• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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the dilemma of the RIAA – file sharing is reducing music sales – this problem has been brought about by the RIAA’s outdated business practices and unwillingness to adapt to modern technology.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.

Comments

Post a comment