Many students are undoubtedly upset with the College’s recent decision to intensify the punishment for illegal downloading. Some question whether the severity of the punishment matches the crime. Others feel that illegal downloading isn’t a crime at all.
For example, on the Facebook event page for the Vassar Student Association’s Forum on Illegal Downloading—which was held this past Wednesday, Feb. 17—a former Vassar employee named Derek Balling questioned the illegality of downloading copyrighted material, writing: “...copyright prohibits ‘distribution’ of copyrighted material without permission. The person who performs a simple download is not distributing the material.”
I don’t pretend to be an expert on this subject, but I find such an explanation debatable at best. The U.S. Copyright Office seems to negate what Balling says: “Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution…Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks.”
It is generally understood that the recording industry goes after those who download files as opposed to those who share them—although, in many cases, a student will be guilty of both. But the Copyright Office seems to suggest that, if the recording industry wanted to, it could go after those who simply download, too. Given this gray area, it would seem that Vassar is looking out for the overall well-being of its students by strengthening the punishment for illegal downloading.
Of course, legalities or illegalities don’t really matter to the average person either way, do they? Given the sheer volume of files being shared out there, it is virtually impossible for authorities to regulate the distribution of this material in any comprehensive, meaningful way. The actual risk of getting caught for illegally sharing or downloading music is pretty low, and many people wouldn’t mind making that bet.
But what about the moral issue? Downloading a handful of songs off the Internet doesn’t seem like a terrible offense to most people, especially considering that it subtracts only a few dollars from the massive profits raked in daily by fabulously wealthy record companies and artists. But, in principle, downloading a song illegally is the same as any other kind of stealing. I imagine that most people who engage in illegal file sharing or downloading wouldn’t feel comfortable about walking into Best Buy and swiping a CD, despite the fact that this theft likely wouldn’t impact Best Buy’s profits or overall financial viability in the slightest.
Given that most people hold a moral objection to stealing, it seems odd and disturbing that they would waive this moral objection when it comes to pirated media because they know they won’t get caught. But it’s also important to note that, in general, people who illegally download music don’t realize the true value of their theft, which is often much more than the cost of your average CD. A 2008 study found that the average teenager’s iPod contains more than 800 illegally downloaded songs. Authorized providers like iTunes typically sell songs for $1. Would the average file sharer feel comfortable stealing an $800 pair of designer shoes? How about a 50” Samsung HDTV or, alternatively, a 48” Toshiba?
And still, we’d only be realizing the average level of theft. At least half of all teenagers—and, we can assume, many adults as well—steal more than 800 songs. We can, in turn, go on to imagine even more costly thefts—a MacBook, a piano or maybe a car?
If students are unprepared to realize the true consequences of their piracy—both in terms of the value of what they are stealing and the punishments they may face—then that is their prerogative. But no one should be criticizing the College for trying to prevent illegal and, more importantly, immoral activity.
—Angela Aiuto ’11 is the Opinions Editor. This year, she and Opinions Editor Kelly Shortridge ’12 are maintaing an alternating column called “Point, Counterpoint,” in which they engage one another in conversation. Aiuto is majoring in political science.
3 comments