires the artist to work much
harder in terms of advertising the product for a relatively smaller amount of money compared
to what they could be earning. So if the artist is not making as much money from album and
music sales; whats the point? The simple fact of the matter is that if the artist is not making
anything these renders the argument of the artist needing to eat redundant; and with that
argument what other reason is there to obey the law and buy music and film legally. In fact,
when asked during a survey conducted by me whether people thought it was right to
download music illegally, over 65% said no with a popular reasoning being that the creator
needs to make money. However, when confronted with the statistics and numbers stated
above, many chose to change their answer due to their reasoning being flawed. So if money
is going to the big corporate businesses instead of the creators what do they think.
What the Creators Think: Those who support
In fact, sometimes the artist or creator of that particular piece of copyrighted work is
completely indifferent to people copyrighting it. In a press interview with the filmmaker
Michael Moore regarding his movie Sicko being leaked 2 weeks before its official release in
the United States on June 29, 2007, he said: Im just happy that people get to see my
movies. Im not a big supporter of the copyright laws in this country I dont understand
bands or filmmakers who oppose sharing, having their work being shared by people,
because it only increases their fan base. The movie is a documentary which investigates
the American National Health system, with a focus on health insurance and the
pharmaceutical industry. It compares the for-profit, non-universal US system with the nonprofit, universal healthcare systems of many other countries. Even with the $9 million budget
and the leak, the film grossed a total of $24.5 million in the United States alone and as a
result exceeded the expectation of The Weinstein Company who distributed the movie
(Cieply, 2007). So even though there was a leak of the full movie 2 weeks before the release
date, it had still managed to perform very well in the box office considering that Michael
Moore also directed the critically acclaimed documentary film Bowling for Columbine in
which it had only grossed $21.6 million. Most people if not all would consider this film quite a
success and it was done albeit the leak which some people would have criticised and
complained that the movie would not do as well because the audience can just get the movie
for free instead of paying for it at the cinema. This shows that there is certain level of mutual
5

respect between the producer and consumer in which the consumer recognises that even
though there is a free alternative, the movie has to make some money in order for the
producer to make profit or even an income. The producer realises that if he/she were to be in
that position as well they would have probably done the same thing. This level of respect can
go a long way if it was carried forward into other forms of media, such as books.
This view is also shared with J.K. Rowling of the popular Harry Potter novels. She
shows a certain acceptance even to the point of indirectly encouraging it. An example of this
was when she announced in an interview that she saw the Hogwarts Headmaster, Albus
Dumbledore of the Harry Potter universe as gay. She followed this up by joking, Just
imagine the fan fiction now. Fan fiction being a continuation or a development of already
created media. For those of you who are not familiar with the series, here are a few
statistics. The 7 book series from its conception in 1997 to May 2015 have sold more than
450 million copies worldwide, making it the best-selling book series in history (staff, 2013).
The last 4 books had all set records as the fastest selling books in history, with the last
instalment of the series selling a whopping $11million in the first 24 hours. The book was
then turned into a film series of 8 films which is the second highest grossing film series in
history with $7.7 billion dollars in receipts (Unknown, Franchises, 2015). Its fair to say the
numbers of the book sold have not been hurt by the presence of fan fiction. However, fan
fiction is substantially different from downloading music illegally or watching a movie for free
online. Fan fiction is simply basing stories of an already present media source so it does not
really take away from the author. With music for example, the listener would listen to a piece
of music for free that would normally be paid for but with fan fiction, the consumer would buy
a book then create a continuation of that story. As a result fan fiction does not really affect
sales of books at all.
There have been cases where even artists fully encourage it. Dave Grohl, who was
the ex-drummer for Seattle disbanded grunge band Nirvana and lead singer and guitarist for
the rock band Foo Fighters, said in an interview, I think its a good idea because its people
trading music. It has nothing to do with industry or finance, its just people that want music
and theres nothing wrong with that. Its the same as someone turning on the f**kin radio, its
the same as someone putting a cassette in a cassette deck when the BBC plays a special
radio session. I dont think its a crime; its been going on for years. Its the same as people
making tapes for each other. The industry is more threatened by it because its the World
Wide Web and its a broader scope of trading, but I dont think its such a f**kin horrible thing.
The first thing we should do is get all the f**kin millionaires to shut their mouths and stop
bitching about the 25 cents a time theyre losing. Albeit the swearing, Mr Grohl has quite a
few good points. As said earlier, the people complaining about copyright infringement tend to
6

