Free downloading: the real culprit

Stéphane V.

English Research Paper

December 2012
-------------------------------------------------
Contents

Introduction 2 I) Surprisingly enough, Internet users should not be punished 3 II) The real culprits are illegal websites and software 5 III) Solutions to illegal download 6 Works cited 8

Is it right to punish people who illegally download films and music?

-------------------------------------------------
Introduction

S ince its creation in the 1990s, the Internet has been allowing the exchange of various kinds of data all around the world in the twinkling of an eye. Nowadays, this essential communication tool has become the best way to ‘share’ and download any kind of media such as films or music without paying for it. Despite the great opportunity that it can represent for many, it has its advantages and drawbacks. Indeed, since technology developed faster than expected, illegal downloading raises the issue of copyright. Isn’t the use of peer-to-peer software an abusive use of the Internet? Is it fair that singers, producers, actors or any artist are deprived of the benefits they deserve thanks to their work? Obviously not. But who should be the culprit? Public opinion would say that anyone who is doing something illegal has to be punished so illegal downloading should logically be severely penalized. But let us go a little further that this statement. I reckon that Internet users should not be punished because, according to me, they are not directly responsible for infringing upon copyrights. If someone has to be punished, it should be the ones that enabled them to download films or music illegally, that is to say the creators of software.

Surprisingly enough, Internet users should not be punished

If you had the choice between a car for free and exactly the same car for $30,000, what would you choose? What would anybody choose? Unless you are extremely rich and you like giving money away, you will choose to have the car for free. This is a simple statement that can be applied to every situation. That is why Internet users download as many songs and movies every day. They have the liberty to do so. And still today, they are unlikely to be caught. Before giving any argument, it is important to understand that there are two main categories of free download. First, we can download using a “peer-to-peer” software, such as eMule or Limewire. Some of them require a little file called “torrent”, which is a part of the media one wants to download and which one can find on websites called BitTorrent trackers. The peer-to-peer system enables data sharing between different Internet users. Second, there is the direct download link (DDL), which is simpler: anybody can download a file directly from a link provided by a website such free-ddl.com. In this case, data does not come from other Internet users (no sharing) but from an external server. Obviously, both kinds of downloads are very criticized by authors and artists, but, paradoxically, there are not necessarily illegal. We will see why further.
Now that a brief explanation has been made, anybody can see that preventing all Internet users from accessing those websites or downloading software is quite complicated. The first solution would be to deprive them from the liberty to download, but it is indeed impossible: at the moment, nobody has the technical means to forbid access to these websites or software and even to find all the people that download movies and music. Moreover, many websites providing direct download links regularly change their URL address, so it is even more difficult to check what is being downloaded. For instance, ddl.org often becomes free-dl.com and so on. Hundreds of different websites enable millions of Internet users to download “torrents” all around the world. It is simply impossible to punish them all, they are too numerous. And since justice has to treat everybody as equal, it seems pointless to punish some of them. Not to mention the fact that legislation is different in all countries whereas the entire world has access to these websites. Because of an equality problem, punishment should not be applied. As an example, we can remember the case reported in The Guardian, last September, when a woman from Minnesota was forced to pay a $200,000 fine for illegally downloading 24 songs. That was because of the strict piracy policy of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). It has triggered many reactions, like the one of lawyer Christopher Jon Sprigman, who said: “Individual lawsuits are unbelievably counterproductive.”
In many ways, Sprigman could not be more right: this kind of punishment is not pedagogical. Indeed, governments can only punish people sharing files, that is to say “little downloads,” and the ones that download on a regular basis. The latter have surely found a way to mislead the government for a long time. Is it fair or pedagogical to punish those who download ten songs or movies every month instead of those who download hundreds of works a day in order to sell them right after? That is the main critic toward the famous “Hadopi” law in France, considered as inefficient by many because it only punishes peer-to-peer users that download from home and not laptop users or direct download link users. For instance, when you use a peer-to-peer software at home, some of the files you are downloading contain a “spy-program” that enables the government to identify you with your IP address and your Internet connection. If you use the same software in a public place, where many people can use the same connection, like HEC campus, nobody can find out what computer is downloading illegally. Therefore, since it is absurd to punish the whole campus, nobody is punished in the end. Nice trick, isn’t it? This might look like an incentive to download illegally, but the main purpose here is to demonstrate the inefficiency of a law like “Hadopi”.
Of course, one solution remains: tracking every internet user, watching what website they log on, which is an obvious infringement upon privacy. That is partly what the RIAA does, without saying it clearly. In 2003, The Court of Appeals for the District of Columba asked an Internet access provider, Verizon, to give the name of an Internet user who shared more than 600 copyrighted songs to the RIAA. Many people of the Internet community saw this decision as a support to the RIAA and a clear violation of privacy. Is it logical to fight infringements by infringing law, and even Human Rights? Punish something wrong by doing something wrong, what a strange principle!
Finally, there is a major flaw in the policy that consists in condemning systematically people who download films and music illegally. Internet users who have downloaded illegally and decided to stop afterwards are still seen as “offenders” since they still share the files they used to download (that is how peer-to-peer programs work).
The real culprits are illegal websites and software

