Electronic music downloads: what's an industry to do?

Gerlich, R. Nicholas Gerlich ; Turner, Nancy ; Wilson, Pamela H. 等

ABSTRACT

Electronic music downloads (EMDs) continue to generate controversy in the recorded music industry. In the first years of the 21st century, sales of prerecorded CDs plummeted, and were blamed in part on peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharing of songs by individuals. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has filed suit against thousands of persons engaged in allegedly illegal file-sharing. In the past two years, numerous pay-per-song sites have emerged, offering people a legal way to acquire recorded music. Portable digital music devices such as iPod interface easily with computers as well as legal download sites, making digital music a powerful force in the market. In Spring 2005, news reports indicated that industry executives were considering increasing the price of music downloads. Furthermore, in spite of selling 300 millions songs legally in 2004, the number of pirated songs stayed the same as in previous years. Thus, legal music download sites do not appear to be slowing the volume of illegal song sharing. In this study we surveyed college students to assess their past and current music downloading practices, their intentions to utilize pay services for music, and their perceptions of lawsuits filed by the industry. We conclude by offering recommendations for the industry.

INTRODUCTION

Electronic music downloads (EMDs) have generated controversy in the recorded music industry. A reduction in sales of prerecorded CDs has been blamed in part on peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing of songs by individuals. (1) During Senate Hearings on the subject in September 2003, the head of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) cited statistics showing a drop of 26% in recorded music shipments from 1999 to 2002 and sales of top ten selling albums down from 60 million units in 2000 to 34 million in 2002. (2) The RIAA has filed suit against thousands of persons engaged in allegedly illegal file-sharing and has faced vast amounts of criticism for their approach to enforcement of copyright laws. Numerous pay-per-song sites have emerged, offering people a legal way to acquire recorded music.

In this study we surveyed college students to assess their past and current music downloading practices, as well as their intentions to utilize pay services for music. We review the legal causes of action the music industry has taken against individual users, analyzing the reality of a recovery against individual down loaders, and compare this with current student perceptions. We also address whether the industry's legal efforts have been effective in discouraging file-sharing.

The internet makes the world accessible at our fingertips. Where once we were limited to listening to music played on the local radio station or purchased in the form of a "record", we can now have nearly any work by any artist on our desktop at a moment's notice. Unfortunately, the programs first developed for providing this music were not in alliance with the copyright laws written to protect the property rights of the writers and owners of the works and to allow compensation for their artistic expression. Senator Susan M. Collins notes in her statement before the Senate Hearings on the matter of file-sharing, that the notion that "if you can find it on the internet, you can have it", is prevalent across our society. (3) This is really part of the wider notion, necessarily addressed in all college ethics courses today that "if it can be done, it should be done." It imperative that we educate university students on the implications of the law, as well as their ethical responsibilities, though these may contradict this notion that they have become so comfortable with. On the one hand, it may be determined unethical for the RIAA to go about suing their own customers as a means of getting a message across. (4) Some may even blame the alleged infringement on the industry for providing the necessary tools and for not enforcing the law earlier. (5) On the other hand, the industry does have the legal right to enforce the laws that were, in fact, written for the purpose of protecting the owner of the material.

WHY ARE THEY PICKING ON US?

In the now infamous Napster lawsuit that dominated headlines in 2001 and 2002, several record companies obtained an injunction and a shut down order against Napster, based on allegations of continual infringement of copyrights the companies held. (6) The liability of Napster was based on two theories of copyright liability--contributory infringement and vicarious infringement. (7) The Federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in California, had held in an earlier appeal that Napster would be guilty of contributory infringement where they learned that specific infringing material was available on their system and did not purge the material. (8) In addition, the company was vicariously liable because they had the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and a financial interest, yet did nothing to stop it--somewhat like an employer's responsibility for its employee's actions. (9) Napster had "failed to exercise [its right to police its system and] prevent the exchange of copyrighted material." (10) In the 2003 case against Aimster, the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals followed suit, finding that while internet service providers (ISPs) cannot practicably be held accountable for every instance where a copyrighted piece of information travels over their service, as recognized by the "safe harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Aimster actually encouraged, rather than discouraged, infringement. (11) The Court made clear that the safe harbor provisions for ISPs were not intended to completely eliminate contributory liability for copyright infringement. (12)

