A kid sits calmly at his computer desk clicking away at his mouse. On his screen, the program Kazaa sits downloading music files. Suddenly the door crashes in and a SWAT team rushes inside holding the kid down with guns raised, but instead of the letters S-W-A-T on their chests, the letters R-I-A-A (Recording Industry Association of America) are scrolled across their jackets.
There was a time at one point when media and information was free, and the control and trafficking of that media had regulations no stronger than that of a conversation. This time was long ago, way before the dawn of the digital age, or even the electric age for that matter. Going back to the age of tribal culture and civilization where if a person heard someone sing a song and they liked it, they too could go off and sing that song and enjoy it at no charge or offense to the writer.
This age is unfortunately far removed from the culture of that time. Computers have become the medium for this new age of “theft on the high seas” or piracy, rather. Innocent children have become the barons of this new empire of “organized crime.” By downloading and utilizing the program Kazaa, and many others like it, the RIAA determines them as criminals that do not deserve any leniency. The Entertainment Industry should not be allowed to attack the individuals sharing files over the internet.
The entertainment industry is fighting back. They want to wage war against these copyright infringers. What better place to start than a classroom? The entertainment industry is doing just that. The industry is using publicity and prize programs in classrooms to deter students from file sharing. In his article Ron Harris tells us that
As part of its campaign to thwart online music and movie piracy, Hollywood is now reaching into classrooms with a program that denounces file sharing and offers prizes for students who spread the word about internet theft (1).
Many educational authorities and workers think this idea will give a biased view towards law and how the entertainment industry manipulates it. Every facet of the education service are objecting to this program,
Civil librarians object that the movie industry is presenting a tainted version of a complex legal issue—while the country’s largest teachers’ lobby is concerned about the incentives the program offers (2).
Giving students monetary gain or other prizes for doing the work of down talking file sharing is using students walking publicity is morally wrong to so many.
Many educational institutions feel that offering incentives in the classroom is the wrong idea in motivating students, it is little more than bribery. Telling students if they do their part and promoting the “right thing” they will get some kind of prize for their good behavior in bowing down to the master. This gives students the idea that if they work hard and try and do their best in their studies they will be awarded. The fact that these students are receiving the most valuable thing of all, an education, means little to nothing when “shiny objects” are waved in their faces
Melinda Anderson, a spokeswoman for the National Education Association, says its unsettling when corporate presence in the classroom is tethered to sponsored incentive programs (9).
The RIAA takes matters to the scales of justice by calling for subpoenas. The organization is trying to get IP addresses of infringers so they have evidence in court. In Joe D’Angelo’s article he explains that
The controversy over the ISP stemmed from a clause in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which stated that a copyright holder may ‘request the clerk of any USA district court to issue a subpoena to [an ISP] for identification of an alleged infringer (3).
There is a catch to the RIAA using the DMCA to ascertain the identities of the alleged infringers. The DMCA was made more for hackers than file-sharers so confidentiality may still stand.
Since the DMCA was written before the popularity of peer-to-peer file-swapping networks, the DMCA was aimed at pirates who upload copyright material to the web or ftp sites, and not to those who store it on their personal computers. (9).
this one fact may be what saves so many from harassment by the RIAA. Every time the RIAA attempts to attack an individual they may get pushed back by trying to use a clause that doesn’t really apply to the “crime.”
The DMCA does not fully pertain to file-sharers because they are not uploading files, but just transferring digital information, so any testimony may be null and void in a court of justice. “Furthermore, such testimony as was available to the congress prior to the passage of the DMCA concerned ‘hackers’ who established unauthorized ftp or BBS sites on the servers of ISPs” (10). Since file-sharers are no more than average people using a computer program, and not malicious hackers attacking networks, the RIAA cannot really shake a stick at the “offenders.”
Many see programs such as Kazaa as a major problem, stealing money from musicians and actors indirectly. It seems there are many answers to a problem not asking a question. The legal battles are doing little to nothing in affecting the numbers of people using p2p services. Katie Dean says “The RIAA realizes that suing people will not solve the piracy problem completely” (5). The association is thinking of alternate routes in deterring users from swapping files. Some “smart thinkers” have devised a way to charge file sharers so that the offenses become legal. Industry insiders think that making some kind of monetary exchange will make the operations legal. Even the smallest of fees would make things legal. “Fred von Lohman, proposed that music fans pay a small fee—perhaps $5—to share files with impunity, using whatever software they liked” (2).
Paying practically nothing for music is a genius idea. Many people support this idea because it will get the law off of their backs and it is such a minimal, almost trivial price, that they are willing to pay it. In Katie Dean’s article, an industry insider says “The ideas of having file sharers pay a monthly fee in exchange for the right to share away is wonderful” (4).
Kazaa was shutdown after losing one of its “expected” legal wins and is cut to pieces. “Downloads of the software were suspended as a result of a two-month-old legal dispute with Dutch music licensing body, Buma/Stemra” (Evers 1). A company thought to be gone, rises, like the phoenix from the ashes. The company, originally based around the concept of free information sold itself to the highest bidder. This is apparent in Jorris’s article where he clearly says “The deal includes the website, the Kazaa brand and logo, and Kazaa’s license for FastTrack, BV’s P-to-P software stack” (4).
In some cases, it seems, money is the answer. Kazaa having been sold means that it has been “sold out” in a sense and now offers pay to play files along with the pirated versions. The entertainment industry has begun to realize they can’t win so they may in a way join them. “For a price, encrypted files distributed by the entertainment industry itself will be placed at the top of Kazaa’s search engine” (King 6).
Seeing this change in the minds of the industry has place a metaphorical light bulb over many programmers. A new program has been devised to take advantage of the entertainment industry’s sudden “generosity.” “Altnet will not address the most basic concern movie and music businesses have: digital piracy. Instead the system will display illegal versions of songs, videogames, and films directly underneath the secure files” (10).
Many lives have been ruined because of the legal wars over file sharing, but it seems there has been a double agent in the mix of it all. Surprisingly, one of the biggest combatants in this fight has a slight secret to hide.
Ironically, the only file trading service that has survived the legal onslaught while occasionally offering licensed content was developed by a rogue arm of AOL-Time Warner, one of the conglomerates suing other sharing networks (13).
Either AOL-Time Warner does not know about these “rebels”, which is highly unlikely, or they are using the legal battles to protect hidden profits. The latter is more believable.
For some time, the music industry has been in the news about “attacking” individuals. That time has ended. Things have been flipped into reverse and the exact opposite is happening. Parents enraged by the actions taken against their children, fight back. These parents have begun to realize that you have to work the system the same way the RIAA does to get what you want.
Michele Scimeca received a notice from the RIAA in December after her child used the Kazaa networks for a school project. She has countersued Sony, Universal, and Motown by claiming that the demands for reimbursement of $150,000 per infringement falls foul of the 1970 Organized Crime Act, better known as the RICO statute after Title IX of the act: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Statute (Orlowski 1).
The RIAA is now under a new kind of scrutiny, being now considered as an organized crime ring. “The FBI’s definition of organized crime defines a potential defendant as any group having some manner of formalized structure and whose primary objective is to obtain money through illegal activities” (5).
The RIAA’s image having been slandered, now tries to redeem itself in some way. The RIAA offers a hand of mercy to those in “need.” Seeing that they have destroyed enough lives, the RIAA decides to clean the slates of those still standing offenders. “The RIAA announced an amnesty program for people who admit they illegally traded songs on the web” (Legon 1). The Association will not let up on the lawsuits all the way, denying amnesty to many. “The offer of amnesty will not apply to about 1,600 people the RIAA has already targeted with copyright subpoenas” (4). There are a few conditions to this open hand of mercy from the RIAA.
After giving protection to the “damned” the RIAA wants them to erase the files and sign an agreement. “Sherman also announced the Clean Slate Program that grants amnesty to users who voluntarily identify themselves, erases downloaded music and promise not to do it again” (8). Hidden in an arm of mercy and fellowship comes the stipulations.
Both sides of this skirmish seem to be getting tired of fighting and are making more and more agreements and partnerships. A kind of “middle-ground” is found in the battlefield of this war. Using Pepsi as the mediator, the RIAA and its victims create a message that is like a “shot heard round the world.” Pepsi makes an ad promoting a legal form of file sharing. “The ad promotes a digital music giveaway offer from Pepsi-Cola and Apple Computer Co.’s iTunes music store” (Associated Press 3).
After seeing that suing the companies was not stopping anything, the RIAA switched gears a bit. “Music and film companies have sued firms behind the software used to swap files over the internet. The music industry turned to suing individuals this fall” (2). Many young teenagers though they were doing something completely safe from legal action, they were wrong. “Leith and her 17-year-old sister downloaded 960 songs over a three year period using the popular Kazaa Program. But the free music binge got Leith ensnared in the legal dragnet cast by the RIAA in September” (2).
It seems cyber “anarchists” have far great zeal than anticipated by the music industry. Suave users have created private networks to share their files on. “The rise of one of the private networks earlier this year shows how eager people are to trade media files online and to do so with impunity” (Fraser 1). Users are not fazed by the legal battles and continue on trading, as if laughing at the RIAA. “These private file-sharing networks have surfaced just as the music industry has been granted dozens of subpoenas” (3). Even though they still share files, users have wised up and kept a close on the size, because in this case, smaller is better. “The private networks are open to smaller groups of perhaps 20 to 30 people who liberally share music, television, movies, and computer programs” (5).
The fact that the free music age has begun is an inevitable fact that the industry must realize and accept. No matter what people are going to continue sharing files and not worrying about the consequences. Things have come full circles it appears. Things may eventually get to the point where file sharing is legal and a respected form of entertainment. But until that time, I retain the thought that file sharing should be legal whether the files are secure or not.
