Napster's Fine, in Canada

Kris Weberg | May 2, 2004
It's a bit old now, but apparently a Canadian judge ruled against the RIAA regarding file sharing. Particularly interesting was his rationale for doing so:

"Downloading a song for personal use does not amount to infringement," Mr. Justice Konrad von Finckenstein of the Federal Court of Canada wrote in his decision. "I cannot see a real difference between a library that places a photocopy machine in a room full of copyrighted material and a computer user that places a personal copy on a shared directory."

Jackie Mason | May 3, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | May 3, 2004
Responding to the judge: Because the library shares information for academic use, while the file-swappers share information for recreational use? Because the library is providing access to the information on a limited basis (the person must go there in person and go to the physical effort of copying the information and put money in the machine for copies), while the file-swappers make it as easy to exchange large quantities of music as clicking a mouse? Because sharing information at the library has a neglible effect on the sales of the product, while file-swapping has a more considerable effect? I don't know the law either in this situation, but it seems to me there are several compelling differences between the two.

Kris Weberg | May 3, 2004
Actually, I've seen statistics that indicate that music sales were dipping before Napster et. al came on the scene, and that the decline hasn't accelerated appreciably since then. But as the man says,"There are three kinds of lies: lies, dmaned lies, and statistics." Speaking for myself, I rarely buy albums anymore despite having dialup and being basically unable to file-swap, because honestly there's very little new music that I think is any good.

Secondly, libraries do appear to be cognizant of potential legal issues arising from the availbaility of intellectual property -- most have posted guidelines on copiers regaridng Fair Use and unlawful use. Universities certainly do this -- at Bradley, working as a research assistant, I remember getting a copy of guidelines that regulated what profs could and couldn't legally do in terms of copying and handing out info in classes.

I'd also note libraries, especially public libraries, have gradually been shifting their stock towards popular fiction, with many having huge sections of Harlequin romance novels, popular movies for checkout, and so on. There's a case for general promotion of literacy, sure, but it's a tenuous one when you get into literature designed almost exclusively to entertain. The physical limitations inherent in abusing libraries for intellectual property misappropriations are, as you say, likely reasons the issue isn't more high-profile.

But I would point out that I use libraries to read books I can't afford or don't actually want to buy, and as a student I'd have to admit I definitely used the process to effectively "steal" whole chunks of books above the page limits set by Fair Use laws, as did more than a few professors.

Leaving aside the judge's reasoning, though, I can't help but find the RIAA's tactics in all of this bullying and unfair. A 9-year-old child was sued for thousands of dollars for downloading copyrighted recordings of nursery rhymes not long ago. It's not so much that the RIAA is going after downloaders as that they're not doing it in the spirit of justice or genuine resititution. They're doing it as a scare tactic, in the process subjecting people to unaffordable legal proceedings and damage awards to "make examples" of them. The law isn't about singling people out to scare everyone else, it's about equal treatment and proportional punishment. And let's not even get into the findings of price-fixing and collusion among major record labels in the class action suits of the late 1990s.

Let's face it, people who would ordinarily never think seriously of stealing are currently commiting electronic theft on vast scale. One can adjudge the bulk of people morally weak, or alternately one can consider it a symptom of problems with the way music is currently priced, sold, and distributed.

Jackie Mason | May 3, 2004
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | May 4, 2004
Well, it seems you found another difference between a library photocopier and file-sharing software, Kris: The library is fully aware of the law and posts warnings to make sure no one breaks it, and I'd venture would remove any visitor found using the copier for illegal use (not that many people get caught). Some P2P software includes the same warnings, but it's obligatory; there's a full expectation by the designers and the downloaders that it will be used to trade copyrighted material in violation of the law. In reality, both that library photocopier and the P2P software is going to be used to break the law, but they differ enough in principle and practice that I would disagree with the judge and say that one is fair and the other is not.

It's one thing to say that there are major problems with the pricing and publication of music today, which there are. I just don't buy the frequent argument that stealing the music is OK because the record companies charge too much at retail. Why are they not entitled to set what price they want for their own product? The local Porsche dealership charges too much for their cars; that doesn't mean I'm right to steal one if I want it. My position for at least five years now (I remember debating it with Matt Preston) is that, if you're going to steal music, just admit that you're stealing it already, and stop pretending you have some kind of moral justification. I get so tired of music pirates coming up with these elaborate explanations for why they download whole albums and burn them onto CD (and even print fake inserts) instead of buying the music properly, when the obvious real reason is that they want the music without paying for it.

The phenomenon of so many innocent people stealing on a grand scale is related to the problems with music sales, yes. (And the people are morally weak, too, imho.) But I think the biggest cause is the proliferation of P2P software that makes it so easy, just a few clicks of the mouse, to steal just about any music desired. If shoplifting every item you ever needed was as easy as wiggling your index finger a little bit, and there was zero chance of getting caught, and the products arrived in your home within seconds, how many people do you think would keep paying for groceries or other goods? Then we'd start hearing about how the food industry charges too much for fresh meat and liquor, and they're only paying a fraction of each sale back to the original farmer, and all these other rationales, when the people should just admit they "like free stuff." That's all it comes down to.

I should clarify that I don't necessarily think P2P software should be banned or that the RIAA is justified in going after its thieves like this. I'm only trying to argue that a) stealing music is stealing, and b) people steal music because it's easy to do so and almost without consequence.

