Point-Counterpoint | Downloading punishment not College's duty

Last week, my co-Editor Angela Aiuto correctly examined the legality of illegal file sharing ("College correct on stronger illegal downloading penalties," 2.18.10); however, the legality of the issue is, in my opinion, not the main point of contention in the debate over College punishments to students because of illegal file sharing.

Not only has illegal file sharing been on the rise at Vassar, but I would also wager that the vast majority of students have also lent a friend a CD or burned a mix of songs for friends. The friend can easily copy the music from these CDs to their computer, and the end result is the same: These individuals have received music for free. Should Vassar crack down on CD sharing and mix CDs too? I say no.

Before discussing whether or not Vassar should punish illegal downloaders, however, I think that the intricacies of the general issue must be discussed.

For years, music has been overpriced. Music that was low quality (in general) did not sell as well, while popular music sold well. This has not changed. If illegal file sharing was erased from existence tomorrow, people would not suddenly buy all the music that they were downloading. If Whole Foods did not give out delicious samples anymore, would you start buying the whole product instead? No. You simply wouldn't consume samples and still buy what you wanted to buy. You eat the samples because they are there, and people illegally download because they can.

Furthermore, artists are still making money—obscene amounts of money, in fact. Instead of making money off of CDs, they are now making money off of tours. Tours are not something you can copy or download; they are an experience, a testament to the talents and charisma of the musicians. I personally am willing to pay very high prices to see my favorite acts when they tour while perhaps not downloading their CDs because the live experience is so incredible, and downloading their songs is simply a preview of the greatness to come in their live acts. I know I am not alone in this practice, either.

Yet, there are some musicians who don't perform live, such as electronic bands. I believe that it is up to the band to express to their fans that if they are to continue creating their music, they need their fans to donate money, buy merchandise or buy the music. In these cases, I am sure fans would be more than willing to help contribute as long as the band is high quality—as they did when Radiohead asked for their fans to pay as much as they thought the album was worth—and the music industry should work so as to have great bands be supported and lackluster music (Heidi Montag comes to mind) be slowly faded out of the scene.

Free music downloads also benefit underground or up-and-coming artists. The Internet allows millions of people instant access to tunes, and instead of having to have a record label and a well-marketed CD, new acts can instead post some songs on MySpace and gain quite a bit of notoriety, and songs spreading through Frostwire or BitTorrent can allow even more people to sample the band's music, perhaps generating even more buzz. If anything, I would argue that the "free-music-download revolution" has benefited smaller artists.

And I believe this is a good thing. In an ideal world, I think soldiers, firemen and other admirable workers should be paid more than sports, movie or music stars. We clearly do not live in this world, but we do live in a world in which we can "vote" with our dollars. Every time we buy a Kashi-brand cereal instead of a Kellogs-brand alternative, we are voting in favor of Kashi. Every time we buy a certain label of clothing, we are voting to support its future as a clothing company. Similarly, every time I don't buy a movie ticket to a Tom Cruise movie, I am voting against Tom Cruise. Not paying for CDs is therefore voting against high prices, against mass-produced crap that barely has a melody.

However, Aiuto also brought up an important moral point in her column; she asked, "Would the average file sharer feel comfortable stealing an $800 pair of designer shoes?" The answer, I think, would be decidedly no, but I also think that this comparison is not entirely accurate. If the question is rephrased to "Would the average file sharer feel comfortable owning a copy of an $800 pair of designer shoes?" I think the answer would most likely be yes. If I had the opportunity to own a copy of some Louboutin platforms, I would snatch them up immediately; would I steal them, though? Absolutely not. But the music isn't being stolen, just like taking a cell phone picture of a Rothko at the Museum of Modern Art is not stealing. The cell picture is not nearly as good as the real thing, just as an illegally downloaded song is nowhere near as incredible as hearing the song live in concert.

I decidedly believe that illegal downloading is an important message to music companies and is not the "downfall" of the music industry (though lip-synchers who don't write their own music might be!). However, it is illegal and does present a problem to the College. This is a legal matter, though, and thus should be dealt with as a legal matter—if the College receives a complaint or lawsuit from Warner Bros. Music, they should of course require the students to pay any fines received and allow the company to prosecute accordingly. However, they should not punish students within the confines of academic regulation unless they are also going to punish for the aforementioned CD sharing, lending books to each other or printing out the cell phone picture of the Rothko and giving it to a friend.

How far can the College go regulating the distribution of art and its copies before it succumbs to moral judgments rather than protecting its interests?

—Kelly Shortridge '12 is the Opinions Editor. This year, she and Opinions Editor Angela Aiuto '11 are maintaining an alternating column in which they engage one another in conversation.