At the end of round one, then, the record industry had a strong lead. As technology goes, however, things changed very quickly. Specifically, companies developed software utilizing a decentralized index model for peer to peer file sharing, rather than the centralized model Napster had used. The Napster software utilized a collective index of files available for copying which was maintained on its servers. (13) In order to obtain a digital copy of a recording, the user would send a search request to the Napster server that would then conduct the search and send the results. (14) In addition, Napster provided technical support, a chat room and a directory for artists. (15) The Grokster program does not entail so much activity by the provider. In using Grokster's "supernode" or "FastTrack" technology, originally developed by KaZaa, a person seeking to download a work is connected to the most accessible "supernode", an individual computer on the network designated as an indexing server. (16) Grokster is not in the picture at that point; it has merely provided the software capability. Gnutella, on the other hand, is an "open-source" software, where the search literally goes out directly to all computers on the network. (17)

The music industry pursued action against the providers of these decentralized software programs in the now highly controversial "Grokster" case. (18) However, contrary to their prior success, the record industry hit a brick wall this time in the courts. The trial court held, and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in its August 2004 decision, that the program providers were not liable for contributory infringement because the programs, though certainly potentially utilized for illegal purposes, had "significant noninfringing uses." (19) The Grokster court relies heavily on the Betamax case, regarding liability of VCR producers, in its finding against contributory liability. (20) The 9th Circuit further recognizes that it has rejected the test used by the 7th Court of Appeals in Aimster, which based its decision on how probable the infringing use of the program was. (21) Finally, the Grokster court found that the program developers were not vicariously liable for the copyright infringement by users because, as opposed to earlier cases, the program developers here did not retain control or supervision over the use of the program. (22) In quoting the Supreme Court's Betamax decision, the 9th Circuit calls on Congress to make necessary changes to the intellectual property laws, noting that it is not for the courts to make such laws. (23) Round two goes to the P2P advocates, or, at least, the software developers.

The door is not completely closed on liability for servers or software distributors. The courts recognize that the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA are not iron clad. In addition, as noted above, there remains a contradiction in the courts of appeal regarding the standard for contributory liability. The Grokster decision is being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the recording industry, which claims the 9th Circuit is allowing Grokster and Steamcast to "brazenly profit from infringement", with a very large amount of interest from outside groups in addition to the thousands of plaintiffs already involved. (24) Given the conflict between the circuit courts and the high level of interest in the case, it would seem that we should see a decision from the high court on the issue, though it may be some time before the case is considered. In the meantime, the music industry has apparently decided to pursue action against the underlying infringers--the individual downloaders--more, it appears, as a sort of advertising campaign to stop P2P sharing than as a real means of obtaining compensation for lost revenues.

THE LAWSUITS

The causes of action for contributory and vicarious liability for copyright infringement discussed above presume an underlying infringement. That is, in order for the Napsters and Groksters of the world to be liable for copyright infringement, it must first be shown that "someone" was using their services to infringe on copyright. (25) In the suits against the service providers, no one seems to have really argued that the persons downloading the music were not infringing on copyrighted material. In the Napster case, in fact, the Court notes that, "'it is pretty much acknowledged ... by Napster that this is infringement.'" (26) Napster did, however, assert several defenses, based on "fair use", stating that the works were simply transformative, that file sharing actually raised, rather than lowered compact disc sales, that the users were simply "sampling" music prior to buying, that users were simply "space-shifting" the material from their CDs to their computers, and that users were simply using material for personal home use. (27) All of these arguments were readily dismissed by the Court, given the fact that the entire product was copied, the effect on the market for the original product, and the commercial nature of the use (the court found many benefits gained by users). (28) Although the underlying infringement was apparent, however, the record industry members did not pursue individual infringers initially. The Aimster Court gives a probable explanation: The swappers, who are ignorant or more commonly disdainful of copyright and in any event discount the likelihood of being sued or prosecuted for copyright infringement, are the direct infringers. ... Recognizing the impracticability or futility of a copyright owner's suing a multitude of individual infringers ... the law allows a copyright holder to sue a contributor to the infringement instead. (29)

The attempt to file lawsuits against individuals who use file-sharing software does appear to be a "futile crusade", one opponent noting that over 60 million such individuals existed in mid 2003. (30) With nowhere else to turn, however, the music industry has decided to indeed take this rocky road.

The impracticability of the matter does not seem to have detered the industry and, in fact, the random nature of the lawsuits against individuals seems to be an actual strategy. The President of the RIAA, Cary Sherman, has been quoted as saying "Lawsuits are an important part of the larger strategy to educate file sharers about the law, protect the rights of copyright owners and encourage music fans to turn to these legitimate services." (31) A September 30, 2004 press release found on the RIAA website again emphasizes the organization's position that the lawsuits against university network users are designed to "drive the message to students that unauthorized downloading has consequences" and to make students aware of legal alternatives. (32) Indeed, the industry has gone about this in a big way, filing thousands of lawsuits against individuals they claim illegally downloaded music or shared files. The suits began slowly in Spring 2003, with periodic headlines alerting the public about the potential for suit against individuals who were considered major infringers, for instance, running P2P networks on campus. (33)

The first major round of lawsuits with a broader scope of plaintiffs was filed in September 2003, and soon drew criticism for randomly attacking miniscule users, and even prompting Grokster president, Wayne Rosso, to compare the RIAA's actions to that of Stalin and McCarthy. (34) The RIAA CEO, however, stated that same month during Senate hearings that the industry was targeting only those "who are illegally distributing a substantial amount of copyrighted music." (35) At this time, the "John Doe" suit strategy, described below, appears to be in full-swing. The industry has filed suit and filed a corresponding press release every month since February 2004, like clockwork, indicating a new batch of hundreds of suits filed against individuals file-sharers. (36) Though clearly not limited to such cases, the most recent suits predominantly target college campuses. (37) Whether this targeting resulted naturally from the location of most downloads and was already the focus of suits or whether the RIAA is attempting to detract from bad publicity received for targeting 12 year olds and grandparents, the news releases since summer emphasize the campus target. No major campus seems to have gone unscathed, from Colorado to Massachusetts and from Oregon to Mississippi. (38) The RIAA has determined that it is up to them to train these college-aged customers in proper use of copyrighted material, and that the lawsuits "are an essential educational tool." (39) Whether these suits are accomplishing their goal or just causing ire among customers is what this survey and research address.

HOW WILL THEY FIND ME?

In order to sue an individual for copyright infringement, it seems logical that the RIAA would need to know who that person is. This, initially, was not a large issue for the industry. The DMCA provides for a "short-cut" subpoena whereby the copyright holder need only provide the ISP with notification of a claimed infringement, the identity of the copyrighted work and enough information to locate the material, the subpoena and a sworn statement that the information was sought for the purpose of enforcing copyright. (40) Most ISPs complied with the "[sections]512" subpoenas. The RIAA, upon receipt of the information, sent warning letters to the individual users and filed lawsuits. Two major ISPs, however, decided to challenge the subpoenas on the basis that [sections]512 does not apply to them because the subpoena provisions require the RIAA to identify material for the server to locate and remove or disable. (41) Where the more modern server is acting only as a "mere conduit" of information, and no caching or storage is involved, such a requirement cannot be met. (42) The court in RIAA v. Verizon agreed, rejecting the RIAA's argument that the ISP could disable access simply by terminating the subscriber's internet account. (43) The District Court out of D.C., once again, tells the RIAA, shocked that the "agreed exchange" of a liability shield for ISPs for information has been breached, that their solution is with Congress and not the courts. (44) The ruling does not eliminate the ability of the RIAA to subpoena information

from the ISPs, it merely eliminates the short-cut, requiring the industry to actually file a "John Doe" suit against the accused infringer and issue a regular "Rule (45)" subpoena, allowable when a lawsuit is filed. (45) Filing a lawsuit is, obviously, much more expensive and burdensome to the industry, especially as an "ad" campaign, but has been adopted, as seen in the onslaught of "John Doe" suits. Potential defendants, at least in one area of the country, recently won some relief from potential suits when a Northern District of California Court ruled that "random joinder" by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) of Doe defendants in lawsuits for purposes of obtaining subpoenas, while attempting to avoid filing fees, would not be permissible. (46) This should again raise costs for the industry pursuing infringers.

In addition to fighting the subpoenas based on conduit status, the servers have asserted that they violate the customer's free speech and "privacy" rights. (47) The privacy cry has become popular with the program developers and those seeking to make free P2P file-sharing legal, in a sort of "we're on your side" kind of way. (48) In the case of Sony v. Does 1-40 out of the federal trial court for the Southern District of New York, the industry sought information through subpoenas issued to Cablevision, the defendants' ISP. The court recognized that file-sharing, though not traditional "speech", is qualified for 1st Amendment protection under the broad scope given to freedom of speech and expression. (49) However, the constitutional rights of the defendants did not outweigh the "state's" need to enforce the law, where there was a prima facie case of infringement shown and the subpoena was necessary to pursue the case because the information was not available through other sources. (50) In addition, the court noted that the defendants would have minimal expectation of privacy in downloading and distributing copyrighted songs without permission. (51) In fact, the Verizon trial court had addressed this issue as well, stating that, "it is hard to understand just what privacy expectation [the file-sharer] has after essentially opening the computer to the world." (52) In short, where a "John Doe" suit has been filed and an IP address is provided to the ISP, the industry will be given the information necessary to locate and serve an accused individual infringer.

I GET SUED. SO WHAT?

Initially, there appears to be a conflict between general statistics and the opinions of individual students when asked about the effect of the lawsuits in stopping illegal file-sharing. The industry clearly believes the suits work, as noted in their various press releases. In addition, statistics have been cited indicating that the subpoenas alone have a stiffling effect on file sharing. Some show a drop of as much as 50% between Spring 2003 and the end of that year, with use of particular software down significantly as well--15% for KaZaa and 59% for Grokster. (53) On the other hand, our survey suggests that the fact that the RIAA has the ability to sue an individual does not appear to have much of an effect on students, in general. Even students having a friend that had his network access cut off do not feel threatened. According to the student at Colorado State University, "My friends are like 'It won't happen to me." (54) The apparent discord may not be difficult to explain. At the Senate Hearings on the matter, experts addressed the issue of the effect of the lawsuits and presented the theory that, though the suits will act as a short-term deterrent, long-term effects are doubtful. (55) The industry's monthly filings indicate it recognizes the possibility that students have short-term memories, seemingly using a great amount of its advertising budget on filing fees. Additionally, some students may be demonstrating a general attitude of "invincibility" that comes with youth. The thought that no one would be interested in the few downloads they have made may contribute. After all, most would not place themselves in the category of someone who has illegally shared over 1000 copyrighted works. (56)

This was the presumption of Lorraine Sullivan--a full-time student with a part-time job--who, first, presumed KaZaa must be legal, since Napster had been shut down and, second, only downloaded music for "home, personal use"--a play list to listen to when cleaning house or doing homework. (57) On the contrary, however, Sullivan and many others did not understand the basic framework of the programs that leaves your file open to other sharers, unless you purposefully close it, giving accessibility to all downloaded files to anyone utilizing the program. (58) The Aimster Court explained, "the purchase of a single CD could be levered into the distribution within days or even hours of millions of identical, near-perfect copies ... of the music recorded on the CD." (59) This is the approach the RIAA is taking, explaining how the 4 students originally sued in April 2003 could be liable for distribution of 27,000 files, 500,000 files, 650,000 files and over 1,000,000 files, respectively. (60) Sullivan, while not noting how many files were in her shared folder, was told that she would have to pay up to $150,000 for each such file by RIAA attorneys, although she had already dismantled the KaZaa program she had used and deleted all files. (61) Sullivan settled with the industry for $2,500. (62) Other unsuspecting users felt the sting as well. The settlement of the RIAA with the mother of a 12-year-old Manhattan school girl accused of distributing more than 1000 songs claimed headlines in September 2003. (63) The girl's mother was on public assistance at the time, but managed to fork over $2000 to the RIAA with the aid of a special interest group. (64) These cases and others, such as the one against a 71-year-old grandfather in Texas and the one against the working mom whose teenage children downloaded music on their own computer unbeknownst to her, were the basis of objections to the RIAA's methods by Senators Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) and Susan M. Collins (R-MA). (65) As mentioned previously, they may well also be the reason the RIAA is focusing on college campus students who are less likely to garner such sympathy from strangers.

Though talk of taking on the RIAA is common, this is easier said than done when you are at the receiving end of a threatened lawsuit for millions of dollars. The tactics of the RIAA are aggressive, though not illegal. As explained by Sullivan, and presuming this was a typical procedure, as did the Senate Committee asking her to testify on the matter, she found out the RIAA sued her from news reporters. She had been notified of subpoenas for her information by her ISP, but had no further notice letters from the RIAA prior to the lawsuit. (66) Letters indicating warnings of potential lawsuits were apparently sent out in some cases, indicating what steps the prospective defendant should take to prevent suit and indicating that the RIAA will "assume you are not interested in settlement and proceed to litigation if we do not hear from you within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter." (67) In addition, the RIAA has contacted various institutes of higher education, obviously, as well as employers of alleged infringers, potentially affecting futures and careers of illegal downloaders. (68) She was told by lawyers for the RIAA, basically, that she could choose between facing a lawsuit for up to $150,000 dollars per file shared or sending the RIAA a couple of thousand dollars immediately. (69) Settlement is payable immediately by cashier's check, with no possibility of paying over time. (70) The mother of the 12 year old also began with a vow to fight the industry, only to settle the suit a day later. (71_\) In announcing the settlement with the mom of the 12-year-old, the RIAA CEO stated that the group was "trying to send a strong message that you are not anonymous when you participate in peer-to-peer file sharing and that the illegal distribution of copyrighted music has consequences." (72) Point taken. Sullivan sums it up, certainly, for all persons sued by the RIAA on her website: "I'm scared and stressed and more than just a little bit angry." (73)

