A Broken Record

Harvard students who download music illegally are already supposed to be accountable to the University, which states in its Computer Rules and Responsibility agreement that the University can terminate the network access of anyone found violating intellectual property. But if something like the anti-piracy bills being considered by state legislatures in Tennessee and Illinois come to Massachusetts, Harvard itself could be accountable to the state for its students’ behavior. The legislation in question would force public and private universities to actively police their networks for illegal sharing of music and movies, and would take action against colleges that do not sufficiently reduce such downloading.

With such legislation, the states—and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which some fear will lobby for similar laws in other states—are seeking to outsource the work of enforcing copyright laws to colleges. Ensuring that networks are free of music sharing requires a massive investment in monitoring information and analyzing data flows to make sure that no copyrighted material is being transferred. Such monitoring could cost colleges millions of dollars, according to some critics.

Universities should not have to serve as copyright policemen, especially since the laws are entirely against the interests of its students and only serve the music industry. Essentially taxing educational instiutions to preserve the record companies’ business model is an abhorrent way to protect entrenched interests. Such tactics would not even come close to solving the problem, since college students are responsible only a small part of music downloads. Clearly this new wave of legislation marks a cynical attempt by the RIAA and the states to focus on college students rather than other offenders because of the ease with which enforcement can be outsourced to universities.

More importantly, preserving the structure of current copyright law, a relic of the times before fast bandwidth made worldwide music sharing a possibility, is not worth the costs of enforcement. The current draconian restrictions on music sharing are too cumbersome and simply incompatible with age in which electronic transfer of media is the norm.

This outdated business model relies on album sales, with radio play, concert tours, and music videos relegated to serving as promotion. While this business model has been dominant among the most successful musicians and record companies, it is by no means the only way that the production and sale of music can be profitable. Many smaller bands give away music to promote their concerts and expand their fan base for future CD releases, for example. Larger bands have proven that more flexible business models can work for them as well–Radiohead, which released its most recent album online, “In Rainbows”, asking that fans pay whatever they choose for it. When the album came out on CD, it topped the UK charts.

We do not know the details of how a new copyright regime could be structured, or what kind of business model could be adopted to make the production and distribution of music profitable in the modern age. We can be certain, however, that such a model will never be developed if the record industries are not exposed to the competitive pressure of dealing with the new landscape of music distribution. The laws proposed will do nothing but shift the burden of an outdated system from record companies to universities, and prevent real change in the music industry.