Finding Solutions

All around the world people are participating in a practice called peer-to-peer filesharing. They are trading music, videos and files freely amongst each other. Who would’ve thought something like this would cause such uproar? In its relatively short life in the spotlight, file-sharing has caused jubilation among rebelling music consumers, anger among top record executives and a flurry of proposed solutions from all sides. So how do we choose a solution? Is there a solution that will work, or will music downloaders keep sharing regardless of the industry’s efforts? Whatever happens, we need to actively seek out plausible, user-friendly solutions in order to make file-sharing work for everyone.
"File-sharing", in its most basic definition, would be described as the sharing of electronic data over computer connections. The more specific definition which is the topic of this paper is peer-to-peer music sharing. Peer-to-peer is different from traditional file-sharing in that there is no central network; users connect directly to one another and swap files freely. These will both be referred to as file sharing in this paper, for the sake of convenience. "Intellectual property" is defined on Dictionary.com as "a product of the intellect that has commercial value..." This is a large part of the record industry's argument against file-sharing, as will be explained later. "Pay-for-play services" are those that charge a subscription fee or a small surcharge for users to download music. Some charge per song, some per album, and some just the subscription rate. This is another solution that will be explained later. iTunes is a program/service combination from Apple that allows the legal downloading of music files. The files can be downloaded for 99 cents apiece and then can be played on Apple’s iPod player.
One solution that has been proposed- and already tried by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) -is suing the music sharers for copyright infringement. The record industry argues that file-sharing violates the intellectual property rights of the artists who produce the music, because no royalty is paid and the artist receives no compensation for the acquisition of the song. The industry seems to think that attacking the people that listen to music is the way to win them back. Seems like a confusing strategy.
Gitlin (2004) states, “On April 28th, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 477 more people for illegally downloading music, bringing the total number of lawsuits filed to more than 2,000.” (p. 16) The purpose of this barrage of lawsuits is to scare people into wanting to buy music instead of facing the risk of downloading. This is a shaky argument at best. Scare tactics are not a very consumer friendly approach.
This may end up being the worst possible move the industry could have made. Instead of forcing downloaders back to purchasing music, it may just force them to be more covert about it. The people who run the downloading services and the sharers themselves are turning to 128 bit encryption to protect themselves. Salkever (2004) states, "The RIAA's newest legal assault on file swappers is pushing them to encrypted networks, where the damage could become catastrophic." This could be catastrophic because once encrypted, it will be nearly impossible for the RIAA to find the users in order to prosecute them. If the RIAA is not careful, they may end up digging a hole they can’t get out of.
Setting up legitimate pay-for-play services as an alternative to illegal peer-to-peer sites is another solution that has been worked on. Many companies see this as the way to go because it gives an alternative to illegal downloading without threatening or hurting their customers. This looks like a great way to get people to stop downloading and start buying.
Olson (2003) quotes Matt Kleinschmit, the director of a major research firm as saying, "For the longest time, the industry has questioned whether there was a way to make money selling music online, especially in light of P2P [peer-to-peer services]. (p. 43)" Many people agree with Kleinschmit, wondering if people will want to download legally with free downloads still available. Taylor (2003) believes this will not be a problem. He states that even though free options exist, in just the first week after Apple’s iTunes was made available for PC users, they alone had "downloaded a million copies of the software and paid for a million songs (adding to the 14 million music downloads already made by Mac users)"(p. 66). Apple’s “iTunes” service could be just the solution labels and consumers alike are looking for, Taylor (2003) states. With lower prices than buying CDs and less danger than downloading, everyone could find a safe haven in this service.
My idea is to package CDs with other materials in order to make them a more attractive option to consumers. It may drive up costs of production a little, but I think in the long run it would encourage CD sales even among those who previously downloaded for free. People who really like music tend to want merchandise such as t-shirts, posters, stickers or DVDs as well. If music retailers began packaging CDs with things like this there would be more reason for people to spend the money (maybe even pay more) to get CDs rather than just downloading the songs. It's not possible to download a shirt, and nobody wants a cheap home-made poster.
One example of this idea that has already been tried many times with quite a bit of success is releasing special editions of CDs that come with live DVDs or DVDs featuring videos. This is definitely a step in the right direction. When the CD is released and then a special edition is released with DVD content, some people even buy both versions. The record industry needs to take notice of this.
Another thing that could help with this idea is a new technology in the works called DualDisc. Walsh (2004) states, “DualDisc is a standard audio CD on one side. Flip it over, and it's a DVD that allows high-resolution, surround sound audio; video; ROM capability; and such additional content as lyrics, still photos, biographies and discographies. Special playback equipment is not required to access the discs' content." Many bands and labels have already released albums in this format, some included are bands like Linkin Park, AC/DC, AudioSlave and Good Charlotte (Goddard, 2004). People always want the newest technology and CDs packaged with DVD content have been a big draw since the practice of releasing them first started. If the record industry takes full advantage of this new technology they may be able to salvage their sales somewhat.
While there are many choices for solutions to combat the problem of illegal file-sharing, the most successful so far seems to be pay-for-play services such as Apple's "iTunes". It has already been proven that people are willing to pay at least 99 cents per download for music, and the system's few bugs are already in the process of being worked out. Everyone is searching for the vessel that will carry us into the future of music distribution and listening, and the easy to use technology of iTunes and other legitimate downloading services seem to be the best solution.
The argument will probably still go on that people will continue illegal downloading because it is free, but a million downloads by PC users in their first week of iTunes use cannot be ignored, and will not be. The record industry, computer technology companies and consumers are all taking notice of this new factor in the music world, and they'd better all be ready to adapt to it, because it isn't going anywhere.
Regardless of what solution is chosen, file-sharing is now a large part of our culture, and there is no turning back. The record industry would have been smart to adapt to the new technology while it was still up-and-coming, but they missed that boat, and now it's all about playing catch up. These ideas are some of the main solutions, but in the end, the changing face of technology may end up presenting a completely different idea to fix the problem. Whatever happens, we all need to keep our eyes peeled. At the rate technology is going, we may miss something important, just like the record companies did.


