This will be the first of a 4 part series I will be posting regarding downloading music through peer-to-peer file sharing. The 4 combined are part of an assignment I have been working on as part of my degree.
PART 1
Should the RIAA continue its present course of legal action against people involved in file sharing?
This is an issue that is important to me for a number of reasons, and I will outline them here. Millions of people do it each day, millions of songs are downloaded, and, as an artist, I welcome the idea.
I create music. On my website, www.timpane.com, I have posted a number of MP3s online for people to hear or download for free. It would be my fondest dream that one of these songs end up on Kazaa, being downloaded in the millions. I would have new people hear my music every day, and from there, I could build a fan base, to whom I could market CDs, and perform live shows. Instead, I work hard every day at a job, then record my music at my own expense, and make my own CDs to give away to whoever will listen.
The music industry and a number of artists have taken this fond wish and rejected it out of hand, saying it is just not good enough for them. They want more of something they already have.. profit.
I fully accept that it should be illegal for others to make money off of the work of the industry. I know that there are websites selling advertising space and giving away songs (called “warez”) royalty free to the public. This is an unacceptable practice, and I agree that it must be stopped. There is a phenomenon, however, of which I do approve. It is called file-sharing. This phenomenon involves a program on the internet that links two individual computers and lets them trade files between one another. This program connects millions of individual computers, and allows you to search through archives on each one. You find something you like.. go ahead, you can have a copy.
The Music industry has, after successfully shutting down websites that allowed people to download music, started to prosecute the end users of this file-sharing software, calling it “stealing” or “piracy”, and claiming it is affecting their sales. Their targets have been regular people like you and me, including students, teachers, grandfathers, and a twelve year old girl.
At the heart of this issue, there are two questions. 1) Are current paid music options viable or fair? 2) Is it wrong to download music from peers?
If the answer to those both those questions is yes, then we will take it as an axiom that peer-to-peer music downloading should be stopped, and that the RIAA has the right to prosecute those involved in that activity.
I will try to take a balanced approach regarding this issue. I will explore the websites of the RIAA as well as their opponents. I will look at the history of the issue as well as the situation as it stands today. I will use news articles, legal research papers, web pages, advocacy papers, and anecdotal information to see if my stance is correct.
Going into my research, I believe I will find ample proof that the RIAA should not continue its present course of legal action against people involved in file sharing.
TOMORROW: PART 2 – Are current options viable.
A note…
They cannot, and at this point, do not, go after people who are simply downloading music. However, because most file-sharing software automatically puts downloaded music into an upload-available folder, they go after people who upload tunes to others.
Kind of like buying a bootleg DVD on the street. You’re not going to jail for buying a bootleg DVD — you’re a victim, not a perp. But because file-sharing programs generally force downloaders to upload in order not to “leech”, they become both vendor and consumer at the same time. And at this point, the RIAA is targetting high-profile uploaders with thousands of tunes in their shared folders, not people that have a half-dozen songs. The value of the tort also figures in here, because until you exceed a certain value, it’s neither a criminal nor actionable offense. I think that value’s somewhere in the $2000s, but I’m not entirely sure anymore (thought at one time it was in the $6,000s). Regardless, it protects me if I dupe one of my CDs to share with you — I haven’t reached a very actionable amount. If I dupe 10,000 of them, that’s something else.
—
Matthew P. Barnson