Chances are, within the walls of each Boston University dorm, thousands of files are being copied and shared for free as students download movies and mp3s, duplicate DVDs and burn CDs.
Chances are, these activities, while they are accepted as commonplace, could be legally construed as infringing on copyright and intellectual property laws.
Chances are, most students don’t really care.
“I download music all the time — I love to listen to different types of music and that’s the easiest way to do it,” said College of Communication senior Russell Mills.
Most students share Mills’ sentiments. While the legal technicalities are widely understood, they pale in comparison to an easy, fast and accessible world of entertainment available at the click of a mouse.
Piracy of copyrighted materials has emerged as a fast-growing, widespread and unavoidable trend. First came the creation of file compression technologies that took large music files and condensed them into mp3 files that took up a fraction of the space with little loss of quality. Then came file-sharing software like Napster, Morpheus and Gnutella that allowed people to share and store mp3s.
Now, these same technologies are spreading to video, permitting the sharing of once-massive movie files.
All of these developments have come much to the chagrin of the entertainment industry, which has been embroiled in legal battles regarding violation of copyright laws since this technology first took hold.
“People would rather do this by computer,” explained COM professor James Lengel. “The [entertainment] industries haven’t yet developed a way to get revenue like that. Technology is way ahead of business right now.”
Fearing a major loss of revenue that has already begun to take place, entertainment companies are left with the task of addressing the perpetrators of infringements.
“The general public isn’t attractive [to the entertainment industry as a target] — there are too many to make it cost effective. Instead, they go after the system, making technology companies liable for the copyright infringement,” said School of Law professor Maureen O’Rourke.
Last year, the music industry fought a long battle with file-sharing network Napster, which ended with Napster shutting down. Currently, Napster is revamping its policies and creating a pay service in which people would subscribe and pay minimal fees in order to download music. Other file-sharing networks that run a central server have experienced similar legal encounters.
Still, many users — especially students — have found ways around these hurdles. Jen Ames, a College of Arts and Sciences junior, estimated she downloaded approximately 10 songs per day last year when she lived on campus. CAS senior Brian Campbell has several copied DVD movies, some of them so recent that the movies are still in theaters. Students watch “Sex and the City” and “The Sopranos” online and copy many different kinds of computer software. Clearly, options for file-sharing still exist.
CAS junior Dan Piekarski, a computer science major, explained that file-sharing networks still exist, simply using different technology.
“Peer-to-peer services, such as Gnutella, use distributed networks that link individual computers directly to each other without having a central server that controls traffic. Peer-to-peer networks are exponentially more difficult to control which makes them frightful to the major labels,” he said.
“Gnutella can withstand a band of hungry lawyers,” claims its website.
An additional technology that increases pirating ease is high-speed Internet access, Piekarski said, noting that especially at universities, fast Internet connections allow more downloads that are less time-consuming.
“Movies, which at one time were too large to be pirated efficiently, are now commonly downloaded,” he said.
Recognizing these facts, movie studios and record companies are moving on to different targets — the computer companies. According to a recent New York Times article, Michael Eisner, chairman of the Walt Disney Company, suggested that computer companies such as Apple, IBM and Intel “had failed to develop adequate protection for digital media because piracy helps sell computers.”
To remedy this, the entertainment industry is suggesting that computer companies create antipiracy hardware that is placed directly into the computer in order to prevent songs, movies and other materials from being copied or saved onto the PC.
Many people are questioning the validity of this request, on both theoretical and technological levels.
“It’s not their responsibility to solve the business model problems of the entertainment industry,” Lengel said. “Technology companies have to make technology that allows people to communicate better — that’s what they know how to do. The entertainment industry didn’t realize the value of this technology, and so technology went around them.”
Lengel described the “legal roadblocks” the entertainment industry was attempting to belatedly erect.
“Had they jumped on it from the beginning, they wouldn’t be fighting,” he said.
In addition to these moral problems, however, there are questions of feasibility.
“If you ask any computer scientist [about this technology] they will inevitably answer, ‘if you can see it or hear it, it can be hacked,'” Piekarski said.
IBM is currently testing out digital security technology in Japan and is receiving a positive response.
“While the U.S. market continues to debate the future of online services and their subsequent business models, IBM’s Digital Rights Management (DRM) solution, The Electronic Media Management System (EMMS), has become the de facto standard in Japan for distributing secure content over various networks,” said Scott Burnett, director of business development at IBM, in a press release.
However, students and the general public are largely skeptical, putting more faith in the talents of hackers than in the innovations of technology. Piekarski explained that regardless of any level of encryption, in order for legitimate consumers to view or listen to the product, the security would be able to be cracked.
Intel spokesperson Howard High admits hackers will always be an issue.
“If [the entertainment industry] is looking for 100 percent control, I don’t think we can guarantee that one iota. The goal is to keep getting better and tighter as hackers get smarter and smarter – to make it as bulletproof as possible,” he said.
High noted that some companies, like Disney, are more extreme than others, such as AOL-Time Warner.
“We think a few companies are looking for legislative control that extends beyond what we would like to support, or what we think the consumer should endorse,” he said.
Companies like Disney and News Corporation are suggesting that computer companies — such as Apple, whose marketing slogan, “Rip, Mix, Burn” recently came under attack — is capitalizing on the fact that people will always use computers for high-tech hacking.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, passed by Congress in 1998, is an attempt to combat that, O’Rourke said. This act makes it illegal to break a security lock or code except for limited purposes, and puts a ban on marketing tools that would break these locks and codes.
“It’s essentially saying that you can’t sell lock picks — the same idea, but more high-tech,” she said.
Ultimately, there needs to be a compromise, Lengel said; all parties should realize that their futures are changing. Rather than focus on ways to limit technology, Lengel suggested movie and music studios focus on ways to harness this new market, and recognize the benefits.
Many students said copying music has exposed them to a greater variety of art than they would have been otherwise.
“I have also purchased numerous CDs and movies because I was exposed to them through file-sharing. I don’t understand why I should have to buy a CD for $20 when I have no idea if I’m going to like it,” Piekarski said. “If I really like something that I see or hear online, I’m going to buy a copy to own; I think this is the attitude of most people. Entertainment and computers can help sell each other.”