Copyright Compensation


As an example of copyright infringement, since the MPEG layer 3 compression algorithm was made available on the internet in the ’90s (Davis, 1995), the ease of getting a CD device, ripping it and making this available for millions of users through the internet, allowing users to make the use of the artistic and intellectual material without paying any cent to the producer of such IPO has surged and only increased having even allowing the users of the peer-to-peer networks to have the delighted usage of millions of materials, by just having to download it instantly on the peer-to-peer networks.


In the late ’90s, a peculiar file sharing program called Napster came to the light on the internet, allowing millions of copyrighted music to be downloaded for free, and encouraging the ripping and sharing of copyrighted material through this very curious platform. At that time, the impact of this software has incredibly huge what triggered one of the most famous cases in the law court which ruled against Napster and the platform disappeared after that.

After Napster, the internet users seeing how this file sharing model used to bring some kind of facility on accessing (in this case for instance music), had been supporting this kind of application and many derivative or inspired applications came to the light in the early 2000s.

One of the most decent solutions to the case of music file sharing and such derivatives, came when Apple released the first iPod platform (Macworld, 2011) in conjunction with the iTunes service, which until today exists and is one of the most reliable and formal ways of distributing music and royalties, without damaging the music industry.


Today, we have some music streaming services such as Spotify and Deezer; Netflix for accessing movies and TV shows; Amazon has its book platform based on Kindle and there are some other platforms which encourage the correct usage of copyrighted material. At certain reflection they all are effective, however, there are barriers which may include the Music Recording Companies, the Offices related to the IPO related issues. I think most of the platforms we have today are effective business models, in spite of believing the prices may surge the way it becomes more effective in terms of the quantity of the exploration of such markets and products.


My model of distributing royalties for such owners of IPO that are shared on the internet through streaming and peer-to-peer file sharing is based on the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which is part of the United States Copyright Law (MIT, n.d), what this law simply does is a regulatory way of making the producer of blank media producers in paying for the copyright owners which are affected by the use of such technology, and is in my viewpoint a very established way of protecting copyrights, however when you think about streaming, you cannot have the same control over what is reproduced and what is consumed by the internet users (not even considering peer-to-peer).

Based on such law, I personally believe the Internet Service Providers (ISP) should be encouraged and regulated by the law, based on the principle that the streaming exists and it is massive, and the peer-to-peer continues to transfer an unimaginable quantity of copyrighted material without paying any cent for all that ones who owns it.

By charging the ISP a certain percentage of its yield, based on the principle that the internet industry also makes trillions in charging users for the transfer of data, especially if you think about the mobile technology, which in my opinion is one of the most expensive ways of transferring data today.

I do believe most of the users would not be affected, and if so would be in the internet prices, anyways it would be a very simple and effective way of increasing the royalty collection/levy and making it available for the IPO owners and the regulators of copyrights.


Davis, P. (1995) A tutorial on MPEG/Audio Compression. IEE [Online] 60-74. Available at: (Accessed 10 September 2017).

Washington University School of Law (2013) Case Study: A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. [ONLINE] Available at: (Accessed 10 September 2017).

Macworld (2011) The iPod: How Apple’s legendary portable music player came to be [ONLINE] Available at: (Accessed 10 September 2017).

MIT. (n.d) What about the Audio Home Recording Act? [ONLINE] Available at: (Accessed 10 September 2017).

Published by Ademir Constantino

Software Engineer

%d bloggers like this: