RIMPAC – Rim of the Pacific Exercise

Location: Pearl Harbor

Countries participating: 22

Duration: June 29 to Aug. 3

Remark: this is not only a ship formation practice showing up naval strength of various nations, but also a signal to suppress China escalating military affairs on the East Sea (or South China/ West Philippines Sea). Some old vessels will be actually sunk in this exercise.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.





RIMPAC 2012 Participating Vessels[8]
 Royal Australian Navy HMAS Darwin (FFG 04)
HMAS Farncomb (SSG 74)
HMAS Perth (FFH 157)
 Royal Canadian Navy HMCS Algonquin (DDG 283)
HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341)
HMCS Victoria (SSK 876)
HMCS Yellowknife (MM 706)
 Chilean Navy CS Almirante Lynch (FF-07)
 French Navy FS Prairial (F731)
 Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force JDS Myōkō (DDG-175)
JDS Shirane (DDH-143)
JDS Uraga (MST-464)
 Mexican Navy ARM Usumacinta (A-412)
 Royal New Zealand Navy HMNZS Endeavour (A11)
HMNZS Te Kaha (F77)
 Republic of Korea Navy ROKS Choe Yeong (DDH-981)
ROKS Na Daeyong (SS-069)
ROKS Yulgok Yi I (DDG-992)
 Republic of Singapore Navy RSS Formidable (68)
 Russian Navy RFS Admiral Panteleyev (BPK 548)
RFS Fotiy Krylov
RFS Irkut
 United States Navy and Coast Guard Warships:
USS Chafee (DDG-90)
USS Charlotte (SSN-766)
USS Cheyenne (SSN-773)
USS Chosin (CG-65)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93)
USS Crommelin (FFG-37)
USS Essex (LHD-2)
USS Gary (FFG-51)
USS Higgins (DDG-76)
USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS North Carolina (SSN-777)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60)
USS Port Royal (CG-73)
USS Princeton (CG-59)
USS Reuben James (FFG-57)
USS Stockdale (DDG-106)
Auxiliary ships:
USCGC Bertholf (WMSL-750)
USNS Henry J. Kaiser (T-AO-187)
USNS Matthew Perry (T-AKE-9)
USNS Salvor (T-ARS-52)
USNS Yukon (T-AO-202)

Pursuing a Legislative Approach

Like in Korea, American legislators might need to endorse a bill that requires ISPs to send warnings to Internet users every time they are found to violate the copyright laws. After three offenses, their Internet should be cut off. Besides, users would need to pay a fine or additional fee if they want to resume the Internet services. These fees then go directly to the artists or recording label companies.

There are definitely many positives to increase ISPs accountability. It makes sense for ISPs to be burdened with the enforcement and payment to music companies. The online black market for music is so pervasive that some estimate that it accounts for 95 percent of Internet traffic in the night hours (Castle at al., 2008). Hence, it is less likely that recording companies would be able to do anything unless ISPs are fully cooperated. Besides, since ISPs serve as the medium and benefactor for the increase in the Internet use, it seems feasible that the violators pay the ISPs for their illegal music downloading.

Some negatives would exist for ISPs cooperation. The cost sustained by ISPs is estimated to be significant (Seidenberg, 2010). High cost will be a deterrent for ISPs to participate willfully and would suggest they lobby against requiring them to do anything and increasing their liability. Another problem with having ISPs charge a fee is that the actual payment and royalty fees would be hard to assess.



Executive Summary

I.          Introduction

II.        Methodology

II.        The Online Pirates

A.        Defining Online Music Piracy

B.        Internet Service Providers position

IV.       Findings

A.        Business Impact of Online Music Piracy

B.        The Thriving of File-Sharing Networks

1.         International Nature of File-sharing Community

2.         Sweden the Pirate Bay

3.         Uploading Community

C.        Legal environment

1.         The United States Copyright Law

2.         The South Korea Case

D.        The Failure of Current Methods against Music Piracy

1.         Litigation against Individuals and File-sharing Sites

2.         Other Preventive Approaches

E.         The Free Psychology of Music Consumers

V.        Final Analysis

A.        Pursue a Legislative Implementation

B.        Assign a New Government Agency

C.        Adopt a Music Tax Approach

D.        Do Nothing



Doing Nothing

By Jimmy Hoesan

Do nothing is also one alternative that government and artists should consider. Online piracy has caused decrease in music sales by an average of 7% per year (Sinha & Mandel, 2008). This is happened to well-known artists. On the other hand, online piracy could have a strong network effects which benefits new-come artists. Some customers who pirate would have bought the music album. The result of this network effects can significantly increase the market size, therefore the customers who download music for free can benefit the artists by increasing the size of potential market (Jain, 2008). Artists could easily get famous because online piracy. Even though later on the artists’ music royalty would be decreased, online piracy was helping them to be well-known in the music industry. By doing nothing, both sides benefit each other.

IFPI said that fighting piracy should be a government job and might be very costly. According to one study, fighting piracy infringers may cost as much as £365 million (approximately US$ 596 million) per year and it will be a top problem (Anderson, 2009).

Adopting a Music Tax Approach

By Chao-Hsuan Wu

We are living in a free download era. Although record companies loss money from CD sales, they can earn money from concerts or diverse merchandises. Record music has become a tool to get people pay for concerts or related products. However, record companies still need find ways to guarantee their revenues. In fact, there is no ways that can totally prohibit illegal download and ensure revenue to music industry. In fact, research pointed out that a choice between downloading a new album for free and paying 5 dollars, only 18.3 percent, or less, chose to pay the 5 dollar. (Arrington, 2008).

Music tax may be an effective way to create guaranteed revenue. If people can pay few dollars, they can download all music and put it into their iPod, Mp3 and their cars. The Songwriters Association of Canada called for a mandatory 5 dollar per month ISP music tax before. Although the idea just began, it may be the solution to solve deficits problems. (Arrington, 2008).

However, some people doubts that the music tax will kill music innovation. Because everyone is asked to pay music tax, less competition in music industry will lead to remove creative innovation. Composers will not be reluctant to pay more time and cost to make good music due to ensured revenue. Besides, if music tax can help music industry get stable revenue, other people could get into the industry to share the market. In the end, music industry still has to collapse or crash. (Arrington, 2008).

Previous Older Entries

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 18 other followers

%d bloggers like this: