By this point, many of you have undoubtedly started hissing loudly. I understand the associations between the RIAA and the sign of the beast, but in regards to the hate mail towards the RIAA, I would like to say "bah.''
First of all, I do not agree with the way the RIAA conducts business. In my opinion, the organization is monopolistic and employs unfair business practices. In fact, I would agree that action could theoretically be taken in an antitrust setting against the monsters of "big media." A litany of lawsuits-the most famous resulting in a settlement for consumers of music-has shown that the prices people pay for CDs are artificially high, but that's about as far as I will go to agree with my peers. Please, for the sake of my cynical little soul, don't try to convince me you're anything like Gandhi and the RIAA anything like whomever it was Gandhi protested.
While I agree that CDs are costly and concede that their prices are artificially preserved through unfair business practices, this is about the only argument in favor of the pro-stealing camp. "But Jake!" you'll say, "The RIAA isn't actually the owner of that media-and I'm a college student, so I'm entitled to steal things because they cost too much." In an act of false modesty, allow me a reductio ad absurdum. Gucci jeans are cost-controlled and far pricier than the amount of work that goes into them. Still, if you try to steal a pair of Gucci jeans, you're likely to be hanged.
The issue of ownership is an important one as well. I've heard claims that if someone buys a CD they should be given unlimited rights to share the music on it. I'm sure many of you are aware of this, but certain material-specifically those protected by copyrights-cannot be distributed without the consent of the original copyright holder. The reason behind this law is simple: if I invest the time to create a piece of art such as an album, I should be given exclusive distribution and performance rights. Why would I pay $15 to hear the Stones perform "Satisfaction" when another band will put it on a CD for $5? Obviously there should be a few exclusions to this rule, for instance the "fair use" doctrine which allows a personal backup copy of any material (for clarification, a helpful guide is found at www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectual property/copypol2.html). However, copyrighted material needs to remain protected.
I agree that it would be much more convenient to pirate music than it would be to, say, go out and buy CDs, but easy use does not constitute legality or fairness. To be fair to the RIAA, they've made great strides recently to become more accountable and to enable companies to ease the process of purchasing digital music legally. Some companies, like Rhapsody, provide unlimited streaming audio for a fixed cost every month. Apple, the leader of these companies, has implemented a program by which songs are purchasable for only 99 cents. With this great new opportunity-and the total legality of listening to your own music digitally-I hardly think any moral justification of the act circumvents the fact that it is illegal.
Stealing, no matter how easy and no matter how easily justified, is still stealing. While the losses Justin Timberlake and Outkast suffer are superficial, the fact still remains that some musicians feel the loss. Every song stolen is a song written, performed and produced by someone. The outright theft of their creations inhibits the fair and equal exchange of goods for services and is therefore a crime as understood constitutionally. Despite any claims of "associated benefits" like experiencing a better variety of music and thus buying more CDs, every song someone downloads removes some quantity of profit from a hardworking artist. As defined by the letter of the law, file-sharing of copyrighted material is not "sort of" illegal or "kind of" illegal; it is an act defined precisely and openly as a violation of United States copyright laws.
Finally, if you are going to steal music, at least have the kindness and decency to do so in a place where your use will not eventually affect my privacy rights. Under no stretch of the imagination is such flagrant piracy allowable under the guidelines set out by Amherst College or the fair use standards of copyright laws. Many of us would like the College and the use of its files to remain a free and open exchange of ideas. This protected forum for open communication is a sanctuary that must be maintained from within. If we hope to continue to distance our voices from censorship and oppression, we must do our best to police true criminals within our ranks. It is only through this self-policing that we will continue to enjoy the freedoms we have.