![]() Still, there is a possibility to reserve the copyright and provide the fans with the latest news. What is even more important is the fact that if not Rolling Stone or Billboard then someone else may have become the source of this information, so those who wanted to download the pirate copy of the songs prior to the album release, would have found the ways to do so. What is more, they are just a source of news, and they do not force people to download the leaked music – it is the choice of the one who reads the article. From the music outlets’ perspective, the main priority is to satisfy the reader, so the band and the record label are not taken in consideration. It is the only case in which they infringe the rights of intellectual property, so they may be judged for it.įrom an ethical standpoint, this situation is deontological, as it is the work of Billboard and Rolling Stone to provide people with the latest news occurring in the music world even if it is the leakage of information. Ethical issues rise when the music outlets help the fans find the way to download the leaked music. In the case if they post a link redirecting a reader to iTunes or online music shops that will sell the album once it is released or provide them with the sample that are only possible to listen to, they reserve the band’s copyright. ![]() The issue here is whether the music outlets provide the link for downloading the pirate copies of the songs. Bearing this in mind, it is wrong to say that they violate the band’s copyright by posting an article containing the information about the leak of the songs. The basis of their activities is to let people know about the latest news in the music world whether it be the official release of the new album or the leak of songs from the one. First of all, let us make it clear what is the purpose of the music outlets such as Billboard and Rolling Stone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |