There seems to be a great deal of discussion in the Tufts community about the issue of illegal music downloading, perhaps spurred by the oft-mentioned legal action against Tufts students by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
I've attended mandatory lectures on policy, read a number of articles, and heard from RAs and other fellow students. Growing up alongside the Internet, we are born into - as put by the "Stealing is Stealing" editorial in the Sept. 10 issue of the Tufts Daily - a technological "what we want, when we want it" mentality.
The causes of music downloading are rather obvious - facility of access, air of anonymity, and the concept that no one is directly hurt psychologically. These distinguish downloading from traditional types of theft in the minds of perpetrators. With morality not serving as a check, we are left with the question of how to stem such a movement.
As someone who frequently downloaded music as a high school student, I feel compelled to offer some words to those who speak out against the downloaders. While I do not endorse illegal downloading, a diametric anti-downloading campaign will be the lease effective counter-strategy.
In looking at the two basic reasons cited by anti-downloaders, it is not a stretch to argue that those reasons are based on the methods of scare tactics. Firstly - and I'm going to draw from the aforementioned Tufts Daily article again - they claim that in addition to being unlawful, "the act itself is [also] wrong."
The principle fault in this argument is that it assumes, or seems to assume, that moralistic arguments are going to curb downloading. But as anyone who has downloaded music could tell you, morality rarely enters into the equation. Trying to scare downloaders into submission just doesn't work, and drives another wedge between downloaders and anti-downloaders.
Secondly - and I admit this method is more effective, based on accounts I've heard from fellow college students - is the threat of terminated Internet access or intimidating fines. For the vast number of students on campus who are unwilling to find workarounds, these threats function as they are supposed to. Real consequences trump moralistic arguments.
So then, the question is presented: If you can only stem downloading through enforcing collegiate policy, and you can't change mentality through morality, then where do we turn? What do we do about the millions of downloaders that do not live on a college campus and are not subject to collegiate policy (and punishments)?
Instead of vilifying or attempting to squash illegal downloading, can we not find a way to distinguish purchased music from downloaded music?
In the same fashion that DVDs still reign over downloaded movies because of the difference of quality, there must be a way to augment the salability of CDs or purchased music. iTunes is one example of how incentives can be provided, with additions like album artwork, bonuses with purchases, or even accuracy that the illegal music network sometimes cannot provide. If we, as entrepreneurs, can find a way to revamp the appeal of the CD, we may find a few more converts from this arguably unstoppable movement.
Matt Sleeman is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
