|
You are viewing
Volume 41, Issue 2
September 16, 2003
To return to the current issue please click
here.
|
 |
September 16, 2003
Industry plunders “music pirates”
Ryan Bailey
Opinions Editor
Right now, 60 million Americans participate in free peer-to-peer internet
file-sharing, exchanging about 2.6 billion files per month. Mostly songs
and movies, the majority of these files are copyright-protected. All rights
to sell or distribute these media lie with the artists that created them
or the corporation to whom they have sold such rights. Since the mid-1990s,
the programs that facilitate this anonymous search for items to download
have been growing in popularity, peaking with Napster and its technological
descendents.
As a result, our ability to experience art has taken an evolutionary jump.
Just as species adjust to changes in their environment, the way that consumers
acquire music has changed along with the widespread technology now available
to us all. History shows the same pattern. There was a copyright frenzy
when it became possible to reproduce phonograph cylinders; make audio
tapes of any records or radio broadcasts; and make video cassette copies
of anything on television or even of other cassettes. Each time, society
has adjusted, finding a reasonable way for creators to be compensated
by consumers. Never has it become a fiasco like the litigious tumult that
surrounds online music sharing.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing the
interests of the largest record labels, has begun to sue those proven
to be responsible for the online sharing of copyrighted material. National
copyright law allows a sentence of five years imprisonment and $250,000
per song; but the merciful RIAA asks only $150,000 per proven infringement.
Numerous sensible people have questioned the severity of this punishment
(check the Eighth Amendment); but RIAA president Cary Sherman assured
America that they are only pursuing major infringers who distribute “a
substantial amount of copyrighted music.”
However, this has not proven to be the case. It has recently been reported
that the next target of the major record labels is a Brooklyn woman who
was found to have about 1,000 songs on her hard drive available for download.
RIAA lawyers are able to trace these songs back to 2001, and the now-defunct
Napster. Can this woman be considered a major source of illegal file-sharing?
How much has the music industry’s revenue (now reduced to $11.5
billion a year) decreased as a result of this woman’s hard drive?
Those familiar with Napster would know that 1,000 songs is not very many,
and not very difficult to obtain. I think she is very much an ordinary
American internet user. And the RIAA is willing to financially destroy
her in order to intimidate the 60 million others just like her.
There are a lot of simple solutions to solve this problem. Internet service
providers could very easily charge a monthly fee to willing consumers
for unlimited music access, and then distribute the royalties to individual
artists for what has been downloaded. It could be an upgrade to the ordinary
service, like basic cable to premium. Or official software and software
upgrades could be sold for file-sharing purposes, with the revenue going
to the artists or their labels. It doesn’t require much thought
to find an adequate solution and reveal the needlessness of the RIAA scare
tactics. Unfortunately, many such solutions have been disregarded when
suggested by Verizon and other internet providers which are hesitant to
reveal their customers’ identities for prosecution.
It would appear that modern technology, our ability to digitally reproduce
most media, has changed America’s perception of copyright law. It
has become obsolete, just like society’s need for record labels
to distribute music for us. This is not to say that we should be breaking
the law. Criminal activity is not justifiable. I mean to suggest that
these laws, and those willing to hurt us to support them, cease to represent
us. And judging by the growing numbers, it would appear that these laws
no longer agree with the will of the people. Just as with the Prohibition
of the ‘30s, when so few are obeying a law, maybe the majority should
rule. Times have changed, and it is time for our society and this industry
to change along with it.
Back to Top
| Previous Page | Home
|
|
|