BITING BACK

Sullivan is not the only one angry. As mentioned above, the RIAA methods of enforcement were addressed during the Senate hearings that were supposed to be aimed, as far as the RIAA was concerned at stricter enforcement of copyright laws. Senator Coleman took to the media, stating that the RIAA tactics are too excessive and that we need not "club people to death to get people to understand that downloading is a problem." (74) Websites and special interest groups have been formed to combat the RIAA and make them out to be the bad guys. (75) The RIAA believes it is taking the "higher ground," stating that these fines are simply "expensive lessons" for downloaders to learn, and that the lawsuits are raising awareness. Their public relations strategy, however, draws their own business ethics into question, even cited as a "terror campaign", rather than that of the infringers and acts as an enabler to the software distributors--certainly not an intended consequence. (76)

Perhaps the most all-encompassing website dedicated to countering the RIAA efforts is the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) site and the connected Subpoena Defense Alliance site. (77) Between the sites, nearly every lawsuit filed by or against the RIAA is included, with attached public documents, sample notice letters and challenge motions are provided as well as legal memoranda, potentially useable by accused parties, as well as a list of lawyers willing to represent defendants. In addition, the sites provide a list of "persons" the RIAA is seeking and advice on how not to be sued by the RIAA. In a world where civil defense does not come with appointed lawyers, access to justice does not come cheap, causing most defendants to settle the claims as urged by RIAA lawyers. (78) However, some defendants, certainly supported financially as well as emotionally by special interest groups are answering and challenging the industry. Early attempts by the RIAA to begin an amnesty program were met with harsh criticism and a lawsuit alleging that potential defendants would be led out of the closet with no real protection from legal action. (79)

One defendant has recently gone full force and effect in countering an RIAA lawsuit against her. Defendant Michelle Scimeca located a lawyer to take her case on contingency, implying more than an intent to simply state "I didn't do it." (80) Scimeca's answer and counterclaim, in addition to stating her basic defense, claim many of the defenses utilized in the program cases, including fair use, invalid subpoena, privacy rights and various statutes, but also claim "laches", that, basically, defendants sat on their laurels and didn't do anything to prevent damage to themselves, fraud on the copyright office, misuse of copyright, collateral estoppel, illegality of copyrighted works based on immorality and libel, deceptive advertising, waiver, and RICO--that the industry conspired to file hundreds of frivolous suits in an effort to grab up financial settlements, amounting to "fear-inducing" extortion, mail and bank fraud. (81) The answer, appropriately so given the original purpose of RICO, paints the picture of an Al Pacino movie. More of the defendants will have the more subtle approach Sullivan says she will take--not buying any more CDs or anything else the industry puts out. (82)

AND NOW WHAT?

The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs held hearings on potential solutions to the problem of balancing interests of the RIAA and consumers in September 2003, the same month the industry began to pursue individual lawsuits with great gravity. (83) The industry, at that time, put on its best argument for greater enforcement capabilities, in addition to advertising and the promotion of legal "pay per" download sites. (84) Others, including the Senators mentioned above, advocated for the advertising campaign and promotion of legal alternatives sans the harsh enforcement procedures against individuals. (85) Some, on the other hand, including the traditional P2P program distributors, seek a broader "revamping" of copyright law to allow for full utilization of current technology. (86) Allegations have been exchanged of "dinosaur" methods by one side and simply stealing by the other. Prior to and since the hearings, bills have flown about in Congress on both sides of the issue, some attempting to make significant file-sharing a federal crime, while others attempt to place greater guards on subpoena grants. (87) Both sides are advocated on their respective websites as well, with no apparent hint at giving in. (88)

SPRING 2005 UPDATE

On February 28th 2005 a news report surfaced indicating that music industry executives were considering raising the wholesale price of digital music downloads. (89) The wholesale price is thought to be about 65 cents per song, with songs retailing for 88 cents to 99 cents. The executives argued that the current pricing scheme was only "introductory," and that music download sales in 2003 of $300 million showed the market was ripe for a price increase.

