Horizon League Links

Butler
Detroit
Illinois-Chicago
Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Wright State
Youngstown State
Horizon Connection

Editorial 8/03/03

8/03/03
by John C. Thomas

Loyola's recent debacle vis-à-vis the RIAA subpoena is yet another tin-eared, off-key note in a long symphony of errors and bad judgment in the past several years. Just as the university is about to turn around huge deficits and declining enrollments through brilliant and relentless recruiting efforts, Loyola caves in to a dubious subpoena by immediately offering up the names of two students that downloaded a lot of music. That's a great message to send to newly recruited students: you're on your own, baby, and we'll rat you out at the drop of a hat.

The controversy is this: two Loyola students downloaded a whole lot of music from the Internet. The RIAA considers that stealing, just the same as if you burglarized a house and stole CDs and records. The RIAA filed lawsuits to request the names of music downloaders to universities, Internet service providers, and others that they consider major thieves of intellectual property. The RIAA and its lawyers believe that raking a few major offenders over the coals will eliminate the decline in the purchase of music and set an example for others that want to do the same.

Loyola claims that they are merely complying with a legal subpoena, and had no choice but to immediately present the names of the two offenders.

It all sounds very fair and proper. But let's look deeper.

First of all, many colleges that received the same type of subpoena either professed ignorance as to the identity of the offenders in question (like DePaul did) or vehemently fought the legality of the subpoena (as MIT and Boston College did). MIT and BC are in appeals court fighting the subpoena. Aside from Loyola, I haven't heard of any school in the country that has given out names as readily as Loyola did.

Secondly, the Loyola students may not have broken the law. If the Loyola students already own the material they downloaded, it should not be a crime. I have downloaded many songs that I own but don't have on my computer, because I don't have a CD drive on my laptop. Evidently, the names of the Loyola students were given out in response to a flimsy subpoena WITHOUT BEING ASKED OR CONSULTED ABOUT WHETHER THEIR ACTIVITY WAS ACTUALLY ILLEGAL.

Third, the Loyola students downloaded material that was presented to them by others on the Internet. The material was offered voluntarily, which completely undercuts their suggestion that the offense is anything like a burglary. The RIAA is going after the people that click on a link to download a song, and are ignoring the people that offer the songs. This is absolutely contrary to the way violations of intellectual property are currently pursued-going after the persons that offer copies of films, music, or other recorded material.

Additionally, there is no offer of money involved in any of these transactions, unlike counterfeit violations of intellectual property. Several people must buy the CD in the first place. No one is re-selling it. The added exposure of the songs can actually lead to increased purchases of recorded material. I have purchased more CDs in the past three years (since I started downloading music) than I had the previous five years, and I'm frickin' 41 years old.

But that's not good enough for the RIAA, which is fighting for the rights of musicians. Or are they?

The RIAA is the same group that decided that rap music-- which samples heavily from recorded music of the past-- deserves its own songwriting credits and copyrights. The studio musicians that play the instruments that are heard on these recycled "hits" get nothing. So they give a guy who mumbles over a pre-recorded 15-year old song a songwriting credit that they fight for-because it makes them more money. The bass player has played on two top-10 hits in the past 15 years, but only gets one studio session check.

And it hasn't occurred to the RIAA that maybe part of the reason for the decline in music purchases is the fact that they've created a situation that diminishes the musical form. I do not want a "Gangsta Bitch," and I do not want to hear the opposite sentiment repeated 70 times over a six minute song that is patched together from a drum loop from one song and a bass line stolen from another song.

The RIAA does not protect artistry-- they sold that out a long time ago. The RIAA is all about making money, not about advancing or protecting the artistry of music. They have instituted the idea of stealing music, and worked to legalize it for their own narrow, short-term benefit.

Finally, as a person that has a number of copyright credits-several songs, two plays, and a lot of written material-- I would rather have a person get the material that I actually produced for free than get an amended, twisted version that they have to pay another person for.

If Loyola ever listened to someone like me, maybe they never would have made the mistake of caving in instantly to the RIAA. But maybe that's Loyola's problem-they never listen to someone like me, let alone their own current students.