“I wanted to try it before I buy it,” “I posted the song I purchased online to share it with my friends,” and “I only wanted one song off of the entire album.” These are all the typical responses from my friends when I asked them about why they illegally download music to their personal computers and devices. It’s inevitable that everyone in college has downloaded a track or two or hundreds, but when is enough, enough and is it fair to the artists?
The general answer is no, but not only does there seem that there’s not much the government can do about it, but some artists and managers don’t think piracy is a big deal – some do. Like many other college students, I too have downloaded music illegally (though I am reluctant to admit that I have). A generation of twenty-somethings, will admit that they know what they are doing is wrong, yet will still continue to download music. Even artists and music managers themselves are on the fence with this issue. Cheers Elephant’s band manager, Andrew Leib justifies the illegal act by comparing it to tipping, he says:
I may only tip the bartender $1 for a drink, but some guy with a job may leave $5. I know that when I’m older I’ll tip better, but they’ll always be some young guy who can’t afford it and tip less.
With regard to promotion, Leib adds, “I do think giving music away for free is a good technique – I’ve downloaded multiple albums from artists whom I’ve heard live first and followed up by finding their Bandcamp and downloading the album for free.
The heated debate over music piracy has stirred media meetings and courtrooms for over a decade, such is the case of peer-to-peer file sharing Internet service, Napster. With other file-sharing services based on the Napster concept like, Limewire, Rapidshare, and Mediafire, users are able to download entire music albums free of charge and without paying any royalties to artist/composer or music media companies.
Universities and colleges were among the first institutions to take a strong stance against the file-sharing sites, not only because universities could be held liable for facilitating copyright violation, but also because high-speed college Internet connections were being overloaded with music and movie downloads.
Even today, students complain about the ban placed on file share program use while on college campuses. In the case of Drexel University, not only does the university ban such programs to ensure faster internet speeds and avoid the liability of copyright violation, but also because students and faculty produce a great deal of “intellectual property,” right on campus. There is a steep monetary penalty for individuals who use file-sharing programs while connected to the university’s network as well as the threat of expulsion for students. The act of downloading using a file-sharing program while on the Drexelnetwork is in violation of the Student Code of Conduct. The university’s Acceptable Use
Policy states,
Users may not engage in the unauthorized copying, distributing, altering or translating of copyrighted materials, software, music or other media without the express permissions of the copyright holder.
Most would agree that that the sharing of music content without the consent of the copyright holder or artist is wrong, but unfortunately, despite university and even government regulation, we live in an “Internet age” where people are accustomed to not paying for music – no matter how wrong it may be. Indie band, Wild Rompit’s lead singer Blair Ollendorf proves his discomfort with people taking his music by saying, “[You]wouldn’t go steal the paintings off an art gallery wall,” yet he, like many other artists and underground bands knows that:
More downloads equal more fans, more fans equal more tickets sold to shows, which means more ‘merch’ sold at shows.
Sometimes there are benefits to “sharing” your music (intentionally or not), and for smaller bands that may mean retrieving revenues through other means. Regardless of making up revenues through merchandise and ticket sales,rising country artist Sarah Durell still thinks that stealing is still wrong in any form. Durell says,
It’s a shame that people will steal from others, regardless of what it is. I don’t think that many understand that a lot of hard work and time went in to creating a song – and how many legal/publishing rights the songwriters have.
Copyright holders and artists do have certain legal rights, however according to the United States Supreme Court, copyright infringement does not correlate to actual “theft” in a court of law. Universities like Drexel have been doing their part to crack down on copyright infringement via file-sharing, but has the government been as strict? Larry Epstein, Entertainment & Arts Management Program at Drexel says, “[I] don’t personally think any amount of government enforcement is going to make much of a dent in this problem. [I] would like to think that awareness of the illegality of the behavior will reduce this activity, but [I] doubt it.”
The resolution to the debate over music file-sharing between those who download music illegally, universities, singers, songwriters, media managers, and others, ultimately comes down to the government. Attempts by local governments and the federal government have been made, but little has been resolved on this issue, however a new bill may help change that. The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act or PROTECT IP of 2011, is the new web-filtering proposal,which takes aim at controlling “pirate” websites (specifically BitTorrents), which traffic unauthorized distribution of licensed content. Governments have not been successful with these sort of bills in the past since taking BitTorrent sites down legally and technically impossible, but here’s to hoping that will change.