Hi everyone! My name is Sarah Kate Mullins. My parents wanted to make my life difficult so they gave me two first names. The fact that I often mumble makes matters worse and when I introduce myself to people they sometimes think that “Sarah Kate” is one word and I have some sort of unique, hitherto unknown first name. I am a sophomore in CALS and technically, I’m still a biological sciences major. Now that that dark and depressing period of my college experience is over, I hope to eventually switch to communication and minor in development sociology.
I live on
When I arrived at Cornell, I thought I should put my otherwise useless ability to do well on standardized tests to good use so I became an SAT tutor for Cornell’s chapter of Let’s Get Ready. I am also the treasurer of Cornell Minds Matter, a mental health awareness organization. Any artists on Green blog may have seen me working at the Fine Arts Library in Sibley Hall. Perhaps I retrieved a course reserve for someone last year.
One Internet-related phenomenon that is of particular interest to me is the use of peer-to-peer file sharing networks. I’m not sure which of the categories defined by Wallace such networks would fall into. Many file sharing programs feature synchronous chats but the level of information sharing that goes on over these networks seems to go above and beyond Wallace’s definitions. Personally, I don’t know how to feel about downloading copyrighted material from other users. It’s fast, easy, free, and depending on how you interpret fair-use laws, illegal. I know the latter issue rarely crosses my mind when I just have to be with my self and center (clarity, peace, serenity, etc) and listen to “Big Girls Don’t Cry” immediately. I believe that artists deserve to be compensated for their work and I often have a hard time reconciling this with the fact that I haven’t paid for all of the songs on my iPod. I wouldn’t shoplift a CD from a store but have few qualms about downloading it for free. Why doesn’t it feel wrong? Is it because of the anonymous and impersonal nature of web-based interactions? Who do those songs really belong to anyway? Where should we draw the line? I hope some of these questions will be answered in class this semester.
I will see everyone tomorrow in Law Auditorium (if we all manage to make it there).
7 comments:
Sometimes I do feel like I'm a bad person for not feeling bad about downloading free stuff.
As someone I knew so aptly put it, "I really feel bad about taking from multi-billion dollar corporations that charge me 30 dollars for this little disc that probably took less than 30 cents to make."
Well, there's that way to look at things. But I completely understand the other point of view as well. Just imagine if everyone downloaded. The entertainment industry would collapse.
The ambiguous nature of ownership on the Internet definitely makes the issue even more morally gray. I'm downloading, I'm not hurting anyone, I'm not stealing from anyone.
Bottom line is, the problem is not big enough for people to take drastic measures yet, at least in the US. People in Australia and England already can't access a lot of file-sharing websites (government-induced). If the problem really gets on Washington's nerves, they'll take care of it.
For the every downfall of one network several grow back to replace it. The RIAA and the MPAA have a hard fight to win. One particularly shocking thing is that the RIAA has changed its business model in that it was not to make money from CD sales but from the copyright infringement of its content. In my view, for the RIAA and MPAA to make any progress they will need to
1. create a DRM free distribution method to draw users
2. set a price scale that is somewhat user determined (perhaps auction format)
3. guarantees a certain percentage of sales actually artists so users know they aren’t lining the pockets of record labels
Digital copyright infringement is something that will continue to thrive forever. Maybe it is something everybody will just have to live with. People laughed at the idea of buying recorded music when the first vinyl records were released. While it was a major source of revenue in the 20th century maybe its time to accept that recorded music will be free from now on. Will artists stop making music because it isn’t a profitable career? In my opinion, if you are going into music for the money, you need to change your priorities. Smaller artists worldwide have already taken advantage of file sharing to spread their music and make a living; live performances are also much harder to replicate. Maybe this democratization is what we need to reinvigorate talent into the music industry.
I definitely get what you are saying. I feel bad about downloading illegally as well, but only when I stop to think about it. It does not feel the same way as I imagine walking out of a store with a CD would. I believe that the difference is the result of the anonymity factor, as well as the lack of any physical movement involved with the crime. It is apparent, however, that we are moving into an era of data sharing without boundaries. Every program or network that is taken down by legal action would have inevitably been replaced with a more efficient or user friendly technology fairly soon anyway. Law suits against consumers will never really be an effective deterrent either. This is true for the same reasons that drunk driving and unsafe sex continue to take place within the same demographic- people our age feel invincible, and that they will never be the one-in-a-million victim.
