|
Locked
up for downloading
File Sharing:
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
By: Matt Gordon
Years
after Sean Fanning's now infamous Napster, the struggle between consumers
who feel that obtaining free music is their God-given right and record
execs who are sickened by the very same prospect is no secret. From
Metallica's Lars Ulrich to the Eagles, artists have taken very different
sides on this issue. It is a battle that will probably go on in courts
and newspapers for several years to come, but it has already made
a lasting impact on the music industry.
Perhaps it's simply
a commonly held misconception, but the music industry has always thought
to be corrupt at the business level. As the world of music has become
more technologically advanced, artists have noticed that they can
do something to battle the industry. Natalie Merchant, Pearl Jam,
Jimmy Buffett, and even the Eagles have released or are considering
releasing their music on their own labels.
As Merchant points
out: "On a major, you might make a dollar a record, and you have
to pay back the costs to make that record. As an indie, you can make
$10 a record." The breaking-even-point for a record is thus much
lower with indie labels, and artists can focus more on producing a
solid piece of work than worry about how many times that CD will go
platinum.
Pearl Jam is another
band that has embraced the indie trend. They are a band that I will
always remember for refusing to sell concert tickets through Ticketmaster,
because of the service charge that drives ticket prices up so high.
Now, Pearl Jam has started an online music-distribution service. After
each of their shows, high-quality recordings of the concert are taped,
mastered, and sold - often within twenty-four hours of the show. This
is a band that is truly thinking forward.
The music industry
has, of course, not been idle during this entire time. After the rise
of Napster, as soon as they saw the smallest dip in the sale of CDs,
they became heavily involved in the battle against online music sharing.
In recent news, they have sued four college students who had several
thousand downloaded files that they were offering online to other
downloaders. They settled out of court, but each of the settlements
was over $10,000.
This crackdown on
the music industry's own customers is a dangerous game to play. The
industry feels like it can't just stand by and watch people "steal"
their precious music, but at the same time it's a bit harsh to attack
your own clientele. Other methods recently employed by the Recording
Industry Association of American, RIAA, include using chat services
in popular music-sharing programs to send downloaders the message:
"When you break the law, you risk legal penalties. There is a
simple way to avoid that risk: DON'T STEAL MUSIC." Supposedly,
messages like that are employed simply as a form of "education"
for people who are not aware that what they are downloading would
probably be ruled illegal by a court of law. But will this affect
people or will they simply turn off the chat feature the next time
they go to download music?
Since the beginning
of this battle, university students have been reported to be the most
abusive downloaders. Surveys conducted by MIDEM, a music and technology
forum, have shown that eighty-two percent of young people get most
of their music for free. For adults, this figure is only at forty-nine
percent, a little more than half the young adults' numbers.
As a result, the RIAA
has cracked down on universities that allow downloading through the
campus network. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston
College are just two of the schools that have filed motions to stop
the recording industries' encroachment on their campus's privacy.
However, the University
of Florida has taken a completely opposite approach. They have enabled
campus computer network programs that identify and remove students
and faculty members using large chunks of the database. After agreeing
to a 'no-download policy,' the users are allowed back on the network.
After their second offense, users are denied access to the Internet
for five days. The third offense indefinitely suspends the user's
access. This has obviously been very successful at cutting down the
number of downloaders, but is this infringing on peoples' rights?
A lot of students certainly think so.
The newest front in
this whole battle concerns the Internet service providers (ISPs).
The RIAA has targeted them with thousands of subpoenas asking for
the names and addresses of users that are most likely using file-sharing
software.
Joseph Marion, an executive director for the Federation of Internet
Service Providers of the Americas, said: "To make ISPs responsible
for what is on their networks is onerous." It will never work
because there are simply too many innovative users who will go through
any means possible to get what they want.
So
the future is uncertain for this monumental issue in the music realm.
Both sides seem determined to get what they want at all costs; the
music industry wants to stuff their pockets with money and consumers
want to keep their pockets full. Music customers have expressed the
view that if music were more reasonably priced, then many people would
be more inclined to buy it. Eighteen dollars for a product that every
music downloader knows can be burned for a quarter is ridiculous.
Also, CDs can get lost or scratched quite easily, which calls up the
question of replacement. Plus, in an era of one-hit wonders, why
should we be forced to buy a CD that may only have one song we like?
The answer to all of these questions is that online music is here
to stay; the real question isn't if it will disappear, but in what
form it will remain after the smoke clears.
|
HOME
> LOCKED UP FOR DOWNLOADING