By: Laura Ingles

This paper looks at college students and their habits of sharing music online using Peer-to-Peer resources such as Limewire. It focuses predominantly on Virginia Tech’s protocol regarding this “illegal” activity, particularly when students are caught and charged by the Recording Industry Association of America.

Today’s young adults, particularly college students, seem to be obsessed with two things (besides beer): music and technology. Over the past decade, the two have been merged, and students are using today’s technology to get their hands on as much music as possible – for as little a cost as possible – to fill those iPods to their maximum capacity. Unfortunately, this beautifully convenient method of obtaining the newest music can often come at a hefty price.

The Recording Industry of America (RIAA), a trade group made up of members of various recording industries, “works to protect the intellectual property rights worldwide and the First Amendment rights of artists.” In providing such noble services, they track down college students who download music through programs such as Limewire; after obtaining their contact information through the school, they give the students a month to settle for $3000 before filing a John Doe lawsuit starting anywhere from $750 per song.

The RIAA goes after college students because they are the most obvious targets. They have very little money but a wealth of technological knowledge and a thirst for new music. College students are easy for the RIAA to track and catch because students who live and download on campus use the university’s Internet Provider. Thus, when the RIAA pinpoints a particular IP address, they cannot view the user’s personal information, but they view the name of the university. They then gather around 30-40 IP addresses under the same provider and contact the university, requesting the students’ personal information.

Last spring, the RIAA nailed over 60 Virginia Tech students – myself included –for downloading music using Limewire. When contacted by the RIAA, the Communications Network Services at Virginia Tech refused to release the students’ information. Instead, they forwarded an email to every student assigned to those particular IP addresses, including roommates. Attached to the email was a letter from the RIAA, addressed to a general audience, as they were still unaware of the students’ names and information. The letters contained a list of songs recently downloaded by the defendant, a paragraph pertaining to the illegality of their online musical habits, and a friendly request for $3000.

Immediately upon receiving this letter I turned to Bruce Phillips, the Attorney at Law available to students through the Student Legal Services. My first concern was whether or not this letter was legitimate; I had heard stories such as this before, but had never known it to happen to anyone. After informing me that I was the sixth student that day to come to him with this predicament, he was unable to provide much insight, and advised me to settle. One young lady chose to hire a lawyer who had previously represented a student in a similar case, but the jury is still out for her.

Obviously, students are aware of the risks involved in online piracy, and, says the Collegiate Times Editorial Board, “the RIAA’s actions will not affect the percentage of college students who download music.” The technology is readily available, and most students, if they have not been caught, have the “oh that could never happen to me” mentality regarding the issue.

The CT’s editorial staff provide a valid argument against the RIAA in stating that many students download songs that they otherwise would never have known. My freshman year here at Tech, a friend of mine recommended a song to me by a group named Cartel, a group I was unfamiliar with. After trying out a few of their songs from Limewire, I developed an appreciation for their sound, and thus downloaded the entire album. A few months later, I gladly paid $20 to see the group perform in Squires. Without the opportunity to freely access their music, their name would have never made it onto my playlist, nor would I have ultimately spent the money to see them perform. The RIAA’s most persistent defense for their actions is the claim that artists suffer and lose money as a result of the downloading of their songs. This may be the case for artists who are already plastered all over MTV, but smaller, local groups appreciate this technology. Students are not going to bother driving to Best Buy to spend money on an album by a band that they have never heard of, but they will happily download it onto their iTunes to try it on for size. Because of students’ eagerness to share their favorite songs with their friends, musicians who may just be getting started are able to network and get their names out there, resulting in larger audiences, full of listeners who would have never known of them otherwise, who are willing to pay to see them in concert.

While the majority of mainstream groups and artists continue to rely on recording industries and claim that the downloading of their latest hit will prevent them from putting food on the table, one popular rock band decided to stick it to the man last year.

In October 2007, Radiohead, the British “post-rock” group (cnn.com) went against all protocol regarding the distribution of albums. When they released their newest CD, “In Rainbows,” they gave their fans the option of either ordering or downloading the album from their website – at any price, including nothing. Rather than depending on a recording industry to manufacture, record, stock and sell their albums, they chose to connect directly to their fans. Although fans had the option to download the album at no cost, most of them were excited by this new opportunity and more than willing to reward the band for this bold endeavor, and opted to pay at least a few dollars – all of which went directly to the band.

Radiohead’s decision caused a considerable amount of controversy amongst recording industries and other artists, but the decision actually resulted in a greater revenue for the band. Although their music was not purchased at the same price that it would go for at a typical record store, every penny spent on the albums went directly to the artists – as opposed to the one dollar per $16.98 that they received when going through recording industries (zeropaid.com).

Three months after “In Rainbows” was offered on Radiohead’s website, it hit the shelves of record stores. Although record sales did not exceed those of previous albums, over 200,000 plastic and vinyl records were sold within the first week. Being a band that “appeals to people outside the intensely pirating demographic of 16 to 29,” (New York Times), Radiohead has a significant audience of middle-aged adults – adults who are far more likely to pick up a CD from a record store than they are to find the band’s website and figure out how to download the music onto their computers.

Artists and groups are not yet jumping on the opportunity to test this new method of music distribution, but critics predict that it will only be a matter of time. Radiohead’s method certainly has flukes, but the concept of side-stepping the recording industries altogether in order to reach consumers is one that is being improved upon and researched by musicians around the world.

I have always been a firm believer that downloading music should be considered neither legally nor ethically wrong. I no longer use resources like Limewire, but purely because I am still paying off the $3000 loan and cannot afford to get caught again. I agree with the CT editorial staff in stating that the RIAA can catch individuals and charge them outrageous amounts of money left and right, but students will continue to download music. Besides, it is only a matter of time before a new method of obtaining music at little to no price surfaces.


Resources

“Downloading music: harmful to the artist, the recording company, or neither?”
Infoworld. 2008. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/05/04/010504opethics.html

“Radiohead’s Pay-What-You-Wish Download.” Idolator. 1 October 2007.
http://idolator.com/tunes

“Radiohead shocks record industry.” Zeropaid. 1 October 2007.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9026/Radiohead