Basis of RIAA suit is legitimate, but tactic is wrong

Last week, the Recording Industry Assoication of America filed a lawsuit against Princeton sophomore Daniel Peng for copyright infringement, alleging that he facilitated the theft of illegal MP3's through his "Wake" search engine. There has been a strong reaction to this on campus, as some students have gone so far to suggest a boycott of all CD purchases until the lawsuit is dropped. Other students have sided with the record labels, declaring that it is their right to protect their music from piracy. It is unsurprising that this has developed into such an active topic, as most of us (whether we want to admit it or not) make use of illegally obtained MP3's. Mr. Peng being sued for doing what we all do regularly (albeit with a lower profile) hits very close to home. However, the debate has been less than fruitful. Cries of siding with "the man" are countered with accusations of "selling out" to corporate America. There are two distinct parts to this debate, one being the morality of downloading music and the other being whether the RIAA's lawsuit itself is just. While the record companies have a right to be the exclusive distributors of their music, using scare tactics and intimidation techniques (blackmail?) against unsuspecting students is definitely not a just solution.

Whether we like it or not, we should pay for our music. Much has been made of "artistic freedom" and "free speech," but neither of these concepts comes into play when discussing whether we should buy a CD versus downloading it. Almost all artists enter into a contract with a record company to sell their music, and a price is set that will return the biggest profit. It's not romantic, but it's the way the world works. It's also the choice of the artist. By signing a contract with a major record label, musicians indicate they want to profit off of it. It's also true that "poor" college students downloading music is not impoverishing many prominent artists. It might cost them some "bling-bling" or another Cadillac, but if they are well-known enough to get mass downloaded, it probably won't make a big difference to the bottom line. So why shouldn't we download songs? By downloading a song, one subverts the entire system by which intellectual property is created. If people cannot profit off their songs, their inventions or their innovations, the rate at which they are created will drop substantially. Moreover, if any one of us were to come up with an amazing idea (and some of us probably will), we would want to have the ability to do what we want with it. Some of us might give it away, others might want to profit off of it, but all of us would want the freedom to decide for ourselves. This is the situation with the record companies. The artists who have created the music have chosen to sell it, and we must respect their wishes.

However, the RIAA is equally wrong in their approach to protecting their music. While a lawsuit may discourage some people from downloading music or creating file-sharing engines, it encourages far more to pirate music out of simple resentment. For many students, the determining factor in deciding to download rather than purchase music is not money but the (largely correct) perception that the RIAA is evil. Through actions such as the lawsuit against Mr. Peng, the RIAA has clearly demonstrated (even flaunted) they will "make us pay" for downloading music. The fact that the RIAA has chosen to use blackmail and scare tactics against defenseless college students simply makes more people want to pirate their music. Most young adults don't like being intimidated, and will go to great lengths to make it "unprofitable." They have clearly painted themselves as the Goliath, and the vast majority of college students (me included) will cheer and support our "David." From a technical standpoint, there is little the RIAA can do against piracy, and people will have the ability to download music for the foreseeable future. It would be wise to engage the people who have the choice whether to buy music or download it, rather than alienate them. In doing so, the record companies demonstrate their music isn't "worth" the price tag, both economically and morally.

Music listeners and music providers need to think about both sides of the MP3 issue when approaching this debate. While artists must have the ability to exclusively distribute their music, music listeners should have the right to enjoy music (even downloaded music) without fear of lawsuits and persecution. Ultimately, the RIAA is fighting a futile battle with the general public which will only cause harm to both sides. Instead of causing themselves to be regarded as an "evil empire" that resorts to bullying around their customers, they should present themselves as a vital link between the artist and the consumer.