Recently, while reading the Tufts Daily, I was drawn in by the topic of illegal downloads. I had remembered reading an editorial boldly proclaiming Tufts students shouldn't download "not only because the consequences of stealing music are serious, but also because the act itself is wrong." This editorial was also mentioned in Matt Sleeman's op-ed submission, "Make music worth paying for" (Sept. 17).
While I agree with Sleeman's opinion, as epitomized in his statement that a "diametric anti-downloading campaign will be the least effective counter strategy," I instead wish to offer the idea that downloading isn't immoral in the context of our society. I would go one further and recommend you download all sorts of things regularly.
To most effectively present this idea, I must first remind everybody reading this that we live in 'MERICAH! Yes, you know, the land of the free, home of the brave, where liberty pulses through our veins and freedom is the fuel that drives our every action.
Well, here in 'Mericah, we have perfected the "greatest" economic system ever devised: capitalism. It is a system that sustains itself through free market competition. America and capitalism are inseparable, for better or for worse. In this context, laws should be devised to make sure that everybody has an equal playing field, and that no one person or competitor has a distinct advantage over another.
So when we discuss entities like the RIAA or the MPAA, we're talking about economics. We're discussing the free market. And in the free market, the RIAA and MPAA are bound by economic laws. Thus, I would argue that our downloading actions are judged in terms of economic morality since our actions directly influence these entities the most.
The RIAA has been proclaiming for years that they've lost billions of dollars from downloading. Yet, as reported by USA Today, the RIAA actually lost only $1 billion in 2006 that it claim was from downloading and pirated CDs. Not billions. But the more important question is how can the RIAA make the claim that its loss was because of downloading and pirated CDs?
For instance, say Microsoft's profits declined $1 billion. Would it be okay for Microsoft to sue Apple for this loss?
No, Apple isn't responsible for a decline in Microsoft sales. Microsoft's problem is that its product wasn't worth the price being charged for it. You see, there is no such thing as lost profits (ignoring, for the moment, dead losses from taxes or subsidies, or what have you).
This is the free market. What Microsoft experienced was the market moving towards equilibrium. Supply and demand, baby. That's how we roll in the land of the free.
Ignoring the morality of the Gestapo tactics of the RIAA (search Google: "RIAA v. the People: Four years later," or "RIAA sued under gang laws"), is this association economically justified in suing downloaders? The answer, I believe, is no.
The RIAA can't claim that downloaders have caused a loss of $1 billion. If you want the TRUE market value of music, what you should do is determine the total number of songs downloaded (legally and illegally) in a year. Then take this number, and add it to the total number of songs on CDs purchased during the year (the number of songs per CD times the number of CDs).
What you have represents all the music consumed during the year. Then divide that number by total revenue from all companies from the RIAA. What you get essentially is an estimation for the value that consumers are willing to pay as a whole per song. The RIAA didn't lose a billion from downloaders. Instead, it set the wrong prices for the market, and the market chose to consume less.
Downloading is just the option people choose because they see the price as an obvious barrier to their music desires. I mean, come on, making a CD costs fractions of a cent, yet CDs are redistributed for $13 or more. Obviously, for big labels, you're paying for a lot more than just the music. So as consumers (as we all are), the choice should be obvious. To quote the movie "The Girl Next Door" (2004), is the "juice worth the squeeze?"
The answer, as the free market has told us, is no. No it's not. And we're perfectly justified in choosing this option. We, as a people, decide market demand. The RIAA just refuses to match total market supply by pricing accordingly. That's the RIAA's fault, not ours.
But why a general endorsement of downloading? How is that even appropriate? Well, that's just a little spite I want to throw the RIAA's way. But why? Well, in the recent landmark case where the RIAA won $220,000 in fees (who were the jurors for this case?) Jennifer Pariser, "the head of litigation for Sony BMG," decided to testify. As quoted in the Daily Tech, "Pariser noted that music labels make no money on bands touring, radio, or merchandise, so they are particularly vulnerable to file sharing."
Wait. Music labels make no money from bands touring, radio, or merchandise? Huh? Then how are the musicians being hurt the most by downloading? You mean this whole thing has been a farce? You've been leading us around with all this "the artist is being hurt by downloading, you're stealing, etc." when it's not even about the artist? It's really about holding onto some copyright you barely had a hand in creating in the first place?
Well then, I say boycott the RIAA. I pay for music, not for the lawyers that want to sue me for not paying for my music.
Paul Szerlip is a sophomore who has not yet declared a major.