Sales in 2004 were triple what they were in 2003, with Apple's iPod accounting for 65% of that total. Total iPod sales since its release now surpass 250 million songs, with a peak of 1.25 million in one day. (90)

Ironically, a late 2004 CAIDA study says that while music download sales have been rising dramatically, illegal peer-to-peer file swapping has not declined during this period. (91) More recently, the RIAA announced 753 new lawsuits aimed at alleged illegal file sharers. (92) This continues their pattern of filing a new round of such suits monthly.

THE STUDY

A web survey that measured music downloading activity was developed and administered to online students at a medium-sized regional state university. The survey was announced to students in a variety of business courses including Consumer Behavior, E-Commerce, and Business Ethics. Students who participated did so of their own volition, thus rendering this a volunteer sample. The online survey can be viewed at http://houseofapps.com/emd/index.html. A total of 254 usable surveys were collected in 2004.

A variety of demographic variables were measured, including gender, age, class standing, computer ownership, and internet usage. Respondents were then asked to rate their level of agreement/disagreement with 14 attitudinal statements that measured their views on both illegal and legal music downloading, industry pricing, music sharing, and the threat of being sued. Summary results of the relevant variables in this portion of the study appear in Tables 1, 2, and 3. In Table 1, demographic variables V1 through V10 (excluding V9) were each collapsed into two groups. The mean scores of the attitudinal variables V17 through V30 were then compared for the two groups in each demographic variable. The number of respondents observed in each category appear in parentheses. (Rows that do not total 254 reflect missing values.)

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic variables in some instances werecollapsed into two groups, while others were dichotomous by nature. This allowed for t-tests for independent means to be performed on the mean scores calculated for the attitudinal variables.

Collectively, the mean scores on the attitudinal measures (see Table 2) demonstrate that these college students feel there is little wrong in copying music illegally. They also feel the recording industry should not be chasing individuals who do copy music. While the sample feels that the price of CDs is too high, they do feel that the current price-per-song at legal download sites is fair.

Surprisingly, the sample felt that while the government will never be able to get control of this problem, the fear of being sued personally was a deterrent to illegal downloading.

More statistically meaningful results were found when t-tests were performed using the demographic variables with the attitudinal measures. Table 3 below summarizes the significant differences found in this analysis.

The most telling differences were noted when age and ownership of a CD burner are compared to the various means. Age (V2) produced 10 significant differences at p=0.05, while CD burner ownership produced 8 significant differences.

These results indicate that the traditional college students age group is much more likely to scoff at the ethics of illegal music sharing and the threat of being sued. Furthermore, owning a CD burner is akin to having license to steal.

Of perhaps greater interest is a horizontal analysis of V24, the fear of being sued. Looking across the table for this variable it becomes apparent that a profile emerges of the fearless music pirate: young, male, owns a CD burner, and is a heavy internet user.

The findings of this study indicate a general acceptance of music piracy among nearly all demographic groups represented, but that the practice is predominantly among those in the traditional college age group. Furthermore, men in this group are the most likely to engage in flagrant illegal copying and file sharing.

Thus, while many people in this study are not likely to download music for fear of being sued, they do not have many negative feelings toward the practice. Furthermore, the perceived value of CDs in relation to their prices is not favorable, indicating at best an ambivalence toward buying product, and a willingness to look the other way when others are copying music.

While it may be comforting to the recording industry to pinpoint pirating to a fairly narrow demographic, it is likely to be equally disconcerting to know that, across the board, people don't see this as a major ethical issue.

The fact that illegal music downloads are still high in number, while the number of legal downloads has reached 300 million, is also disconcerting. It demonstrates that there is still an active black market for music, one that is unlikely to go away any time soon. Furthermore, it is possible that if the recording industry raises its prices, it could stop a good thing (legal music downloads) dead in its tracks.

The current pricing structure, while "introductory" perhaps in the view of industry officials, has been successful in capturing a large market. It is undetermined at this point if those who are paying for their music are the same as those who currently (or perhaps formerly) downloaded music illegally. It is possible that the current legal music downloaders are a new market for music downloads in general.

But it is also possible that a price increase could drive these purchasers (who may be converts or new users) to illegal downloading instead. We contend that a price increase at this point is premature, and could be detrimental to an emerging business category. The prospect of continuing to file endless lawsuits against individuals, and given the lack of ability to pursue cases against the programmers, also does not seem appetizing.

