I REMEMBER a day back in high school, when I was a mere lass of 17. I was about to embark on a college-hunting trip with my parents, a trip where I would spend a whole lot of time in our car. Of course, I had to have music to listen to during this ordeal -- I mean, this was fun bonding time with my parents. My mom expected me to bring two or three CDs with me. I brought 30. "What is it," I remember my mom asking, clearly perplexed and frustrated, "with your generation and music?"
The truth is, I'm not sure. I know that we love it and we listen to it with a feverish enthusiasm. But this music obsession has now become a big problem. A $150,000-per-song problem.
The Recording Industry Association of America, better known as the RIAA, has embarked on a whirlwind campaign to curb online file-sharing, which includes filing lawsuits against alleged violators and pressuring college administrators to punish student offenders. The recording industry has seen roughly a 10 percent drop in CD sales over the past year, which the RIAA attributes in large part to music piracy on college campuses.
I have to say that I think record executives are, for the most part, money-grubbing old men who are so caught up in marketing sex-driven images of mediocre pop stars that they've forgotten what decent music sounds like. And that's why it takes a lot of effort for me to say that they're probably right.
Technically, downloading and sharing music online is stealing. That music is copyrighted, and the recording industry has, indeed, suffered significantly as a result of wide-spread file-sharing. But before we start handing out subpoenas, we need to look at why online file-sharing has become a regular college activity, and how the RIAA has overreacted.
For one thing, we're in an economic recession. All retail stores, including music stores, have seen a decrease in sales this year because people simply don't have a lot of money to spend. Let's not forget that.
For another thing, CDs are ridiculously expensive, especially for cash-strapped college students. Maybe if I didn't have to spend $20 on what usually turns out to be two or three good songs sandwiched in a dozen crappy songs, I would buy CDs more often. If a student is presented with a choice of downloading a good song for free or buying it for $20, it's an obvious choice, hence the immense popularity of free file-sharing programs like Kazaa.
These programs are not only beneficial for those looking to download music, but they also help unsigned bands and artists. Those musicians who are not represented by a label usually openly share their music on a service like Kazaa as a way to garner a fan base. Online file-sharing proves a worthy medium for unsigned bands looking to get exposure without having to commit to a record label. It's often these underground musicians, and not necessarily big-name artists, that grace the computer files of college students.
The penalties for downloading and sharing music are harsh. Too harsh. In July, the RIAA served almost 1,000 subpoenas to colleges, universities and students, all of whom may end up paying a fine of $150,000 per song. In April, the RIAA filed lawsuits that cost four college students between $12,000 and $17,000 each in settlements ("Colleges Tackle Music Piracy," The Washington Post, Aug. 28). Over 2,000 letters were fired off to university administrators this year, encouraging schools to seriously crack down on student file-swapping. The RIAA has anxiously hunted and tracked student files in hopes of locating an offending user. If the RIAA put all of this time and effort into hunting for terrorists instead of music pirates, we'd all be a lot better off.
Nobody should have to pay $150,000 for downloading a song. It's a scare tactic that the RIAA hopes will frighten people away from illegal file-sharing programs, yet no one seems to be running scared. These extreme tactics have simply angered users. Already, students are beginning to talk about privacy invasions, as the RIAA has the ability to examine some students' computer files in their hunt for illegal MP3s.
And the Audio Home Recording Act, a law that Napster used to defend their case a few years ago, has resurfaced as a file-sharer's defense. The law basically states that because the government, since 1992, collects a tax on all digital audio recorders and blank digital audio media made or imported into the United States and gives the money to RIAA, who then distributes it as royalties, a special exemption to the copyright law was made in exchange for these royalties. The exemption states that, "In the case of home taping, the [Section 1008] exemption protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings." The music pirates aren't going down without a fight.
A good solution to this rampant music piracy on campuses is the inclusion, at the student's will, of a subscription to a legitimate file-sharing program in the student activities fee. We already pay for a whole bunch of stuff that we don't even know about or really use -- like ARTS dollars (although now that you know about them, go use them). This would calm the RIAA enough to stop their witch hunt and focus on finding a realistic, permanent solution to the problem of music piracy nationwide.
Because as most of my fellow downloaders know, the RIAA has a difficult road ahead. They can't possibly regulate every user in the country. Students are already fighting back, blocking IP addresses that the RIAA uses to track computers, and doing other technological things that I don't really understand. We know that downloading copyrighted songs is illegal. But there are bigger problems in the world than music piracy, and we are not vicious criminals. Until the RIAA stops treating us like we are, they're fighting a losing battle.
(Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesday in the Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | YesterdayWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
SCHENBERG: Our foreign students and colleagues deserve better
April 18, 2025I pray that we will not persecute now and atone later.
