The RIAA is using the fear factor in hopes of deterring illegal downloads instead of researching technology.
By Jordan Morris
Perspectives Editor
The Recording Industry Association of America is fuming.
It’s losing billions of dollars as thousands of cyberspace file traders incessantly exchange music the way children trade baseball cards – only in this case, the files can be easily duplicated and “shared” by an unlimited number of people at a time with just a few clicks of a button.
There is no question that the file-trading obsession that has spread throughout the world raises a handful of ethical issues. Peer-to-peer networks, such as KaZaa, offer unlimited access to its databases free of charge to anyone with access to the Internet. The door is opened to the widest variety imaginable of music and movie files, each a matter of minutes away from download, and in essence, “ownership.”
The long-term effects of this out-of-control trend on record labels will be catastrophic, according to the RIAA.
So in retaliation, it’s taking out billion-dollar frustrations on hundreds of organizations and individuals – many of them college students – who utilize such networks, using a blanket copyright law violation rationale for its multitude of subpoenas.
Although the RIAA is perfectly justified in its goal to stop this unauthorized, unprofitable distribution of copyrighted material, its witch hunt-like approach to the situation raises ethical issues of its own, and it can never serve as the ultimate, far-reaching solution to the file-stealing dilemma.
Privacy invasion and ruthless intimidation are among the many flaws in the RIAA’s plan, not to mention the fact that by seeking out universities and their students, the industry is completely ignoring the source of the problem – the peer-to-peer networks themselves.
The RIAA had it right with its first major move to curb free downloads when it shut down Napster in 2000. Instead of punishing those who were taking advantage of the stolen media, the industry cut off their supplier. Unfortunately, CD sales did not improve as hypothesized, and the RIAA’s worst enemy was born – the file sharing networks as we now know them.
Unfortunately, these cyberspace monsters have no central index server, meaning the RIAA can’t scavenge to the source and turn it off. A source doesn’t exist; the network is given life by its thousands upon thousands of subscribers. So the RIAA’s faulty logic directed it toward the only culpable party – the users.
In April, it filed its first string of lawsuits, all directed toward college students. The four unlucky students were sued for amounts in excess of $150 billion, but each settled out of court for between $12,000 and $17,500 each. Matt Oppenheim, RIAA senior vice president of business and legal affairs, said in an interview on PBS Newshour that these lawsuits were meant not as financially crippling measures, but as a strict warning to others who share files.
Thus, the RIAA has turned to a fear factor as its chief means of handling the file-sharing situation. Last week it issued subpoenas to several universities in the metro-Los Angeles area, excluding Pepperdine. However, it has already wreaked chilling effects on the university and its students. According to a recent article in The Graphic (Sept. 11 – “Pirates beware: Record industry subpoenas illegal downloading”), many Pepperdine students have changed their Internet habits. Provost Darryl Tippens noted that record labels are trying to “scare people into obedience.”
Although this method may deter some people from using peer-to-peer networks, file sharing remains rampant and CD sales have not experienced a dramatic increase since the beginning of the RIAA’s legal movement.
Instead of relying on the unnecessarily draconian methods of instilling fear in file sharers everywhere, the RIAA must consider undertaking a different approach. No matter how scary the industry tries to portray itself, there will always be users of the service as long as it is available. Because resources to quash the networks are not currently available, the focus should be on this lack of technology. Just as the peer-to-peer service was designed and created, there must be ways of more closely monitoring, limiting or even ending this technology. No other alternatives in sight are feasible.
Targeting college students for a problem that encompasses the entire world and is only causing legal fear and financial distress for the nation’s upcoming academicians. If the RIAA feels inclined to take out its frustrations elsewhere and stop the illegal transfer of copyrighted material, cracking the cryptic technological code appears to be the only sensible answer.
September 18, 2003