A Corporate America - A Look at the RIAA's Actions Towards its Own Consumers

    In 1998, Shawn Fanning, an 18 year-old college dropout revolutionized the way we get music.  He created the computer program known as Napster, and it was perhaps one of the most controversial pieces of software this decade.  It allowed its users to download and upload music in mp3 format to each other over a central server that Fanning controlled.  This type of network is known as peer-to-peer (p2p).  The program was revolutionary in that it allowed users to download and upload music quickly and efficiently.  But of course, for every revolution, there are people that object to it.  In this case, the opposing group was the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

    When the RIAA became aware of Napster they immediately took Fanning to court to sue him for everything he had.  What did Fanning do wrong?  He created an efficient, light-weight program that uses p2p in a way never seen before.  From the legal perspective, he was responsible for the millions of users illegally swapping songs on Napster.  This was because his network was controlled by a central server (although Fanning did not control who swapped what songs, the songs passed through his property before reaching the person downloading the song).  Many users from Napster spoke out against the RIAA; wrote hate mail and organized web sites devoted to boycotting them.  The RIAA, being the big, uncaring organization that it is, paid no attention to the plea of its consumers, and sued Napster.  Shawn Fanning ended up losing the lawsuit, and the RIAA acquired tons of money.

    Was the RIAA’s lawsuit just?  From a legal perspective, yes, Shawn Fanning was responsible for his users on his network.  But, who says legality should determine was is "right" and "wrong" in this world.  The RIAA is in control of all of the major record labels throughout the United States.  When the RIAA heard of songs being illegally swapped on Napster, they quoted numbers and said, "These are the profit that we have lost."  The fact of the matter is that numbers cannot be quoted as "profit dollars lost," because there are no statistics that can ever show what percentage of people downloading songs, actually had the intent of paying for them CDs.  Many people download to try songs, and then purchase the CD later, were these people part of these statistics?  This was only the beginning of the RIAA's reign of terror against its own consumers.  The RIAA is an example of corporate greed at its finest, and their lawsuits make a joke of the American legal system.

    After Napster had come and gone, there were new song swapping networks that emerged to try and take its place.  One of the most prominent networks was the Fasttrack network, driven by the file-sharing client called Kazaa.  Kazaa was owned by a company called Sharman Networks.  The difference between Kazaa and Napster was that Kazaa did not have a central server.  This was the major problem with Napster, because having a central server puts the server operator at risk for its user’s actions.  Unlike Napster, when users uploaded and downloaded songs through Kazaa, the connection between the uploader and downloader were direct.  This kept the RIAA off of Sharman Networks’ case, but the RIAA did not want to give in.  There had to be someone they could sue!

    In June of 2003 the RIAA continued its reign of terror, not against Sharman Networks, but the individuals sharing files on the networks.  More than 2 million people around the world were culpable for this act, including children around age 12.  However, the RIAA simply did not care.  Their plan was this; they would scan the file-sharing networks and search for popular artists that people would share, once they found a person sharing, they would take a screenshot of these shared files and bring the person to court.  If the person did not put up a fight, the settlement would usually be around $3,000.  Few users fought against the multi-billion dollar company, and those who wanted to could not find enough money for a good lawyer that would help them in their battle against evil.  To this date more than 5,000 people have been subpoenaed.  The RIAA has even subpoenaed a deceased woman; this is just one example of how sloppy and ridiculous these lawsuits are.  Many of these people do not even realize what they are doing is qualified as illegal.
   
    The RIAA did not stop there, their scare tactic of suing random users on file-sharing networks was not working.  The population on file-sharing networks remained relatively the same.  They went to the file-sharing companies next.  How could these network owners be sued?  Under US law at the time, as long as they did not own a central server, they could not be held responsible for their users’ actions.  But the RIAA has a lot of lobbyists, and a lot of money.  In America, a lot of the times, this is what it takes to win a lawsuit.  They filed lawsuits against big file-sharing client owners at the time, such as Imesh, Bearshare, and Kazaa.  It was originally declared that the networks had legal uses, and therefore network owners could not be held responsible for their users’ actions.  That soon changed, those file-sharing applications are now defined as illegal, and their software developers’ are paying the price.  Because of the RIAA’s greed, software developers in America that could potentially help the way our world distributes information over the internet, are now inhibited from creating any type of software that may be considered illegal in fear of a lawsuit against any corporate giant.
  
     Currently, the RIAA is still filing lawsuits against the creators of file-sharing clients such as Limewire, as well as still suing random users sharing files off of file-sharing networks.  Many families have had to give up their already small funds for their children’s college education up to the RIAA for “stealing.”  However, none of these people are actually stealing.  When most people perceive theft, they think of something being taken, meaning the original owner no longer owns the item.  Nothing is being physically “stolen” on these file-sharing networks, they are being copied.  These networks are free publicity for the RIAA, recent news has said that CD sales are up 25%, but the RIAA would never admit to such a thing.  Other supporters of the RIAA consider the file-sharing networks as a swarm of hooligans unwilling to pay for their music.  In reality, the RIAA is being ignorant to their own consumers; the file-sharing networks show that a change is needed in the way music is sold.  It shows that many people would rather buy digital music off of the internet, as opposed to going to a store and purchasing a CD.  Even the RIAA’s own artists have opposed them.  In Canada, copyright reform is underway, led by the popular artist Barenaked Ladies.  This displays that what the RIAA is doing is wrong, and they are not looking out for anyone else other than themselves and their shareholders.