Posted on 05/15/2003 1:31:47 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But at Stanford University--as well as at other colleges and universities around the country--students are growing increasingly perturbed by what they see as an attempt by the record labels to infringe on their legitimate right to make copies of digital media.
This is not a group to alienate.
The RIAA's own statistics show that almost one-third of music purchases are by individuals younger than 24. This group is also likely to influence the purchasing habits of family members. From my experiences, I'd say roughly 80 percent of undergraduates on campus have downloaded a piece of audio or video from a peer-to-peer service during their college career.
You can divide the collegiate downloading universe into three broad categories.
Some students first find out about new artists or genres through friends. They download MP3s onto their computers to decide whether or not invest in a particular band. If they like the music, they purchase it at a local store or through an online retailer.
Other students download music that they would otherwise never purchase. They may like a particular song that they heard on the radio, but are not willing to pay $20 to acquire a CD that includes a dozen others that they have no interest in hearing.
The third group is comprised of students who download music that they would have bought if it hadn't been available for free on the Internet.
Given the magnitude of P2P downloads relative to historic music sales trends and my own personal experience on campus, I would think that the music industry would want to make a special effort to appeal to the second group. That's because, if these individuals bought each song they downloaded, profits in the music industry would be substantially larger.
The record labels view the situation differently. They caricature us (P2P downloaders) as an undifferentiated lot of dimple-clad teenagers feverishly downloading thousands of pieces of music onto computers and illegally distributing them worldwide in a myriad of formats. In reality, a large number of students use P2P services only to experiment with new music and to make personal copies.
| They caricature us as an undifferentiated lot of dimple-clad teenagers. |
While writing this column, most students with whom I spoke expressed their desire for an easier, more reasonable medium for purchasing music. They say they are willing to pay for such a service--but only for artists and tracks they want to hear.
In a recent conversation with an executive at a leading music company, I came closer to understanding the real problem that the labels have with P2P services. They do not necessarily see a threat in teens downloading free music and then not buying the tracks. Instead, they are worried about the possible breakdown of their current hegemony over music creation and distribution. Until they find an Internet strategy that leaves them comfortable, they will stymie any technological advancement.
One solution proposed by Hollywood is to simply ban P2P networks on college campuses. Unfortunately, such an approach would prevent many fair uses of this technology. To limit the downloading of illegal content, many colleges and universities have indeed instituted bandwidth restrictions for their dorms, obstructing the massive transfer of audio and video files, which tend to have relatively large sizes. Fortunately or not, such rules have not had a major impact on the demand or use of file-sharing services.
Expecting universities to constantly monitor the flow of traffic on their networks, (or allowing organizations such as the RIAA to do so on a regular basis) in order to check for the transfer of copyrighted material, is not a reasonable solution.
The case for compromise
Why is a compromise in everyone's best interest? Take the case of Sony, which operates a strong electronics wing along with several music labels under its Sony Music brand. It is not uncommon to see students parading through campus with a Discman, playing the latest MP3s that they just downloaded. Sony's overall strategy has been to accommodate new music technologies by generating new revenue streams and changing its business strategies.
Technology companies can fill a valuable niche here by working with media companies to provide a mechanism through which digital media can be seen and heard. Consider, for example, Apple Computer, which is already enjoying success with its newly opened iTunes music store. The company also intends to make the service available for Windows-based PCs by the end of this year.
Music companies play a vital role in the entertainment industry. They are the only ones that have the resources needed to consistently find, develop and promote new talent. Thus, technology evangelists who profess free-for-all replication and distribution rights of copyrighted works must be more reasonable.
But fighting a war against educational institutions and P2P companies is bound to be expensive. The opportunities lost in such a battle are also quite large, especially as Internet radio and streaming audio become increasingly popular. If the recording industry cannot create a compromise for its Internet strategy, the future is clear: P2P alternatives will continue to develop, and organizations like the RIAA will wind up in one court battle after another and end up with one heck of an image problem.
If the music labels want to play a defining role in the future of new media, they'll need to work with Silicon Valley to establish mutually beneficial terms. Otherwise, the occasional blasting of copyrighted music from the speakers of students in college dorms will be the least of the their worries.
biography
Sumir Meghani was the founder and editor of the now defunct online magazine The Eyepiece Network. He also worked for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies in Washington, D.C., researching technology policy issues. He is currently a senior at Stanford University.
I would ask a teenager, but I am too embarrassed. Thanks in advance.
Yes, I am the kind of guy who has a VCR that still blinks 12:00 since I bought it.
how dare the record labels try to protect their property rights or prosecute those who steal it!
Got to check these out also!
It's a rare business whose theives are the same as its customers. It's also a rare successful business that pisses off its customers.
I find the analogies used by both sides to be inaccurate.
You have the legal right to copy your CD onto any other media as long as it is for your own use. So if I rip mP3s of my CDs and play them on my machine I am well within my rights to do so.
And by the way, copyright does not equal property rights - they are handled quite differently under the law.
That is a good point, but file swapping is a different matter. Just like your purchase of a copy of software does not allow you to install that copy on every PC in the college dormitory, your purchase of a music CD does not permit you to make a copy of it available for everyone else in the dormitory to download onto their PC's.
As for the difference between copyright and property rights, the copyright protects intellectual property. The owners of the copyright have the right to be compensated for the use of their intellectual property. File swapping allows people to acquire/use that intellectual property without compensating the owner. Whatever other terms you may wish to use to sugarcoat this, it is still stealing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.