Over the past few years the concept of file sharing has exploded into not only popularity, but also into controversy as record labels started to experience a decline in their sales. I download songs almost everyday, and it never crosses my mind that it is illegal, or that I would ever consider an alternative to the way that I do it now. It is simply that it is the way I’ve grown up; I discovered the first popular program that allowed for file sharing, “Napster”, many years ago, before I really had either the desire or the money to purchase CD’s.
Many people and record labels have tarted to say that this idea is teaching the youth of our nation to turn into a group of thieves, lacking of morals and a sense of what is right. I feel that idea is ridiculous, I download music all the time, yet I’ve never stolen a thing in my life and I consider myself to have excellent morals. Millions of people utilize these systems; I personally don’t know a single person that doesn’t know how to download the music they want any time of the day. So does this mean that our entire culture is full of thieves? I don’t think so. The reason why file sharing is so widely used, in my view, is for a few reasons.
First, it is convenient. I no longer have to drive to the music store and search through thousands of CD’s, all I have to do is type in the name of the song that I want, wait three to five minutes, and the song is mine. Another reason that so many people use file sharing is because it is free, of course. Why would I go buy an entire CD for $15. 00, when I probably only like one or two songs on it anyway, if I can get that same couple of songs for FREE. It isn’t that I like the idea of stealing; it’s simply the fact that I’d rather not spend money on something if I can get it for free.
Would you give someone money or a text book if your friend said he would let you have their copy? Probably not. While I am fairly biased when it comes to the issue of file sharing, I do understand some of the effects that it may have. It does obviously take away some of the money that the artists would be making if we bought their CD’s, but lets dig a little deeper into this idea. The groups that have really been out spoken about file sharing have been people who are obviously millionaires already (Metallica is a perfect example), and smaller groups that aren’t making any money want people sharing there songs so that there name gets exposed.
So is it really a big deal that Limp Bizkit won’t make another million dollars this year, when they have already made 10 million? I personally don’t think so. Many people also feel that the morals that this idea instills in the youth of our nation are negative, but most of the people downloading music don’t even think about what is wrong with the idea, or that it is illegal for that matter. Just because little Johnny downloaded his favorite song does not mean that he is going to go steal something, or that he now thinks that stealing is ok.
If anything, it is teaching kids how to solve technical problems. Frankly, it is not that easy to just start downloading music, there are several complex steps that you must go through before you can obtain this music, and I think that it is great if younger children can figure out how to do something so complex. I am definitely not worried that they are going to break into my house and steal something from me later in life solely due to the fact that they knew how to download music when they were younger.
After reading two excellent articles concerning this new technology of File Sharing, I must admit that I no longer had the same ideas about the process and the legality of the idea. Both articles were written by University professors who obviously did extensive research on the exact issue that I was looking at. The first, “Digital Downloads, Access Codes, and US Copyright Law,” was written by Michael Landau, a professor for the College of Law at Georgia State. And the second was a combined effort from two Sociology Department professors at the University of California-Los Angeles; Laura Robinson and David Halle.
It was entitled, “Digitization, the Internet, and the Arts: eBay, Napster, SAG, and E-Books. ” They both focused on some of the most important facts about this new technology, and hey both used the most well-known program that was created, Napster, as an example. The two articles ended up actually working together, in my mind, to show the issues that are apparent through the systems, and then show what relevance that specific idea had. An issue concerning the legality of the systems themselves, Napster’s software for example, became quite evident in both articles.
When Napster was sued, according to Landau, they raised the claim that they were simply a service provider, and therefore were not liable due to the “Safe Harbor Act”, which protected such service providers (152). Robinson and Halle went deeper into the idea that File Sharing programs/companies were indeed simply service providers, the companies themselves did not break any copyright laws. “Napster’s free software turned every user’s machine into both a client and a server…
Napster allowed millions of users to download free MP3’s, most of which are illegal under copyright laws since Napster did not own, have, or even hold MP3 files… User’s exchanged material without the use of a Napster central server. “(378) At first, this information enforced my original thoughts on the subject of whether or not eer-peer services will ever be ended; since the software and companies themselves are not actually doing anything illegal (i. e. Providing the MP3’s to users, etc. ) there is no way that they could be shut down by the courts.
