This legal complaint was filed on November 16, 2004 by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) against "the people," or the unknown offenders of piracy in the U.S.  It is important to clarify that it was the MPAA who filed the complaint on behalf of the studios it represents.  The Document is outlined by three different sections: 1) Jurisdiction and Venue, 2) Parties, and 3) Count I: Infringement of Copyrights.  The document references itself as, "a civil action seeking damages and injunctive relief for copyright infringement under the copyright laws of the United States."  The complaint also states that the MPAA is targeting the Defendant (the people) for specific film piracy actions such as distributing and offering to distribute copyright works via the internet.  A particularly informative portion of the "Parties" section of the formal complaint consists of a description of how the Plaintiffs (the studios) are affected by the Defendant.  Described in this section is the fact that piracy allows people to freely and illegally obtain unauthorized copyrighted works.  The Defendant then has the ability to distribute the illegal copy in near perfect condition regarding both sound and picture quality.  The Plaintiff's main argument here is that just one copy of a film can cause an explosion of illegal distribution worldwide by limitless people.  Included under the Infringement of Copyrights is an equally as informative explanation of willful process of the Defendant's piracy acts, and how the court should go about punishing those said acts.  This formal complaint document shows how Hollywood is reacting to the piracy movement, and what measures they are taking to fight against it.

This academic journal is published by Cambridge University Press and is a commentary on the first source listed above.  Laing highlights the most important points of Frith’s work, offering his professional opinion in a disagreement, agreement, or clarification in the very least.  A notable quality of this journal is the fact that is it printed in Great Britain; therefore it offers the insight of a foreigner analyzing American copyright law in contrast to that of the United Kingdom.  This perspective draws attention to aspects of the law that may not been previously considered. 

            The essay is short and concise, wasting no words in a full examination of Frith’s work.  He calls into question Frith’s assertion that the copyright system is an “aspect of the competition between different music producers…and…different music users,” and claims that there is much more to it than that.  He acknowledges the complexities in the system in that they do not clearly favor or target neither the creator, nor the performer, nor the consumer.  Slightly outdated, this essay was written before any sampling lawsuits were completed in the courts (at least in Great Britain) however, this serves as a strength instead of a weakness, however, seeing as his calculated predictions can be measured against the results to gauge how scholars viewed the subject.

            This journal is not only an intellectual work in itself, but it is also an intelligent deciphering of some of Frith’s most significant assertions.  This serves the reader well as some of his reading can be confusing and seem contradictory at parts.  In reading Frith’s work, I will be sure to keep Laing’s journal on hand for color and clarification in order to most accurately comprehend the discussion and facts presented.

This book is a guide – as its title might suggest – to all things digital when it comes to music.  It serves as not so much an analysis on copyright in the music industry as a whole, but rather as a set of legal and technical guidelines so that one may participate in the consumption and production of such music without infringing on copyrights.  In other words, it describes for the reader all of the ins-and-outs of the digital music industry so that one may know where in the law his practices may reside. 

            Hill’s book has entire chapters devoted to the assessment of what is legal, what is not, and how to go about participating in said sanctioned musical practices.  He identifies a list of acceptable file-sharing websites, and offers his own commentary on why others are forbidden, as well as why these are acceptable.  The book begins with a basic introduction into the technologies and methods used in the digital realm and then goes deeper to list available services and to comment on the merits of various practices.  His advice is clear and he condones no illegal activity, yet he makes clear why certain people might be motivated to circumvent copyright laws in terms of digital music.  He further lists specific file types and programs that are used in these practices and he identifies useful software.  He finishes the book with another broad chapter about the “Conscience of Digital Music” as a whole as well as his prediction of the future of the industry.

Hill’s technological knowledge is a key aspect of this book that has allowed me to delve deeply into the details of digital music production and sharing.  He explains these issues in simple terms, while still conveying the complexity of their implications.  In writing this final paper, the technological terms and details from this book will provide much-needed expertise in a field that I am not necessarily well-versed in.  In my analysis of the acceptability of digital sampling, I must first know how the practice works and what techniques are involved; this book offers me this knowledge, which is key to reaching a conclusion in my final paper on what sampling is acceptable within copyright law.

This is essentially the plaintiffs' (Columbia Pictures' et. al.) memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgement on Liability. Essentially it captures the main arguments of the plaintiffs in Columbia Pictures v. Gary Fung (IsoHunt), a recent development in the bittorrent context. Essentially the plaintiffs claim that the whole purpose of the "Fung websites" is to facilitate and provide users with the ability to search for ".torrent" files which link to trackers hosted on various computers and servers that contain actual content files like movies, etc. Also, plaintiffs maintain that "torrent" files in themselves have no purpose but to link to actual content files. The plaintiffs say that there had been done an "unrebutted" statistical study which showed that "95%" of all the torrents on the "other fung sites", which work hand-in-hand with the main IsoHunt site, are links to copyrighted material. Also important, is the plaintiffs counter to the defendant's (Gary Fung) claim that the Grokster case doesn't apply because unlike in the Groster case IsoHunt does not distribute any product. The plaintiffs' argument is that this claim is invalid because the Grokster case had nothing to do with it being a product as opposed to a service, but rather the fact that the Grokster "induced and promoted" active infringement which thus made Grokster liable for contributory infringement. 

This document is crucial to my research paper. It is the only recent legal document, and at the same time a primary source, directly related to my research thesis of whether government can/should shut down sites like www.IsoHunt.com. I plan to use virtually all of the arguments presented by the plaintiffs in my research paper. By weighing these arguments with various other sources (copyright law, DMCA, Grokster case, Fung's Affidavit) I'll be able to reach some kind of a conclusion in regards to my thesis.