Downloading is here to stay

By Jon McDonald

In the early '80s, the movie industry was entrenched in another war against technology. It was not file sharing that worried them but video copying.

Sony had just unveiled the VCR, and the movie industry -- certain that people would only use this new technology to copy and steal movies -- tried to block it entirely. Even more, they feared a loss to theater revenues as people stayed home to watch their purchased, rented or, worst of all, copied movies.

Rather than embracing or endorsing the new distribution models created by home video players, movie studios sought to stop their production and the spread of rental services that used them.

But in landmark legal battles (especially Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., in 1984) the courts held that the benefits of these new technologies far outweighed their potential criminal uses.

These decisions benefitted consumers and the movie industry alike. Even though the copying of tapes did continue, the sale and rental of home videos proved a profitable venue for media rather than a threat to the industry.

Despite this recent precedent, a modern technological revolution, the Internet, has produced an almost identical response.

Distributing media online is cheaper and more convenient for both producers and consumers. Cheap bandwidth and technologies like torrents allow companies, bands and filmmakers, big and small alike, to distribute their work without the exorbitant costs once associated with publication.

In this new digital frontier, established industry leaders initially saw only a threat. Just as the VCR can be used to copy movies, the Internet can be used for file-sharing and subverting the established market, first for music and later for film, television and other media.

But rather than learning from the history of media technology and taking advantage of the Internet's boons, companies and groups like the Recording Industry Association of America and Motion Picture Association of America worked ceaselessly to suppress it, and continue to do so despite the success of those who have embraced the Internet.

These zealous associations quickly shut down file-sharing centers like Napster and SuperNova.org. But downloading did not stop or even slow.

Downloaders migrated to new services, which quickly took up the cause. Their activity moved underground, becoming more difficult to track and prosecute.

New downloading networks have no central location or are located in countries with no clear stance on file-sharing, such as Sweden. Without a clear foe, the RIAA, MPAA and other corporations began to pursue individual file-sharers, which is the situation we find ourselves in today.

Their campaign has become overdrawn and impossible to win, but they continue to spend excessive amounts of money pursuing victory.

An example of the inadequacy and cost of this crusade is Sony's 2005 scandal with digital rights management software.

Sony, who once fought for the VCR, attempted to prevent people from sharing music off their CDs by hiding protection software on them. This software secretly installed itself on a computer when the disc was inserted. It opened up security holes in the Windows operating system, but did not actually prevent copying.

In the face of several class-action lawsuits and widespread consumer discontent, Sony had to recall millions of CDs. The whole stupid business cost them as much in reputation as it did financially.

Rather than wasting time and resources targeting downloaders and angering customers in the process, media industries should look to the loyal customers who have embraced legal downloading venues such as iTunes.

Downloaders are not going away. They persists in the face of the constant threat of legal action and overcome the hurdles of new and costly security protocols, such as Sony's protection software, often in a matter of hours.

These media guerillas want free stuff, and no amount of bullying will stop them from taking it. Downloading, legal and illegal, is here to stay.

In the meantime, the image of companies and organizations that carry out Internet inquisitions has gone down the toilet. They are the bane of poor college students and teenage girls out to test the latest offerings of Justin Timberlake and Jay-Z.

But these groups are also dinosaurs with eyes only for the pricey store-bought albums and DVDs that made them rich. They are dead set on an increasingly archaic mode of distribution and blind in their rage against anything that threatens to change it.

If the recording and movie industries would only learn to function within these new models of distribution rather than railing against them uselessly, they would find a profitable new venue, just as they did with the home video market. Instead, they're committed to a foolish and costly crusade they can never hope to win.

Who exactly are these organizations fighting for? Is it the artists they claim to protect or the producers and record labels that have for so long gotten rich acting as middlemen, and who see the end of their fortunes in the free territory of the Internet?

Jon McDonald is the design editor for The Santa Clara.