Even with the specter of Recording Industry Association of America lawsuits looming over their glowing computer screens, illegal file-sharers continue to operate gleefully and generally free of guilt. Our generation is the first to be reared on the Internet, and we operate according to a double standard and a questionable ethical code: Shoplifting CDs from a store is abhorrent; downloading the same albums for free on i2hub is a fun afternoon. Why, when all other social norms of “do not steal” are understood and observed, does this maxim fly out the window when we get in front of our computers?
The technology of the Internet burst upon the scene when we were coming of age, lacking a guidebook and spreading like wildfire while our identities and morals were still developing. Without a road map or rules, parents had no idea how to handle this new tool, or even what it was, while our generation took to the technology like fish to water. Becoming computer savvy is similar to learning a language: Those who start out at an early age seem to catch on more quickly. Hence, the college students now being served subpoenas by the RIAA were mere middle-schoolers when they first learned the magic of the Internet, and they learned it before their parents or any other authority figure dispensed the moral do’s and don’ts of cyberspace.
So, we made up rules on our own — and we decided that downloading illegal copies of music and movies definitely does not count as an ethical trespass, or if it does, it is a minor one that is made less severe by the perceived transgressions of the music industry: inflated CD prices, homogeneous and subpar offerings, and so forth. Unfortunately, the RIAA — spurred by its own moral codes, or merely the bottom line — vehemently disagrees.
Many of us expect the music industry to adapt to our addiction to free music, or we revel in the idea of spoiled pop stars getting ripped off. At the very least, we operate blissfully unaware of the possible consequences of denying the music industry our dollars. A UCSD student the Guardian interviewed, likely facing an RIAA lawsuit, said the lawsuit has made him stop downloading music, but he “didn’t really feel bad” when he did it.
“If I was downloading music from Jay-Z and I saw he was having a rough year then I’d feel bad, but most of the artists I download I don’t see doing badly,” the student said.
Another student currently assigned to an IP address listed in the recent lawsuit told us, “I’m getting in trouble for having a Janet Jackson song and Usher. Usher is walking around with my college tuition on his wrist!”
Clearly, the music industry has yet to convince this generation that downloading music is significantly harming the profits of individual artists. How, in a world where VH1 and MTV lineups are stacked full of shows documenting the excesses of celebrity lifestyles — with an emphasis on female pop starlets, hip-hop artists and their entourages, all laden with bling bling — could we ever buy the argument that students are forcing musical artists out of house and home? Another UCSD ex-downloader expecting prosecution described herself as “scared shitless” about the lawsuit, but described the music lawsuits as “a lost cause that they’re stressing too much over. … I feel like people are still going to buy CDs. … There’s no way the music industry is going to go kaput.”
She speaks for a generation of American college students, and anecdotal evidence supports the assertion that downloading may be taking a small slice out of CD purchases, but not obliterating them. Whatever the economic reality, the RIAA is perceived as a greedy bully, not as a legitimate victim of stealing.
The RIAA started a suing spree two years ago that has continued with settlement after settlement — leading many to conclude that the RIAA is draining downloaders’ pockets and lining their own to compensate for a small loss from illegal file-sharing.
Although the average suit from the RIAA is settled out of court for $3,000 or so, the fines can run into the hundreds of thousands, and such financial consequences contribute to the ethos of downloading as rebellion against corporate America. Yet such a justification provides little comfort when the fat cats come knocking on your door — exactly the situation faced by the 25 UCSD students being hunted by the RIAA after using i2hub. Yet guilt and remorse are not all several of these students say they are feeling as they await court documents. Instead, they feel victimized and unfairly targeted, but resigned to their fates.
One target for a subpoena said, “I don’t think [facing a lawsuit] is fair at all. It’s kind of sad that I’d like to see more people get punished for it. It’s such a small number. Only 25 students — come on! That’s not even an elementary school classroom. … It’s like you have three murderers and you only convict one.”
Clearly, the die has been cast. Whatever conditions that would have created a sense of ethical boundaries on the Internet community have been lost, and it’s too late to create them. Or maybe our scruples are simply superseded by the ease of downloading music, even when facing a slim chance of being caught and paying a heavy price.
What’s certain is that this generation of prosecuted file-sharers — and the droves of unprosecuted ones hiding in the shadows — spare no sympathy for musical artists and especially the RIAA. While it seems most students targeted for lawsuits at UCSD will stop sharing files online and warn their friends to do the same, it still remains to be seen whether RIAA lawsuits, or even more extreme measures, will wipe out file-sharing altogether. If history holds, several new peer-to-peer networks will spring up to replace any that are eradicated, bolstered by hordes of downloaders fueled by the convenience of file-sharing and bitterness toward the music industry and the tactics used by the RIAA.