Landau then let me in on the ruling against Napster when they attempted to use the “service provider” defense. The Ninth Circuit Court found that Napster was actually unable to use this claim. Napster apparently was not immune from the copyright infringement case because while they were a “service provider”, they had prior knowledge that their service allowed for such activity. Also, as a “service provider” they were required to “establish a copyright compliance policy”, which they obviously had not done.
The fact that Napster violated both of these ideas made the company liable for the activity for which they were a “service provider” (158). After seeing that the Courts did have ways of attaching liability to such companies, I started to believe that it may indeed be possible to shut down many different peer-peer providers. Although I still felt that it would be quite the daunting task to ever put an end to ALL of these activities. Robinson and Halle then ventured deeper into my ideas that digital ownloads, and peer-peer transferring, is completely acceptable.
One of the main benefits of programs like Napster are that they, “… allowed unknown artists to provide their music to this same audience. ” (378) (i. e. the audience that was downloading well known music) I also personally feel that this is one of the HUGE benefits of such programs; many artists support the programs solely on this idea. They want their music to get out into the world, and we must keep in mind that these are the people that could actually be affected financially if they lose record sales due to illegal downloading.
The majority of the people that are complaining are already millionaires, so I remained firm on the idea that it is not a big deal if they lose a little money to copyright infringement. They already have millions (Metallica). Both articles also had a focus on the main “audience” to such programs. This is where the articles seemed to have a conflict in ideas, and it turned out the Landau actually turned me off to his ideas for a while because of the idea that he presented concerning this issue, while Robinson and Halle shared the thoughts that I have on the “audience” of these programs.
Landau presented us with this quote: “Many people, especially today’s crop of college students, believe that if something is extremely easy to obtain any prohibition against obtaining it is unreasonable. The same group of university students who upload, download, and trade files as thought the end of the world were near, would never walk into a record store and walk out with CD’s (150). ” This statement created quite the internal conflict within myself. I agree with the first part of the statement, many people do not hold any inhibition about obtaining this type of material.
But the second idea that this line expresses is confusingly rustrating to me (Meaning that I don’t know why it makes me as offended as it has). It seems absolutely ridiculous that Landau feels that; (1) It is only college students that are active in this type of activity, and (2) that people that are involved in this type of activity would “never” purchase a CD. First of all, I know people of all ages that are involved in peer-peer activity, and frankly I cannot think of a single person that does not know how to use these programs.
Everyone from adults that I know personally to my own grandparents download music, and I find it very ignorant that Landau would make such a statement. And as for the second issue that this line brings up, I feel that this is yet another ignorant statement. While it is true that record sales have dropped since peer-peer systems emerged, this does not mean that college students who download music never purchase CDs. Record sales obviously have not dropped that significantly, seeing as though record labels are not going out of business left and right because of downloading.
If Landau’s statement is true, and the majority of peer-peer users are college students, which is in the tens of millions, and even small a percentage of them never purchased CDs; it ould have a devastating impact on the record industry. And even though, as I stated in part 1, I do not purchase many CDs, I do purchase some. It is ridiculous that someone could state that any group of people that is that large all act in the same way.
The fact that Landau made this statement obviously went against the ideas that I have on peer-peer file sharing, and since he made no convincing case on the subject, it did not help sway me in the opposite direction in any way. Relief was luckily on its way, and it came from a few ideas that Robinson and Halle provided. “In late 1999, Newsweek profiled three ypical users: a New York City high school student, a Stanford college student, and a 50-something musician. The main characteristic that differentiated them was the degree of guilt that they experienced in acquiring this music for free.
Only the mature user had any qualms… “Pirating”[] did not seem to bother users in the 25-and under range. ” This is an idea that I personally feel is very true, and it recognizes that there is a wide range of users for these systems. The statement supported both my idea that younger people are not as concerned about the issue, and my thought that there is no “typical” user. It is not like only college tudents are utilizing these systems. The articles also then tried to face the issue of solving the problem that has been established by the creation of these file sharing programs.