The results reported above, coupled with the most recent industry data on legal and illegal downloads, suggest that consumers have not embraced the "legal" model of music downloads, and thus the emerging market for legal music downloads is tenuous at best. Thus, from a marketing standpoint, pricing should be held steady until there is a noticeable drop in the amount of illegal music downloads, for then the industry will have some assurance that there has been change in consumer behavior in attitude and practice.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

The findings reported herein are not necessarily generalizable across the US population, given the narrow sample. Still, there is little reason to believe that students at this university vary much in outlook and practice from students at other universities. As evidenced by the RIAA lawsuits, wholesale music piracy appears to be an equal opportunity activity across US campuses. Still, a cross-sectional research project incorporating students at numerous universities would be an admirable extension of this research.

It would also be interesting to compare the findings in this study with industry data for CD sales broken down by the various age groups, as well as consumer data for legal music downloads that are purchased.

Still, the ubiquity of powerful PCs , and, more recently, portable devices such as iPods, have made music piracy a recreational activity. The industry has become an unwitting victim of technology proliferation, and it may matter little how low the price per song is on legal download sites. For as long as a person can copy music freely, the issue of ethics may be moot.

REFERENCES

A&M Records, 239 F.3d at 1011

A&M Records, 239 F.3d at 1021

A&M Records, Inc., et. al. v. Napster, Inc., et. al., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002)

A&M Records, Inc., et. al. v. Napster, Inc., et. al., 239 F.3d 1004, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended April 3, 2004

Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 655 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, Deep v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc., 124 S.Ct. 1069 (2004); Title II of the DMCA, 17

Cassavoy, Liane, (2003). "Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA--'Deceptive' Amnesty Program Puts Participants at Risk, Lawsuit Claims", PCWorld.com at http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,112428,00.asp (9/11/03);

Dean, Katie, "Lawsuit Attacks RIAA Amnesty Plan", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60376,00.html

Cox, Evan R. (2004). "RIAA Resumes Legal Offensive: Recording Industry Association Uses John Doe Lawsuits Against P2P File-Swapping Post-Verizon", Internet Newsletter, January 28, 2004 (ALM 2004) and "Jailing Joe College", Editorial, St.

Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20, 2004 (both citing study conducted of 1300 internet users from November 18--December 14, 2003, by Pew Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org)

Dean, Katie, (2004). "RIAA, Colleges Seek Piracy Fix", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59743,00.html (July 25, 2003) August 24, 2004

Dean, Katie, (2003). "RIAA Hits Students Where It Hurts", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58351,00.html (April 5, 2003); See also, Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra.

Fineman, Samuel, (2004). "Record Industry Still Pursuing File Sharers--One Alleged Abuser Fights Back in Court", The Internet Newsletter, March 9, 2004 (2004 ALM Properties)

"How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You", (2003). Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59785,00.html (April 16, 2003), quoting Fred Von Lohmann, senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Losi, Stephanie, (2003). "RIAA Sues Hundreds in 'First Wave' of War", Ecommerce Times News Network (September 8, 2003), http//www.technewsworld.com/perl/ story/31525.html; Dean, Katie, "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60345,00.html;

Mello, Jr., John P., "RIAA Settles First Lawsuit Against 12-Year-Old Brianna LaHara", TechNewsWorld at http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31561.html (9/11/03)

Martin, Anna, (2004). "New Wave of RIAA Lawsuits to Target Students", Technician at technicianonline.com/04.07.2204/news/ (North Carolina State University SMA 2004)

McCausland, Margaret A. and Jennifer J. Platzkere, (2004)."Warning! Employee's Entertainment May Be Employer's Headache", The Corporate Counselor, Vol. 18, No. 11, p.1 (Feb. 2004)

Mello, supra, quoting Adam Eisgrau of P2P United, who calls the RIAAs suits, including that against the 12-year-old, a "legally suspect and morally reprehensible ... terror campaign."

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et. al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et. al., 380 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004).

MGM, 380 F.3d at 1159

"RIAA Brings Lawsuits Against 762 Illegal File Sharers", RIAA Website at http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/093004.asp (RIAA 2004)

RIAA, Inc., v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., 351 F.3d 1229, 1232 (2003), as amended January 16, 2004, cert. denied, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 6700 (2004) and by 2004 U.S.