be large companies who really only have profit in mind and as a result want to maximise it at
all costs. Dave Grohl as of 2015 has a net worth of $260 million (Warner, 2015). So even
though he has supported the use of pirating and downloading he has still managed to gather
a net worth which is $60 million more than Lars Ulrich, a famed advocate against pirating
and illegal downloading as well as the drummer for acclaimed thrash metal band Metallica.
Again the question of mutual respect between artist and listener is brought up as even
though there is an opportunity for the listener to illegally download music, they might still
choose to buy the album to support the artist. However, it should be said that Dave Grohl
has been a part of the music scene since 1987 with very well-known bands Nirvana and The
Foo Fighters (Unknown, Nirvana Timeline, 2015). As a result of this, his net worth has been
due to the accumulation and transfer of fame from Nirvana to The Foo Fighters. Not a lot of
other artists can say they have the same kind of credentials and as a result not a lot of other
artists can say what he has said.
What the Creators Think: Those who oppose
On the other side of the spectrum, there are many artists who are very against file
sharing and illegal downloading. This makes up the majority of the artist population but with
this in mind, the majority of these artists who are extremely against music and file sharing
are quite successful in themselves. One such example is Taylor Swift. Her latest album,
1989, was predicted to sell in the first week alone, over 750,000 copies to 1.3 million copies.
However, the album eventually sold 1,287,000 copies within the United States alone and
debut atop 200 billboard chart. Even with these sorts of album sales she chose to remove all
her albums of Spotify, a music streaming application. In an interview with the Wall Street
Journal, she was quoted as saying, Piracy, file sharing and streaming have shrunk the
numbers of paid album sales drasticallyMusic is art, and art is important and rare.
Important, rare things are valuable. Valuable things should be paid for. Its my opinion that
music should not be free, and my prediction is that individual artists and their labels will
someday decide what an albums price point is. I hope they dont underestimate themselves
or undervalue their art. It also should be said that Spotifys net worth is now higher than the
current US music industry at $8.4 billion and $6.97 billion (Kaye, 2015). Spotify is a file
streaming website in which listener pay a monthly fee of $10 to listen to any music in their
catalogue, over 20 million songs.
Another artist is Lars Ulrich, drummer of thrash metal band, Metallica. Lars carries a
net worth of $200 million and is slightly infamous for leading the campaign against file
sharing companies like Napster in the late 90s/ early 2000s. He was quoted as saying,
Napster hijacked our music without asking. They never sought our permission. Our
catalogue of music simply became available as free downloads on the Napster system. In
7

