DUKE MAGAZINE
Volume 87, No.3, March-April 2001
‘Stealing’ Music?
Editors:
In the article “A Music Free-For-All” [November-December 2000], I was disturbed by the cavalier attitude of the Duke students quoted about their use of Napster.
Illegally downloading music hurts companies and creative artists beyond the RIAA and the major record labels. The creative process necessitates the work of musicians, singers, engineers, producers, lyricists, staff, and innumerable support companies, all of which collaborate to bring the finished product to market. Only a small portion of the people involved in the entertainment industry make the sums of money of, say, Eminem, Metallica, Clive Davis, or Tommy Mottola, while the vast majority earn a more modest living.
Duke student “Brian” boasted of having 200 music files in his computer. That figure extrapolated to the rest of Duke’s 6,500 undergraduate students totals 1.3 million downloads—at just one college campus—where artists, record companies, and others aren’t compensated. Napster users who think this is some kind of consumer revolution, instead of theft on a large scale, are either remarkably naïve or completely disingenuous.
In fact, consumers frustrated by the high prices of compact discs have a variety of legal alternatives. The most obvious, and most powerful, is simply to choose not to purchase the product. Consumers could buy the music on a cheaper format (i.e., audiocassettes) or opt for the music of another, less expensive, band. Each is an honest and fair-minded approach that would affect market demand and, ultimately, market-driven prices. Stealing music through software like Napster should not be an alternative, particularly for students at a university like Duke, where enlightenment and integrity are supposed to be held in high regard.
Perhaps one day these same Duke students, who so blatantly flout the copyrights of others, will dedicate years of effort to write a novel, music for a CD, a screenplay, or code for new computer software. Perhaps the student’s livelihood will depend on his or her creative work being brought to market to be purchased by consumers, aided by thousands of hours of work and dollars of support from other individuals and companies.
And when it’s time for that student to reap the just rewards a company like Napster will facilitate the theft of thousands—even millions—of copies of the work so that the student, and the other entities involved, aren’t compensated. Perhaps then these students will change their perspective.
Alfred C. Martino ’86
Jersey City, NJ
Volume 87, No.3, March-April 2001
‘Stealing’ Music?
Editors:
In the article “A Music Free-For-All” [November-December 2000], I was disturbed by the cavalier attitude of the Duke students quoted about their use of Napster.
Illegally downloading music hurts companies and creative artists beyond the RIAA and the major record labels. The creative process necessitates the work of musicians, singers, engineers, producers, lyricists, staff, and innumerable support companies, all of which collaborate to bring the finished product to market. Only a small portion of the people involved in the entertainment industry make the sums of money of, say, Eminem, Metallica, Clive Davis, or Tommy Mottola, while the vast majority earn a more modest living.
Duke student “Brian” boasted of having 200 music files in his computer. That figure extrapolated to the rest of Duke’s 6,500 undergraduate students totals 1.3 million downloads—at just one college campus—where artists, record companies, and others aren’t compensated. Napster users who think this is some kind of consumer revolution, instead of theft on a large scale, are either remarkably naïve or completely disingenuous.
In fact, consumers frustrated by the high prices of compact discs have a variety of legal alternatives. The most obvious, and most powerful, is simply to choose not to purchase the product. Consumers could buy the music on a cheaper format (i.e., audiocassettes) or opt for the music of another, less expensive, band. Each is an honest and fair-minded approach that would affect market demand and, ultimately, market-driven prices. Stealing music through software like Napster should not be an alternative, particularly for students at a university like Duke, where enlightenment and integrity are supposed to be held in high regard.
Perhaps one day these same Duke students, who so blatantly flout the copyrights of others, will dedicate years of effort to write a novel, music for a CD, a screenplay, or code for new computer software. Perhaps the student’s livelihood will depend on his or her creative work being brought to market to be purchased by consumers, aided by thousands of hours of work and dollars of support from other individuals and companies.
And when it’s time for that student to reap the just rewards a company like Napster will facilitate the theft of thousands—even millions—of copies of the work so that the student, and the other entities involved, aren’t compensated. Perhaps then these students will change their perspective.
Alfred C. Martino ’86
Jersey City, NJ