I often find myself asking the same questions you are asking. I’ve been downloading music for years. The last CD I bought was for my cousin when the Backstreet boys were still the “it” group. I’ve used KaZaa and now use Limewire and have more than 40 GB of music (between english and spanish music). Yes I know that’s a little excessive but I can’t help it. I agree with you in the fact that peer to peer networking doesn’t really fit into one of the environments described by Wallace. This is an entirely new environment in its own and clearly doesn’t fit in with any of the others. I don’t feel that sharing the files are technically stealing. Because if you want to think of it this way, someone bought the CD in a store and burned the songs onto their computer. Then you just share it with all of your other friends. It’s pretty much like letting a friend make a copy of a CD. It’s a little stretched but that is my reasoning so that the idea of downloading won’t bother me. Artists are compensated for their work in many other ways. With everyone listening to their songs (no matter how they acquired the music) the artists build fame. When they get this fame, they will get millions of dollars worth of endorsements and receive thousands for making two second appearances somewhere. So clearly they are not missing out on much by us downloading.
Very interesting point. Wallace definitely did not see this P2P file sharing phenom approaching, cause if she did, so would have the music industry and it would be much easier to prevent, than to stop it once it has started.
One thing I am curious about, is do you think it falls under a category of social interaction like the environments that Wallace brings up? I have used a lot of the world based networks like limewire, the bear one, and a couple of others; but not once have I ever interacted with the other users. Those programs usually offered just closed conversations, you and one other user. Then I used DC ++. I am amazed to see the very large amount of socializing that goes on with that program. People talk up a storm. Some of those people know each other, and some don’t, and the ones that I have met, actually call each other by the names they use on that chat room, in real life! So what makes DC ++ different? Is it because it is a chat room? Or is it because they are local and so they do actually know something about the other user, (at least affiliated with Cornell). Just throwing it out there.
I think this is one of the most interesting corners of cyberspace. Aside from the legal questions raised regarding the line between fair-use and copyright violation, it raises a very interesting moral question. Why is it that a tremendous number of people feel no moral qualms with sharing copyrighted material?
It's fair to say that 99% of the people using DC++ would never steal a cd from a store. However, most people find the comparison between shoplifting and filesharing laughable. It's not to say that the two aren't in many ways physically equivalent. Still if the two felt in any way morally equivalent, I'm sure there would be a much smaller filesharing community.
I think some of these "flexible" morals come from frustrations with the record industry. I've yet to meet someone that thinks online music is fairly priced. "Why am I paying the same price for the music when I get no cd, no booklet? It's not like there are shipping or storage costs." The record companies' overhead appears to shrink tremendously, but the purchaser doesn't see any financial compensation.
It's clear that some sort of compromise needs to be reached, but right now neither side is willing to rework their method of operation.
I bet your name might sound like "Circuit" if you mumbled it fast enough. That's pretty rad.
The filesharing phenomena is unjustifiable within the context of the American legal and corporate system. It's property, it's copyrighted, and therefore taking it freely is illegal. It has shaken an unsuspecting business to its core.
That said, filesharing also showed what great progress can be made when content enters the public domain. Once the populace took control of the content, it introduced ideas that changed and still changes the way we obtain, learn about, and listen to music. And, ultimately, it forced the mainstream music industry into the present reality--a slow crawl toward unconstrained content distributed online. The industry begrudgingly found new ways to sell artists and music content, found themselves accommodating to niches.
And beyond the industry, independent artists found ways of voicing themselves and promoting themselves online through networks created around "free" music. Untold numbers of unknown artists are now known, and are touring and selling music that we otherwise would have missed.
So unjustifiable with some context, yes, but we do not need to make excuses for file sharing. If you do not pay for any of your music, or see live music, or buy merch -- you probably wouldn't ever have.
Post a Comment