Works Cited

Gitlin, L., McDonell-Parry A., Smith K. L, and Telling, G. (2004). In the news. Rolling Stone, (949), 16.

Goddard, B. (2004). Dualdisc - the hybrid cd/dvd disc high fidelity review feature story (part one). retrieved Nov. 19, 2004, from High Fidelity Review Web site: http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/dualdisc.asp.

Olson, C. A.A. (2003). If you sell it, they will buy. Billboard, 115(23), 43.

Salkever, A. (2004). Big music's worst move yet. Business Week Online, . Retrieved Oct 07, 2004, from http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,uid&db=aph&an=12103155

Taylor, C. (2003). The 99¢ solution. Time, 162(20), 66-70.

Walsh, C., Newman, M., & Christman E. (2004). Dual disc arrives in fall. Billboard, 116(36), 7-8.

The Three "R"s of Education: Reading, Writing, and Revolution

I have a serious concern with educational systems today. Don't worry; this isn't another rant about how Affirmative Action has oppressed me. I'm a middle class white kid with more opportunity than I know what to do with. I'm also not about to complain about all the "liberally biased” teachers trying to turn students into communists. The issue I want to address is the educational system itself, a topic that often takes a backseat to these other (less important) issues.
My concern is that teachers are relying on ‘banking’ methods of teaching rather than methods that encourage students to think critically and become better students. Instead of teachers merely providing students with the information that goes in the blank on the test question, what they need to do is encourage students to make the information relevant to their lives. What is the goal of teaching if not providing students with information that will enable them to better their lives? The problem is the absence of praxis and of the Socratic Method. Rarely are students encouraged to explain or even understand their own answers, to think critically about the information as it relates to real life. Merely being able to parrot back the 'answers' to their teachers seems to be enough. Unfortunately, what this leaves students with is a "pile of bricks" with no building plans and no motivation.
Does this mean I think all teachers are 'bad' teachers? Absolutely not, there are some excellent teachers out there, but there are also abysmally bad teachers. Does this mean I think there is one definite idea of 'good' teaching methods? Of course not! All students learn differently. Their culture, their experiences, their age, their gender all affect the way they learn, so there obviously cannot be one fool-proof method of teaching all of them. This difference in learning styles is essential for teachers to understand. In order for a whole class, say, 30 individuals, to learn, a teacher must tailor their teaching in such a way that it is accessible to all learning styles. The teacher must also realize that they need to make the information relatable for all of these different students.
It is for this reason that I think large lecture classes are ineffective. There is no easy way to make class materials relatable for classes in excess of 100 students—or sometimes even 300+. In order for each student to be able to personally connect to the information and make it work for them, they need at least a small amount of individual attention, or at least the opportunity to have one-on-one interaction with an instructor. The argument could be made that students should make regular visits to these instructors' office hours; however, a brief meeting outside of class cannot substitute for a quality in-classroom learning experience. Office hours are often very short and many students are either unable to come to them due to classes, or feel uncomfortable doing so because of the awkward situation it creates. The student is unfamiliar with student-teacher interactions outside of the classroom (let alone an actual one-on-one conversation), and as such do not take advantage of the option, if it is even available.
So what does this mean? It means that teachers and administrators need to rethink very carefully the educational strategies that are currently being used in these institutions. It means that students studying to be teachers need to make sure they don't fall into the traps of old-fashioned education and make an effort to bring with them revolutionary ideas and teaching styles. It means that teachers need to remember the experiences they had as a student as well as their experiences as a teacher. They need to remember these things and fix any and all of the things that went wrong. For a teacher, forgetting is death. It is not a physical death, but an ideological death. If teachers forget their experiences they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have been made in the past. If teachers forget their experiences, they are becoming hypocrites, because what is learning if not thinking on experiences and adapting to them?