fact, Metallica as a band ended up suing Napster on April 13, 2000. Metallica had alleged
that Napster was guilty of copyright infringement and racketeering. Metallica is one of the
best-selling heavy metal bands in history but their fame
The Simplicity of Infringing
This is under the assumption that we, as the general public consciously download
music and film illegally but there is such thing as the copyright oblivious. These are
essentially people who infringe copyright without knowing it. In fact, I could say with
confidence that if you are reading this you have committed copyright infringement at one
point in your life. Now, you could be thinking that you have never downloaded an album
illegally or watched a film on a video sharing website but if you have ever sung Happy
Birthday you have committed a crime.
Warner/Chappell music purchased the company owning the rights to the song for
$25 million, with the value of Happy Birthday being approximately $5 million. According to
the 1935 copyright registration, Warner claims that it would not expire until 2030. This means
until 2030, any unauthorized public performances of the song are technically illegal unless
the royalties are paid to Warner/Chappell music. However, this does only apply to the United
States and in fact, if in the European Union, the copyright will expire around December 31,
2016 as they observed the life + 70 standard. This standard being when an author or
creator dies, their copyrighted work would expire after the length of 70 years after their
death. Warner Chappell makes several million dollars a year from royalties, usually from
movies or television shows that want to use the song, so people do pay for copyright. It is a
fair assumption, that you did not know this making you copyright oblivious. The copyright
oblivious makes up a majority of the population. When a survey was carried out by me; 90%
of the people asked did not know that the song Happy Birthday was copyrighted let alone
that it was illegal to sing it without playing royalties. This law goes even for certain nursery
rhymes and campfire songs, but this raises the question: if it is this easy to break copyright
law, should we prosecute people for this?
There is no or, at most, very little leeway when it comes to copyright law. You either
break copyright or do not, it does not take into consideration the amount of knowledge the
infringer actually has regarding the specific copyright infringement they are committing. This
even applies to 5 year old kids who just want to sing happy birthday for their friend. By still
having these laws you will ultimately create a society where every single person above the
age of 2 is a criminal. Mostly due to the fact that the general population has no wisdom when
it comes to the difference between what is legal and what is fair use, which results in people

either caring very little about copyright law and infringement or caring so much which forces
them to refuse to do anything when it comes to general media due to fear of infringement.
How to get round the pirates?
Many people would consider piracy and file sharing a bad thing in that as a result of
these things, the artists makes less money and these things are illegal worldwide so what
possible advantage could there be for these things. An example, would be tracking how
much a song or movie is pirated and then planning tours or tracking popularity as a result.
One such example, of an artist using this method is Iron maiden.
Iron maiden has used data from a popular file sharing and pirating website to plan
out tours even. Instead of punishing pirates who have downloaded their music, they have in
fact chosen to tour in areas of the world in which downloading is highest and as a result gain
more fans because of it.
Another way to combat piracy and file sharing is the use of pay what you want
strategies. This kind of subscription system is very popular with independent artists who
dont have either a recording label or a production company. This is a strategy in which the
buyers pay any amount desired for any product or service which can also include zero, there
are cases in which there is a minimum price that needs to be paid; for songs, this is usually
$0.99. The motivation behind having this system is that it prevents many disadvantages of
conventional pricing such as the buyer feeling whether a product is worth more or less than
the selling price. Though this strategy is popular with smaller artists, Radioheads (an
English rock band) last album titled In Rainbows used this payment strategy. On October
2007, the band with Warner/Chappell publishing company released the album through the
bands web-store in a run-up to the albums official release. This release proved to be
extremely successful as the album ended up selling $3 million copies as of October 2008.
During a report of the album it stated that, the fact that Radiohead had made more money
before In Rainbows was physically released than they made in total on Hail to the Thief is
surely evidence enough that the initiative was a tremendous success. However, even with
this experiment going well, being a business, Warner/Chappell still kept an eye on the illegal
downloads of the album and even on the digital web-store they said they would have pulled
the album out if the average price ever got too low.
Eventually, the album was pulled from the store but it proved something incredible.
What they did worked. They gave consumers the chance to pay almost nothing for an album
which every single one of the listeners could have easily done but chose not to. Its possible
that some consumers would have paid more than the average price of an album. The
medias reaction too it was overwhelmingly positive with Time magazine calling it easily
9

the most important release in the recent history of the music business. I should say this is
also with a big band. When asked, 100% of people answered that if an album was to be sold
using the pay-what-you-want strategy, they would choose to buy the album rather than
illegally download it.