And since after reading through both of the articles to finally realize that file sharing is indeed illegal, despite of the obvious benefits it does provide, I felt that it was important to recognize what is being done to try to change the way these systems currently operate. While Landau offered a few different ideas on how to fix the problem, the main idea that both articles shared, as well as the concept that has become available to he public at this point, deals with a “pay based” service.
This type of system would allow for individuals to log onto a “service provider” and download a song from their database that had been licensed to that specific company. So this sounds like a good idea, right? The copyright holder gets their money, the public gets the music that they want, and it all stays legal. The concept is excellent; the ease of use is still there, and according to Robinson and Halle their current services still offer the chance for new artists to release their music online for free to the same audience (380). But it is unfortunately not that easy.
The problem stems from three main issues that were discussed in both articles, although not directly as negative side effects. The first is that the libraries that the companies provide are just not large enough to draw the public from free sites to pay sites. According to Robinson and Halle, the program “MusicNet” allows users to draw from a library of 78,000 titles (380), which sounds like a lot. But as I sit here writing this paper on a Thursday at 1:00pm, my current file sharing program, which is free, has almost 27 million files available for e to choose from.
So I believe that it is ridiculous to think that someone is going to pay for a site which allows no where near the number of different files that their free site would offer, it just doesn’t make sense. The concept is excellent, I just feel that in order for this part of the idea to work they must be able to at least match the free sites output before people will start paying what they could get more of for free. Also, the issue of cost became apparent in Landau’s article. “The price for CD’s should be quite different from the prices for music files.
The cost of the physical ‘hard copy’ of the CD includes the cost of the plastic “jewel box” holder, the price of the blank CD, the price paid for the paper and printing… A music download does not involve the costs associated with the elements listed above and, therefore, should not be nearly so expensive. ” (164) This sounds completely reasonable to me, the cost should obviously be much less for a music download then it would for the physical copy, but this is not the trend with today’s “pay” type programs.
The newly released Napster, along with several other companies, ffer their downloads for $0. 99 per song or $9. 95 per album. With the previous statement from Landau this price seems absolutely absurd. We now run into the issue that if someone was to download 14 songs from an album, they very may well pay more that the album would cost in the store, and they wouldn’t even have an actually copy of that song. I personally feel that if the idea is to work in this aspect, the price needs to be dropped significantly before it will start to catch the public’s attention and start to “turn” users.
Yet another issue that this excellent idea has brought up is iscussed by Robinson and Halle, something that I had no idea was going on within the new “pay based” sites. Apparently some of the sites are encrypting the music so that the files cannot be burned onto a CD after it has been downloaded, even though the file was paid for (380). What an incredibly unreasonable concept. Why would a person pay for a song so that they can only listen to it when they are sitting at their computer?
I know I sure wouldn’t, and I most definitely would not if I could get that same file for free, but still be allowed to put it on my choice of media and listen to it anytime I pleased. I feel that the concept of pay-based sites is excellent, and considering the legal outlook on file sharing that it may be the best alternative to what is currently occurring, but I also feel that after being presented with the current issues of pay-based sites, they still need to do a lot of work before the file sharing public is going to start paying for a service that they currently get for free.
File Sharing, an idea that I literally experience everyday, has become somewhat of a questionable idea in my own thoughts after I was presented with the legality of the issue, the benefits, as well as the ossible alternatives that we vary may well face in the near future. Landau, Robinson, and Halle presented excellent evidence to help show exactly what is going on behind the scenes in this quasi underground world.
While it has put a more questionable thought in my mind on whether or not it is actually “right” to do, seeing as though it is obviously illegal, I still do not feel that I will change my ways in the near future. And personally I also don’t feel that my fellow “copyright infringers” would stop either if presented with the same information. The benefits that both he users and the “up and coming” artists receive simply seem too good for one to let go of unless literally forced to.
As for now, I feel that in order for this illegal activity to cease, and for a new type of legal technology to emerge (i. e. pay-based downloading), it would take an unbelievable amount of resources to disband the current sites. And when this is accomplished, there are still a few problems that may exist (foreign based operations and the ever growing number of “clone” programs for example) which are nearly impossible to overcome, so it is quite possible that this free file sharing is simply here to stay.