Granted, illegal downloading may ruin the livelihood of artists. If everybody stole their work, their business would be pointless. As the country band Dixie Chicks once said: "It may seem innocent enough, but every time you illegally download music a songwriter doesn't get paid. And, every time you swap that music with your friends a new artist doesn't get a chance. Respect the artists you love by not stealing their music. You're in control. Support music, don't steal it."
To me, this opinion is only partially correct. Indeed, stealing is a sin and someone has to be punished for that, but it should not be, as I explained before, Internet users since they simply use the technology available to them. The guilt should go to the ones that enabled them to “steal:” creators of software and websites made for free downloading.
Therefore, why aren’t they punished yet? Why do we keep focusing on Internet users whereas program creators are the real culprit? A drug dealer should be punished more than a drug consumer. This is exactly the same principle. The fact is that creators are even harder to identify and to localize than Internet users. They manage to bypass the law because of the lack of technological means, but also because of their cunning behavior, as demonstrated after.
Indeed, peer-to-peer programs are originally used to share independent music or any file without any copyright, so they are not themselves illegal. Nobody can forbid this kind of software since it can be used for legal purposes. That is why these programs are still available online: they do not contain any protected file, they just allow users to share every file they want.
Websites that enable Internet users to download “torrent” files are not regarded as illegal neither. Why? This is the main problem for all artists: these files are just a tiny part of the work you want to download, it does not contain all the information required to speak of a protected work. For instance, in France, a song should have eight bars in common with another one to be considered as plagiarism. So if the torrent file contains less, it is not considered as protected by any copyright. Thus, nothing is illegal about BitTorrent trackers, and that is why their access is not forbidden.
As for websites that provide direct download links, they only give external links: they do not own any song or movie, they just redirect users to other websites from which one can download protected works. Therefore, nothing illegal here neither since only the owner of the songs can be accused.
Solutions to illegal download

The first solution would be to generalize a “Global license” system. Every time a song is aired on the radio or on TV or an album featuring the song is sold, the artists receive a license fee. As an example, in the US, this fee is currently set at $0,091 per song. The idea would be to extend this license to music consumers. Internet users would pay each month to get an access to all the movies and music they want. This flat fee would be compulsory but kept as low as possible. The consumers could enjoy their music or movies without feeling like they have paid too much for it. According to Steven Page, singer and guitarist in a band called Barenaked Ladies, sharing music is like a freedom and we have to encourage the consumers to continue, without harming the music industry. “Not everyone's an artist, but people can now express themselves like artists do, by sharing something that means something to them. If we had a system of compulsory licenses, they don't have to worry about going and getting a license to do it, or circumventing the system,” he argues.
Likewise, some “majors” of the movie industry even start to suggest making some old movies available online, for a little amount of money paid at the beginning of the month.
Furthermore, it is also a matter of point of view. It is time to throw all the clichés away; free downloading is not systematically stealing. Steven Page considers that “music pirates” are actually “fans”, that is to say potential consumers. Some already view their music as a way to make themselves known. For instance, many new artists, including, DJs support free downloading of their music because they think their music is only advertisement, whereas their only business is their concert. In our modern world, music has to evolve: it does not have to be burnt on CDs anymore, it has to circulate, to be accessible. As Page says, “We need to get our music where our fans want it, not the other way around.”

* Works cited

Sprigman, Christopher Jon. The knockoff Economy. 2012.
Published in an article by:
Holpuch, Amanda. “Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs.” The Gardian. Web. 11 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/sep/11/minnesota-woman-songs-illegally-downloaded>

The Dixie Chicks. “Recording Industry To Begin Collecting Evidence And Preparing Lawsuits Against File.” RIAA. Web. 25 June 2003.
<http://www.riaa.com/newsitem.php?id=2B9DA905-4A0D-8439-7EE1-EC9953A22DB9>

Page, Steven. “Barenaked Ladies: If I had a compulsory blanket music license.” Arstechnica. Web. 27 Apr. 2007.
<http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2007/04/barenaked-ladies-if-i-had-a-compulsory-blanket-music-license>

-------------------------------------------------