Conclusion
With all the facts and opinions stated its very easy to see that the music and film
business has changed a staggering amount. From the Statute of Anne in 1710 to now, there
have been leaps and bounds taken both by the creators of these pieces of art to the
listeners and watchers who buy them. There is no set answer when answering the question
whether these laws are necessary so with that in mind I propose a changing of these laws.
Instead of saying that these laws are unnecessary, I say we take into consideration the
needs and wants of the producer. So instead of a law stating that any instance of copyright
infringement should be punished, it suggest it state that only if the artists says so.
As you can see from above, many artists have very different opinions when it comes
to file sharing and piracy so why not let them choose whether the pirate should be punished.
Why not give the artist full creative permission to do what they want with their masterpiece?
They created it, so why should they not get to choose what happens to people who steal it.
Create a system in which the artist can interact directly with the consumer and as a result
you have a society which realises that art cannot be valued, and that not all art is worth

Bibliography
-. (2005, June 27). MGM STUDIOS v. GROKSTER. Retrieved from Oyez Chicagokent college of law : http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2004/2004_04_480
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. (1988, November 15). Retrieved from
UK legislation web site:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/contents
UK copyright law: A summary. (1988, - -). Retrieved from The UK copyright
service: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/uk_law_summary
Digital Economy Act 2010. (2010, April 8). Retrieved from The UK government
legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/47?
view=plain

10

Digitial Economy Act 2010. (2010, April 8). Retrieved from the UK governmet
legislation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/section/3
Copyright Infringement and Remedies. (2015, - -). Retrieved from United States
Copyright Office: http://copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html
Cieply, M. (2007, June 20). Some Cities Will Get Early Look at Sicko. Retrieved
from NY times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/movies/20sick.html?
_r=0
Duhaime. (-, - -). Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Definition:. Retrieved from Duhaime's
Law Dictionary:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/P/PeertoPeerFileSharing.aspx
Kaye, B. (2015, April 22). Spotify is now worth more than the entire US music
industry? Retrieved from Consequence of Sound:
http://consequenceofsound.net/2015/04/spotify-is-now-worth-more-thanthe-entire-music-industry/
Li, C. (2009). Intellectual Property Enforcement: International Perspectives. -:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Press, A. (2014, November 4). Pirate Bay co-founder arrested in Thailand.
Retrieved from the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/04/pirate-bay-founderfredrik-neij-arrested-thailand
Russell, J. (2014, November 4). Police Finally Arrest The Third And Final Founder
Of The Pirate Bay. Retrieved from techcrunch.com:
http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/04/police-finally-arrest-the-third-and-finalfounder-of-the-pirate-bay/
staff, T. (2013, July 31). Because Its His Birthday: Harry Potter, By the Numbers.
Retrieved from web archive:
http://web.archive.org/web/20130801013055/http://entertainment.time.co
m/2013/07/31/because-its-his-birthday-harry-potter-by-the-numbers/
Unknown. (2015, June 15). Franchises. Retrieved from Boxoffice mojo:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=harrypotter.htm
Unknown. (2015, June 14). How popular is thepiratebay.se? Retrieved from Alexa:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/thepiratebay.se
Unknown. (2015, - -). Nirvana Timeline. Retrieved from NIRVANA:
http://www.nirvana.com/bio
Warner, B. (2015, unknown unknown). Dave Grohl Net Worth. Retrieved from
Celebrity Net Worth: http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richestcelebrities/rock-stars/dave-grohl-net-worth/

11

References
https://bandzoogle.com/blog/record-sales-where-does-the-money-go
http://www.investinganswers.com/personal-finance/rich-famous/who-really-profits-youritunes-downloads-3818
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/nyregion/lawsuit-aims-to-strip-happy-birthday-to-you-ofits-copyright.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/26/arts/happy-birthday-and-the-money-it-makes.html
http://klangable.com/uploads/books/Piratenation.pdf
http://www.mtv.com/videos/news/157736/i-thought-napster-was-a-goodidea.jhtml#id=1562871
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books
https://brooklynnewyorkmusic.wordpress.com/2012/03/01/anti-piracy-acts-are-musicians-foror-against-them/
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/chart-beat/6304336/taylor-swift-1989-biggestsales-week-since-2002?mobile_redirection=false
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102146425
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/l/larsulrich406397.html
http://archive.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/us/21free.html
1.

Smart Pricing, Chapter 1. "Pay As You Wish" Pricing, Raju and Zhang, Wharton School
Publishing, 2010. ISBN 0-13-149418-X.

12