When Napster was born in 1999 and made the online sharing of free music a mainstream trend, no demographic took to the technology faster than college students. To a group with few greater loves than music and precious few dollars to spend on expensive CDs, the ability to find free music online seemed nothing less than a godsend.
Pepperdine students were no exception, and the network that all our on-campus computers shared made it easy for students to copy and paste their way to a massive collection of digital tunes. What’s more, the songs came at no greater cost than the energy it took to double click on “Smashing Pumpkins – 1979 (live)” and wait.
That was then.
But this is now.
Now, students, senior citizens and everyone in between have found themselves staring down the barrels of multimillion-dollar lawsuits for crimes that nobody ever thought would be noticed. Aside from sharpening the tension between CD-buyer and CD-seller, the suits (whose precedent was set with Metallica’s 2001 claims against its own listeners) have also brought to light a stark difference in opinion about music: fans see it as art, to be shared and enjoyed by all. Record labels, music stores and even many bands see it as a product, to be sold to those who will pay.
Brianna LaHara, a 12-year-old New York honor student, was among the first to be sued by the record industry for sharing music on the Internet.
“Why are they picking on me?” said the preteen. “My stomach is all in knots.”
Perhaps the discrepancy has something to do with the artistic, soulful nature of music itself. Bands and fans alike can relate to the feeling of freedom that comes with hearing a great song, the beauty that makes it so powerful. Everyone agrees that music is a spice of life we all should be able to enjoy.
No one can agree, however, on how much it should cost. CD prices have escalated to what some would say are ridiculous heights. Is $18 too much to pay for 12 songs? The consumers say yes, citing high prices as one of the main reasons they switched to downloading in the first place. But the labels and record stores, some of which have recently been forced to close due to lack of sales, say no.
It’s the artists who are caught in the middle. Some, such as Metallica, see their royalties slipping away as more and more listeners gain access to their songs without paying for them. Others, such as Moby, see file sharing as the inevitable future of music. Then there are the small bands, who see the Internet as an essential tool to gain exposure and free file sharing as the only incentive fans have to hear their work.
Meanwhile, all the artists have unintentionally become spokesmen either for or against downloading, as fans swear their allegiances to the bands based on the stance the artists take on the issue.
This leaves students and the universities that harbor them in an awkward position. In an attempt to cooperate with the Recording Industry Association of America and avoid the fines other schools have already incurred, the University has announced it will not go to bat for students who are subpoenaed for downloading movies or music.
Though no single course of disciplinary action has been announced, potential consequences range from downloaders’ names being surrendered to the RIAA, to all students’ on-campus Internet privileges being seriously reduced. Students’ use and abuse of the Internet to download songs could, essentially, cost them their right to use it at all, regardless of whether or not file sharing is ethical.
The debate over the morality of file sharing isn’t likely to end soon. And until it is, on-campus downloaders aren’t going to find any sanctuary inside the firewalls of Pepperdine.
Whether they’re trying to wage unholy war against the RIAA or just burn a two-minute single, all students who download music or movies on campus put the Internet privileges of themselves and others at risk. And until a more concrete solution is reached, the Internet-savvy music fans may just have to accept that, like the free love of the 1960s, free music on campus may have been too great to last.
September 25, 2003