One more for the Copyright topic:

My friend Matt wrote what I thought was a very good editorial about music downloading for the Tufts Daily. Here it is:

The Fault in Anti-Downloading
Written by Matt Sleeman

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 of policy, read a number of articles, and heard from RAs and other fellow students. Obviously, in a generation growing alongside the internet, we are born into– as put by the "Stealing is Stealing" editorial in September 10th's issue of The Tufts Daily – a technological "what we want, when we want it" mentality. While it has not been a problem listing the causes of music downloading – facility of access, air of anonymity, the concept that no one is directly hurt – and thus distinguishing how this type of theft may psychologically differ from traditional shoplifting (for it's no rash assumption to claim music downloading is more common), we are often left with the question of how to stem such a movement.
Filtering such editorials from the perspective of one who frequently downloaded music as a high school student, I find it natural to seek contention against those who speak out against the downloaders. While I certainly do not and cannot endorse the trend of illegal downloading, that does not mean that a diametric anti-downloading counter-strategy will be the most effective. In fact, I argue that it will be the least effective.
In looking at the two fundamental reasons anti-downloaders cite for discontinuing the act of illegal downloading, 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 The Tufts Daily article again – I have repeatedly heard the claim that while downloading music illegally is unlawful (indubitably), "the act itself is [also] wrong." Beyond the question of separating morality from legality, the principle fault in this argument is that it assumes – or seems to assume – that moralistic arguments are going to curb downloading. However, as anyone who has previously downloaded music or has one such acquaintance could tell you, morality rarely enters into the equation. Trying to scare downloaders out of their practice is simply ineffectual, if not further widening the gap between downloaders and anti-downloaders. Secondly – and I admit this method is more effective, based on accounts I've heard from fellow students – the threat of terminated internet access or intimidating fines is in place to limit what can be considered a universality of seeking music on a college campus. It works; for the vast number of students on campus who do not search for ways to sidestep this barrier, the threats function as they are supposed to. Hence, in this argument, the fault lies not with effectiveness, but with the extent to which this practice affects high school students or post-dorm-room students. It would be foolish to assume that without such a barrier in place, students would not simply return to illegal downloading.

So then, the question is presented: if you can only stem downloading through enforcing collegiate policy – because pre- and post-college are marked by policy's absence, while mentality lies untouched – and you can't change mentality through morality, because downloaders dispute this argument's applicability, then where do we turn? Instead of vilifying or attempting to squash the attempts of illegal music downloaders, or perhaps in addition to some of these methods, 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.

-------
This was in response to a previous OpEd piece entitled, "Stealing is Stealing". Click here for the link.

I know we're moving on to patents next week, but if anyone wants to discuss these ideas for a few minutes (or post on the blog), I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.