Napster All Over Again

A recent story in the local Boston paper Boston Now about students at MIT illegally downloading and sharing music caught my interest, partly because of the copyright infringement aspect and partly because of the fact that this behavior seems to be so widespread because people just don't think it's wrong.

The story says how students at Boston college and universities (MIT is the main focus of the story) are being sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for copyright infringement. The students are downloading music files using peer-to-peer file sharing networks like LimeWire. I'm not talking about things like iTunes, where you have to pay to download tracks; in the eyes of the RIAA, those sites are totally legit. I'm talking about the types of sites that are the children and grandchildren of the original downloading site, Napster. Some students who have been sued are settling with the RIAA and paying about $3,000 in settlement, while others are paying a lot more in attorney's fees to fight these lawsuits.

You can see the pre-lawsuit letter from the RIAA to targeted college campuses here.

The way in which the RIAA is going after the students, however, is considered suspect. Their method for gathering evidence against the students consists of an investigator downloading a user's song at random from one of the peer-to-peer networks and listening to it. And apparently by listening to it, the investigator can determine if it was illegally downloaded or not.

Huh?

Okay, so I'm not sold on this methodology; how would just listening to a song determine if it's illegally downloaded or not? Do these songs sound different in some way? It seems suspect to me. But I feel like the real issue here is the copyright infringement issue.

Yes, it's legally wrong for a person to download, use, and share copyright-protected music without paying for it. Despite its creative, somewhat intangible nature, a song is a consumer product, and thus by its very nature it needs to be paid for. Unless an artist or band decides to make its songs available for free download and distribution (which some upstart bands do in order to promote awareness about their music), it is illegal to distribute and acquire their music without paying for it. Obviously people who make their livelihoods from producing these creative products find it grossly unfair for others to, in essence, steal their work (stealing is, by definition, "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force" [dictionary.com]). But the people doing the stealing (in this case, downloading and sharing music files) don't usually consider what they're doing illegal or wrong.

I think this is because of the very nature of the internet. On the internet, millions of users worldwide exchange and access such a breadth of information for free already that it almost seems logical for these people to do the same thing with music files, or with things like the texts of books or copies of digital images for instance. The internet's very nature makes it difficult, though not impossible, to police its millions of users as well as what they're using and how they're using it.

And the fact that the RIAA is going after people, many of them college students who don't fully understand the nature or repercussions of their actions, makes a lot of people really angry. It pits these people against the RIAA. And because of this, it actually makes people more prone to engaging in the very behaviors (illegal file sharing) that the RIAA is trying to discourage and put an end to.

The problem isn't going to go away, especially as increasingly more parts of our lives become digitized: cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, and more. A quick look around the RIAA website shows that they're continuing to go about this in a dissuade people from downloading illegally and going after those who do kind of way. I'm not sure that this is necessarily a good solution, or a solution at all, but I can't really think of any other solution, to be perfectly honest. How can you stop all people everywhere from doing what they're doing? I acknowledge that illegally downloading and sharing music is wrong, but I also admit that I myself used to do so many years ago in college (and by "many" I mean "five," back in the days when Napster was still a newborn and still free). I can see both sides of the coin here.

What do people think? Is there a better way to police the use of music? Is there really anything the RIAA can or should do after a CD is off the store shelves and in a consumer's hands? Technically a person can make a copy of a CD onto a personal computer or MP3 player for personal use, but they can't distribute it--such as making it available on the internet for others to download or giving the copied CD to a friend. But is this preventing people from hearing new music? For instance, I've just asked a friend to copy an album for me that I already own but have lost the disc of and which I didn't have any other copy of. I already paid the band, many moons ago, for the disc; I already know the songs. I miss them. I want to listen to them again. But I am annoyed at the thought of repurchasing the CD because as soon as I do so I'm sure I'll find it somewhere. So I asked my friend to make a copy of her copy of the CD for me. Is that a horrible thing? Does that make me a criminal? I admit that I no longer use peer-to-peer networks to download music; in fact, I haven't downloaded music using a peer-to-peer network since I graduated college in 2002, just as the Napster issue was starting to come to a head. The only music I've downloaded since then are songs written by a friend of mine who allowed me to download them for my own use and songs that were available for free download as part of some sort of band promotion. While this keeps me from discovering new music (my musical tastes and collection halt abruptly in 2002), it just doesn't seem worth the risk to engage in peer-to-peer file sharing, because I don't want to get sued.

Should the RIAA just leave people alone? Is downloading really hurting the music industry? What do people think? Are downloaders criminals or just doing what comes naturally when you use the internet? Leave me your thoughts.

Check out the RIAA website here.

Another Quick Commercial Interruption...

So, I've finally joined the twenty-first century. I just bought an iPod.

Don't get too excited! It's just a little iPod shuffle. But I needed something to make the gym more bearable, and I figured a tiny, cute, lightweight music player in metallic pink hit the spot.

As I continue with my studies this summer, it's amazing to me just how often I now seem to encounter copyright issues in everyday life. I think I was just never aware of the prevalence of intellectual property. Take for instance my new purchase. In order to use my iPod, I needed to use iTunes and also install some iPod software on my Mac Book. As I prepared to install the software, the following popped up:

"IMPORTANT NOTE: This software may be used to reproduce
materials. It is licensed to you only for reproduction
of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you
own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or
legally permitted to reproduce. This software may also
be used for remote access to music files for listening
between computers. Remote access of copyrighted music
is only provided for lawful personal use or as
otherwise legally permitted. If you are uncertain
about your right to copy or permit access to any
material you should contact your legal advisor." (from Apple iTunes software legal disclaimer)

First off, that was just the very beginning of a very long document that I actually took the time to scan (okay, I took the time to scan it really quickly, but I did scan it!) Secondly, I thought it was charming that Apple encouraged me to speak with my legal advisor. Let me just dial Raul, Apple, I've got him on speed dial.

Does anyone ever actually read those legal disclaimers? I know that we should, but who has the time? Who actually understands most of what they say? I know that their purpose is to protect Apple should any sort of legal action come to light, and I have to admit that this blurb at the beginning of their long statement is written in plain enough English that most people should be able to understand it. I can also understand the importance of such a statement in a post-Napster world. In essence, Apple is shifting the responsibility for your actions onto you entirely. They acknowledge that they created a product that's used for copying, but they're not going to dictate how you use, they're just going to say how you should use it. It's like they're selling you a car, and they're saying, we know you will drive this car, but it's not up to us to determine how well you will drive the car. Here are the keys. Peace out, homeslice.

This reverts back to the personal copying that I discussed in the previous entry. It's not really legal, but it's not technically illegal either. Apple is acknowledging this. They're sure that most people aren't going to cause any problems, but in case any do, they've covered their bums.

But this also leads me to think about all the times I've installed software or otherwise quickly clicked through a licensing agreement without really paying attention to it. Was I wrong in doing so? Should I be more personally responsible and take the time to fully understand what I'm doing? Does anyone actually read those long-ass licensing agreements? Do companies intentionally make these things long-winded and vague, or do their lawyers just not know any better? At least Apple made an effort. Should other companies follow their lead and perhaps try writing a summary of the most important information in easy-to-understand language before the long-winded disclaimer?

While my project tends to focus more on copyright issues pertaining to publishing, I do find it useful to bring up examples from time to time of copyright in the real world. In what other places do you find copyright notices? What do they really seem to say? Do any of you read them? What do you think of them? Can you think of a better system for informing users?