To share, or not to share?

As young toddlers we are taught important life lessons; first and foremost for many of us - sharing. Our whole lives sharing with others was reinforced and reinforced again until it nearly became second nature to us. But it turns out as we grow older, sharing is not looked upon as fondly as it once was in preschool. In fact, life becomes more about possession and profit, both of which are more difficult when sharing with another.

The internet and peer-to-peer networking have made sharing digital music files (mp3's and mp4's) an enormous problem for the music industry. It is important to note that it is not the actual file sharing that is illegal- it is the  reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material which is against the law, and alas we find ourselves in the middle of this messy electronic war. 

On one side you have the copyright law and those who abide by it (the producers) and then you have the millions of people who digitally share their music files with each other without permission or compensation (the consumers). Some artists may choose to allow file-sharing as a promotional tool, but in the past this has been fairly uncommon. 

The 1990's signified the start of the free music craze; the world was introduced to programs such as Limewire, Kazaa, and Napster. Once music fans everywhere realized they didn't have to pay for their music anymore, things began to seriously change. 

Limewire and Kazaa took off in the 90's as peer-to-peer file sharing programs where songs were free. Both of these programs (and many, many others) were known for putting your computer at risk for serious viruses, but for music fans it was worth the risk. It took the music industry nearly ten years to catch on, and in the early 21st century copyright violation lawsuits were sprouting all over the place. In 2001 Kazaa was threatened several times in both Europe and the United States, until a court ruling in late 2002 stated that Kazaa as a company could not be held entirely responsible for the actions of its users. in 2003 Kazaa was taken over by a new owner named Sharman, and faced lawsuits from major record labels and production companies. Finally in 2006 Sharman settled and agreed to pay a fee of $100 million to Universal Music, Sony BMG, EMI and Warner Music for the damages attributed to Kazaa,  while Kazaa underwent transformation into a legal downloading service. 

Limewire shares a similar story; facing numerous lawsuits and very costly fines for the estimated damages done to record/production companies. Now Limewire is also a perfectly legal way to download music- they have finally succumb to the man.

How exactly the "cost of damages" is determined remains ambiguous to me. The way I see it, none of us has the power to predict the future... so the record company could be going downhill but blaming it on the file-sharing programs and collecting millions of dollars is better than admitting it was just a poorly run business that would have tanked on it's own anyway.... right? 

Napster.  

Anyone who grew up in the 90's remembers Napster and all it's adorable controversy that had the music industry's panties in such a bunch. Shawn Fanning was a student who created and ran the popular program for two short years (1999-2001) . Napster was a user-friendly site with a very wide selection of music for the listener who wanted mp3's of rarities, old or unreleased versions, EP's and LP's, or music that was not yet offered on compact disc (hehe!) It was a place where music lovers downloaded and traded music, bonded by the passion and love for music they all had in common.

Napster was popular among in the courtroom as well- they faced legal disputes from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) on top of well known musicians such as Metallica, Madonna, and Dr Dre in 2000. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., (2004) A&M Records were one of EIGHTEEN RECORD COMPANIES suing Napster for copyright infringement----- and they were successful. Napster lost the case and was ordered to monitor its illegal activity (the entire program) and block any network access to uncopyrighted material... which of course was impossible. Shortly after Napster declared bankrupcy and sadly withdrew from the world of digital file sharing in July of 2001. 

A outside party offered perspective in the A&M Records v. Napster case (which received a large amount of publicity) issued a brief statement in which he said: 

"Napster is the best-known example of a new technology deploying what has come to be called peer-to-peer networking, a system in which individuals can search for and share files that reside on the hard drives of other personal computers connected to the Internet. Peer-to-peer file sharing allows individuals to bypass central providers of content and to find and exchange material with one another. The decentralized model of peer-to-peer networking poses a significant challenge to sectors of the entertainment and information businesses that follow a model of centralized control over content distribution. However, this is not the sort of challenge that copyright law is designed to redress. The district court’s ruling would ban a new technology in order to protect existing business models, and would invoke copyright to stifle innovation, not to promote it." 

You can browse the entire court document from this case here! 

This man and others argue to separate peer-to-peer networking from this case of copyright infringement and fair use because of this case's potential to restrict future internet activity and technological advancements. If plaintiffs (the 18 records companies) have a controversy with new technology and copyright, they say it needs to be taken up with Congress as opposed to placing all the blame on one company- Napster.

Last thing I want to say: Despite how many lawsuits and controversies and temper tantrums resulted from Napster's short life, it made the world of music what it is today. While profits were undoubtedly cut from the millions of songs distributed for free- those songs reached more people while they were traded and shared than they EVER would have being sold. When music stops being a monetary investment and you have FREEdom to listen to any and everything you stumble across musicians and styles you may have never been exposed to had you been purchasing what you knew you liked. Perhaps songs were leaked prior to an album release, reaching mass audiences and expanding the fanbase significantly, selling out concerts and tours across the world (because it IS the world. wide. web. for a reason)! 

Independent bands with no big-names backing them, official promotion, media access or  television/radio-time benefited most from Napster's ability to spread music and reach fans in the far corners of the country and before long expanding to other nations as well. One such band known as Dispatch (one of my favorite bands to this day) was able to tour through cities they had never played and sell out concerts worldwide. In July 2007, the band became the first independent band to ever headline at Madison Square Garden, selling it out for three nights in a row. They attributed their success to the spread of their music on Napster, and openly promoted it at nearly every show they played.

Curious?

Never heard Dispatch!? (don't let another day go by!)

Napster.... 

Bitter? 

Sweet?

... or bittersweet? 

(What do you think?)

Final Thought: Wikipedia has some good thoughts 

I don't like to be that girl who quotes Wikipedia everywhere, but I do think this is very well written for my point:  

"The economic impact of illegal file sharing on media industries is still disputed. Some studies conclude that unauthorized downloading of movies, music and software is unequivocally damaging the economy, while other studies suggest file sharing is not the primary cause of declines in sales. Illegal file sharing remains widespread, with mixed public opinion about the morality of the practice."