There is a good chance the person you were just talking with,
sitting in class with, or eating lunch with is actually a criminal.
Not the gun-toting, money-grabbing kind, but the sitting at a
computer, listening peacefully to music kind. You know the
type.
Since the Recording Industry Association of America has started
issuing subpoenas for sharing copyrighted music files, the
thousands and possibly millions of people who engage in this
practice may find themselves slapped with costly lawsuits for
criminal copyright violations. While I understand the dilemma of
the RIAA ““ file sharing is reducing music sales ““ this
problem has been brought about by the RIAA’s outdated
business practices and unwillingness to adapt to modern technology.
The problem of piracy could be solved if the RIAA worked with
consumers and technology developers to create fair
alternatives.
Before the advent of file-sharing programs like Kazaa and
Napster, customers were forced to go to record stores to purchase
music they wanted. Compact discs typically were priced from $14 to
$16, a large portion of which went toward production costs that
could be alleviated through online distribution.
But as file-sharing programs came into fashion ““ from
Napster in 1998 to Kazaa and Gnutella ““ the RIAA was forced
to compete with services that charge nothing and delivered the same
product. As simple economics would suggest, the RIAA began to lose
significant business as this technology spread. In response, the
RIAA quickly managed to have Napster shut down by the courts. Since
then, however, new alternatives have continued to crop up on an
almost weekly basis.
As a result, the RIAA decided to target the problem at what it
believed to be its source: people who share copyrighted music
files. The RIAA has begun identifying people who share files by
subpoenaing their Internet service providers ““ once
identified, these individual file-sharers are sued for copyright
violation. Some ISPs, such as Verizon, have fought against the
subpoenas, but many providers, including UCLA’s ResNet, have
warned customers that they can no longer guarantee their
privacy.
This is a counterproductive strategy on the part of the RIAA.
The RIAA has resisted the adoption of new technologies and fights
progress rather than adapts to it. While artists like Chuck D have
pointed to the need to revise sales and business practices and
create a system of online music sales, the industry has sought to
continue to charge outrageous prices for music.
Rather than accepting some decrease in profit and learning to
change its business model to minimize this loss, the RIAA has been
greedy and stubbornly believed that the same practices used for
years are still applicable today. For its unwillingness to change,
the RIAA is paying a price, and is harming its customers through
misguided lawsuits.
Furthermore, the RIAA has failed to learn a fundamental lesson
of history that undertakings such as Prohibition and the War on
Drugs should have taught us by now. Driving any means of trade
underground and criminalizing it only will lead to greater
innovation. Over the past decade, we have seen drug dealers use
advanced technology to create and smuggle drugs, and many
high-profile drug runners have been incarcerated by the government.
Yet, the scourge of drugs has not been eliminated. A similar
situation can be seen in the failures of the Prohibition era.
And, it is observable today in the rise of programs like Kazaa
Lite, which makes it more difficult for law enforcement to track
file sharing.
Attempting to fight file sharing by attacking its purveyors
rather than working with them will surely lead to defeat for the
RIAA, because new technologies will always come into existence.
The RIAA is hypocritically portraying itself as a victim of
greedy customers, claiming to be an organization that merely
attempts to protect artists. The reality is that record companies
pocket billions in profits, while artists only see about 10-15
percent of the profits from the sales of albums. Less established
artists and those who work for more cutthroat companies see even
less. While I certainly do not dispute the rights of any legitimate
business to make money, the RIAA is blatantly dishonest in claiming
it fights for the rights of small artists, for this is far from the
case.
There is a solution to this difficult dilemma. If the RIAA were
to work out arrangements with file-sharing programs like Kazaa by
which these programs would charge users and bar unauthorized users,
I predict we would see record company sales dramatically increase.
Also, illegal downloading would drop because the programs being
used to share these files would bar such use. Both sides will have
to compromise, but it will benefit all parties involved in the long
run.
The current spying on and suing of customers by the RIAA should
especially concern students. After all, don’t such draconian
measures open the door for more unnecessary interference in our
personal lives, a trend that is likely to continue for years to
come? We should all encourage the RIAA and file-sharing programs to
arrive at fair alternatives ““ for artists, consumers and
companies.
Bhaskar is a third-year political science student. E-mail
him at sbhaskar@media.ucla.edu.