Penn State might have good model for file sharing

The administration has always encouraged abstaining from the activity. Parents, though they sometimes engage in it as well, are often shocked to discover how deeply their children have become involved. In the end, though, it is becoming increasingly apparent that college students are going to do it anyway and schools had better find ways to minimize the harmful consequences.

I'm talking about file sharing, of course.

Few people want music as badly as college students. Generally endowed with the most free time and the easiest access to networks, students sparked the wave of file sharing that got Shawn Fanning, a college student himself, and his company Napster slapped by a lawsuit in 2001.

However, even though the court ruled that Napster violated copyright laws, a thousand other sites like Kazaa and Audiogalaxy instantly sprang up to replace it. Many college campuses, including Princeton's, remain in denial about file sharing among students despite the threat of lawsuits or other dire legal consequences that can result.

Pennsylvania State University seems to be defying the norm. Finally coming to terms with its musicoholic population, Penn State has agreed to pay a revitalized Napster to allow its students to download music legally.

According to Amy Harmon's article in the New York Times, the service will allow students to listen to an unlimited number of songs on campus as often as they choose but will charge 99 cents for each song a student keeps permanently or burns to a CD. Individual subscribers can also access music this way, though the university's bulk payment is expected to be substantially less per person than the individual rate.

This simultaneously unexpected yet inevitable move by Penn State signals the dawn of a new era in file sharing. Whether or not downloading music violates copyright laws, the last few years have offered plenty of evidence that the practice is not going away.

"Penn State was always cracking down on it," said Alex Yao, a freshman at the university. "But I think this is a really good idea. It'll cut down a lot on illegal sharing."

Of course, the costs still come back to the students in the form of a $160 technology fee, but every Penn State student is already paying it for services like free tech assistance for computer problems. The school says the fee will not rise with the new policy, and no other programs will face cutbacks, which suggests Penn State was overcharging its students to begin with . . . but that's a different story.

Much like tech assistance, Yao cites file sharing as an example of a public good whose costs should be shared equally among students. Of course, a system of insurance for crucial equipment differs slightly from music downloads, which many still view as a luxury, but the fee in itself is negligible compared to the overall costs of tuition, room, and board. The system is especially worthwhile from an administrative standpoint.

"The school basically pays a couple grand to set up a system," said Yao, "And it's worth it. It saves the school a lot more trouble with having to track down heavy traffickers of illegal material. It prevents a lot of lawsuits."

After observing how this policy pans out at Penn State, Princeton and other college campuses should consider adopting a similar plan. Regardless of administrative efforts to warn students away from file sharing, it is no secret that activity widely continues. Students want their music, and a free file online offers an irresistible alternative to a $20 CD in a store off campus. Moreover, regulating file sharing has proven difficult if not impossible in many cases. Instead of trying to combat the inevitable, universities are much better off finding legal means to embrace advancing technology and to take advantage of the sizeable student market.