Anna Gregoline | May 4, 2004
I like stealing music. It's easy and I won't get caught. =)

Melissa Erin | May 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Kris Weberg | May 6, 2004
Playing the other side of the argument here -- but if a band does produce an album that has one good song and no others, in a capitalist economy you eitehr decide that one song is good enough to pay out for the whole thing, or you go without and save the money. If people just don't buy the CD, eventually someone realizes there's money to be made in quality, or at least by a cheaper single release, and market forces eventually stabilize a price and a package everyone agrees on.

Going around private and intellectual property rights because you disagree with the way the musicians or recording labels price and distribute music effectively subverts the system. You aren't buyting, sure, but you're also fulfilling demand for the product, thereby leaving no incentive for the sellers to work towards. If you accept the micro model presented by contemporary economists, downloading music without paying for it won't induce anyone to reduce CD prices or improve their quality. It becomes a vicious cycle, where neitehr side is participating in the system that should produce the most beneficial results to all concerned.

Melissa Erin | May 6, 2004
[hidden by request]

Anna Gregoline | May 6, 2004
I see your point, Kris, but my musical habits were pretty much the same before downloading - I would just copy songs off the radio instead of the Net. Sure, it took longer and the copies were rarely perfect, but that's what I did, and I very rarely bought CDs. Now, I just do that copying on a larger scale, and my CD buying habits haven't changed. I'm sure I'm like many people out there.

But I agree with Scott - enough rationalizing already. I like stealing music.

Kris Weberg | May 6, 2004
Of course my own argument would then be to point out that media consolidation and evidence of collusion mean that another important ingredient of the process -- competition -- is out the window. So oogn as record companies can both maintain prices that would be unsustainable in a more healthily competitve market and maintain their status as the sole legal avenue by which we make economic decisions about whta music to buy, market forces can't function properly and prices won't go down nor distribution and packaging improve anyway.

A lot of economists would agree ont he collusion angle; few would agree with me about the problems of media consolidation. Of course, I don't buy into the parts of their model that support the weakening of anti-trust laws and governmental regulations, but then, I'm an atheist. I have as much trouble buying into the laissez-faire crowd's "invisible hand" as I do with God's. People cheat, people steal, and most importantly, people's economic decisions are not all that rationally based. But since the irrational is, by definition, not predictable, it remains beyond the purview of economics and economic modeling despite being -- IMHO -- a pwoerful factor in the wrkoing of economy.

(iMusic, feel free to prove me wrong; I like that distribution model, and the pricing structure too. However, I fear that iMusic may have some problems to overcome. It may have come around too late to change people's minds, because record companies' intial reaction to the Internet seems to have been "destroy it! we'd make less, and it's new and scary!" Apple also needs to develop software for multiple platforms, perhaps even a little backwards compatibility. That's why I haven't gone for it yet; I'd have to buy a brand new OS just to be able to take the iMusic software! Yet my current OS handles normal mp3 downloads just fine. Thus, there's a pretty strong disincentive for me right there.

As a result, I just buy CDs on very rare occasions, usually older stuff that isn't having any immediate economic impact on anyone. It's time-tested, I've heard most of it and know for certain what's good or not, unlike a brand-new release where I may have heard one or two singles. And givent hat singles are so often the only good songs on an album, that's not enough for me to go out and buy. I wonder if this logic is shared by anyone else, as it might explain the retro craze we've been going through for the last few years. Reading the commentsd here, I'm certain that it's one of the big reasons CD sales keep dropping. All modern music doesn't necessarily suck, but there's no good way to know without already having bought the album.)

Scott Hardie | May 8, 2004
Perhaps we're failing to find common ground because we're arguing this two different ways: You're arguing in an economic sense and I'm arguing in a moral sense. Whether BMG charged $5 or $50 for one of their CDs, we are morally obligated to pay the price or do without. Collusion is also morally wrong and should be stopped ASAP (thank you class-action lawyers!), but otherwise that's just the way I happen to see it.

I buy a CD about once a week on average, but I can't afford to buy them at retail prices either. I stock up on eBay by utilizing those power sellers and buying a stack of CDs all at once for $20 or so. My preference for this kind of transaction helps neither the label nor the artist make any money, but helping them make money has nothing to do with my principles. I just don't like stealing something that really matters to me as much as music does.

Scott Hardie | May 8, 2004
I'm intrigued by one other element you mentioned, Kris and Melissa: The cause to avoid a CD until you have heard enough of it to verify that you like it. I buy albums for the hit songs just like most people do, but after I have played through the disc a few times, my favorite song usually winds up being one of the lesser titles instead. I don't view the rest of the album as unnecessary appendage to be ignored, but a undiscovered palate of songs that might be just as good as the hits. Maybe this is just a case of glass half empty vs. glass half full? Then again, I haven't been burned like some people by buying Smash Mouth and Sugar Ray CDs because of the hit songs and discovering in horror that the rest of the album is trash of a totally different genre. (The closest comparison in my own collection would be White Town's "Women in Technology." I bought it for "Your Woman," and I still consider that the best song on the disc, and the other songs wound up being nothing like it, but I grew rather fond of them anyway in time and it's now one of my favorite albums.)

Kris Weberg | May 8, 2004
I usually feel that the "unknown" songs on a good record turn out to be better than the singles, yes -- but I've definitely been burned more often than I've found buried audio treasure.

Melissa Erin | May 8, 2004
[hidden by request]