The parties involved in the described incident would experience negative feelings because of several factors. First and the most evident reason is the loss of IP income. In this view, the pop artist could account to accumulate substantial financial revenue; instead, the clients use his product for free. Second, the distribution of new music occurred on the illegal basis violating the copyright rights of the artist. According to the Copyright Act of 1976, only the copyright owner has the legal right to distribute the product, reproduce it, create adaptations, and to display it (Stim, n.d.). Since the artist did not provide his consent to distribute the music, those who are currently listening to it and distributing it throughout the networks are ignoring the Copyright Act.

The artist’s claims about the violation of the Copyright Act can be rebutted by the so-called ‘fair use argument.” This argument suggests that “a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work” (What Is Fair Use? n. d., par. 1). Such fair use does not require obtaining the permission from the copyright owner. However, it is necessary to admit that it is rather problematic to prove the “fair use” intentions so that the legislative power takes the artist’s side, in this situation.

Finally, it is necessary to discuss the legal remedies that the artist can benefit from. The most evident, solution, in this view, is to seek to get the compensation for the so-called actual damages or the particular amount of money lost as a result of the incident. Or, the artist can seek to get the compensation for the statutory damages that are evaluated basing on the number of copies distributed. In this case, he should ensure that he has been previously registered in the Copyright Office of the USA.