Shocking? Sorry, but if you agree with the ongoing accusations made by the executives and artists of the music industry, then it's true. Here's why:
Their lawyers are fighting to stop computer peer-to-peer sharing of music because they believe copyright laws are being infringed. (Peer-to-peer sharing, for the uninitiated, is the process by which individuals share their music libraries and files with each other through computer software without necessarily paying for the acquired files. Remember Napster? Plenty of other programs have arisen to take its place: Morpheus, Grokster, the Gnutella Network, Kazaa.)
And not to be left out of this computer software conflict, Hollywood and the Motion Picture Association of America want to keep you from using DVD-copying software because they believe that also violates the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Are all of these people right? Be careful before answering "yes" because you may convict yourself. Okay, so you've read this far and thought, "I don't share music. I certainly don't copy DVDs. You're wrong Mr. Cosenza, I'm not a thief." Well, then let's take a different approach.
Suppose you visited the doctor last week and, while you were waiting, you picked up the office copy of the St. Petersburg Times. You thumbed through the pages and came across an article your family would really like. You asked the receptionists for permission to tear it out, but you were refused. So instead, you asked to make a dozen or so photocopies and they let you use their copier.
Gotcha! You're a thief.
Seem harsh? You're not using those copies for educational purposes, so you're not exactly protected under the "fair use" copyright provisions. Is it more justifiable to copy a newspaper that only costs 35 cents than it is to copy a record that costs $12.99? Your intention wasn't to sell the article; you just wanted your family to read it, right? Same goes for those who share music; they just want to hear the song, they don't want to sell it.
"Once you photocopy something like say, March Madness brackets, from a magazine or newspaper 25 or 50 times, and distribute them around to your office mates, you're walking a fine line and you're potentially infringing on copyrights," said Kembrew McLeod, a professor of communication studies at the University of Iowa and author of Owning Culture.
Raise your hand if you've ever recorded your favorite song off the radio. Did you sell it? Of course not. You only listened to it. That's what blank cassette tapes are for - and don't say you use them for recording your innermost thoughts. You must be the same people who actually use fireworks to scare pesky birds from your crops.
Yes, anyone mass-producing and selling illegal copies of records should be incarcerated for piracy. Actually, in a recent case, the Recording Industry Association of America sued four college students for sharing some 1-million songs on the Internet. They faced a fine of $150,000 per song, but settled for between $12,000 and $17,500 per student.
The pressure to succumb to these corporate giants is so intense, even Apple is backpedaling. The company, which once had the slogan, "Rip. Mix. Burn," because "after all, it's your music," now issues its personal digital music player, the iPod, with a sticker on its face that reads: Don't steal music.
Imagine the hypocrisy!
In a bold move to appease all of the involved parties, Apple recently created an industry-approved iTunes Music Store for its users to download songs at 99 cents each. With more than 2-million downloads the first 16 days, it's sure to revolutionize the way music is purchased. Now Apple is laughing all the way to the bank, but notably, with its tail between its legs.
This isn't the first time record companies cried foul when it came to reproducing their music. A couple of decades ago, some vinyl LPs (remember those?) came with a warning: "Home taping is killing music." And guess what? People never stopped taping, and the music industry still raked in the money hand over fist.
If you think this is convoluted logic, wait, there's more. Remember those copies you made at the doctor's office? Say you give one to your mother and she gladly accepts it. Now she's an accessory after the fact.
"Oh, that reminds me," she says, "I have something for you. I taped Sopranos for you last night."
Thieves! Don't take that tape. If you want to watch Sopranos then you should turn over some money to Bright House. Your mother pays for HBO, only she gets the privilege of watching it. You don't.
Sound ridiculous? There really is no difference. Just like the artists wrote and recorded their copyrighted music, the producers at HBO copyrighted their shows.
And don't think your trip through copyright infringement ends there. On your way home you stop at a friend's house. He thanks you for letting him borrow your Matrix DVD and then hands you an extra disc, saying, "I made you a backup copy on my computer just in case something happens to the original." You take it and thank him for his kind act of appreciation. But if you believe the MPAA, you have unknowingly violated yet another copyright law. The MPAA doesn't want you copying what you already own because they contend that you don't really own the movie, just the disc. If you want an extra copy for backup purposes, you need to pay for it. Now who sounds ridiculous?
Whether sharing or copying is an act of stealing can't be solved here. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But if one of these acts constitutes theft, then so do the rest. It's a marriage of legality and morality. So the next time you're hanging around the photocopier condemning peer-to-peer sharing with your co-workers as you make dozens of copies of the Times NCAA Tournament bracket for an office pool, remember: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