LEXIS 6701 (2004), citing the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. [sections] 512(h);

Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 558 (S.D. N.Y. 2004)

Statement of Alan Morris, Executive Vice President of Sharman Networks Limited (KaZaa), Senate Hearings, supra; Lyman, Jay, "RIAA Showdown Set, FCC Rules Blasted", TechNewsWorld at http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31585.html (9/15/03)

Statement of Jonathan D. Moreno, PhD, Director , Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Senate Hearings, Statement of Mitch Bainwol, (2003). "Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry", Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, September 30, 2003, available at http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index (hereinafter "Senate Hearings")

Statement of Susan M. Collins, (2003). "Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry", Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, September 30, 2003, available at http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index (hereinafter "Senate Hearings")

Testimony of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra; see also, Sullivan's website to raise money to cover costs of her settlement, "Sued By The RIAA" at http://www.suedbytheriaa.com/ (accessed 4/16/04)

Zeller Jr., Tom, " Entertainment Industry Asks Justices to Rule on File Sharing," N.Y. Times (10/24/04)

ENDNOTES

(1) Statement of Mitch Bainwol, "Privacy & Piracy: The Paradox of Illegal File Sharing on Peer-to-Peer Networks and the Impact of Technology on the Entertainment Industry", Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, September 30, 2003, available at http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index (hereinafter "Senate Hearings")

(2) Id.

(3) Statement of Susan M. Collins, Senate Hearings, supra

(4) Id.

(5) A&M Records, Inc., et. al. v. Napster, Inc., et. al., 239 F.3d 1004, 1025 (9th Cir. 2001), as amended April 3, 2004

(6) A&M Records, Inc., et. al. v. Napster, Inc., et. al., 284 F.3d 1091, 1099 (9th Cir. 2002)

(7) Id. at 1095

(8) A&M Records, 239 F.3d at 1021

(9) Id. at 1023

(10) Id.

(11) In Re: Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, 655 (7th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, Deep v. Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am., Inc., 124 S.Ct. 1069 (2004); Title II of the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. [sections]512, also known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act or OCILLA, provides for "safe harbors" for (1) transitory digital network communications, (2) system caching, (3) information residing on systems or networks at the direction of users and (4) information location tools, but only if the service provider has a policy for terminating network service to repeat offenders that it as informed users of and has reasonably implemented and the service provider accommodates and does not interfere with standard technical measures copyright owners use to identify and protect copyrighted works. Ellison v. America Online, Inc., 357 F.3d 1072, 1076-77, 1080 (9th Cir. 2004)(reversing summary judgment in favor of AOL in contributory and vicarious infringement of science fiction works by Ellison based on safe harbor defense and holding AOL could be liable if safe harbor requirements not met); Canadian courts, on the other hand, have continued to reaffirm ISPs as neutral conduits with no liability for infringement, even if a cache is involved. "Highest Canadian court decides that ISPs do not owe royalties on downloaded music", International Law Update, Vol. 10, No. 7 (July 2004) (Transnational Law Associates, LLC 2004).

(12) Id. at 655. The Aimster Court, having found contributory infringement, did not find it necessary to address vicarious liability. Id. at 653.

(13) Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., et. al. v. Grokster, Ltd., et. al., 380 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2004). The "Grokster" suit was brought by almost every motion picture studio and recording company and by approximately 27,000 songwriters and publishers. Id. at n. 1

(14) Id.

(15) A&M Records, 239 F.3d at 1011

(16) MGM, 380 F.3d at 1159

(17) Id.

(18) Id. at 1154

(19) Id. at 1163

(20) Id. at 1161; The concept that if a product used for copyright infringement has substantial non-infringing uses, contributory negligence will not necessarily be found, had been established many years before in the case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), generally known as the "Betamax case", involving whether VCR producers were liable for contributory copyright infringement.

(21) Id.

(22) Id. at 1166

(23) Id. at 1167 (citing Sony, 464 U.S. at 456)

(24) Zeller Jr., Tom, " Entertainment Industry Asks Justices to Rule on File Sharing," N.Y. Times (10/24/04) (quoting the music industry's Petition for Writ of Certiorari); "Unprecedented Coalition of Creators, State Attorney Generals, Digital Entertainment Services and Academics ask Supreme Court to Review File-Sharing Decision," Press Room, RIAA Website at http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/111804.asp. (RIAA 2004); see also MGM cite, supra.

(25) A&M Records, 239 F.3d at n.2

(26) Id. at 1014, quoting the district court opinion; the Grokster Court simply states that the question of direct infringement is not an issue in the case. MGM, 380 F.3d at 1160

(27) Id. at 1014--1019

(28) Id. at 1019

(29) In re Aimster, 334 F.3d at 645

(30) "How to Tell if the RIAA Wants You", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59785,00.html (April 16, 2003), quoting Fred Von Lohmann, senior attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

(31) Martin, Anna, "New Wave of RIAA Lawsuits to Target Students", Technician at technicianonline.com/04.07.2204/news/ (North Carolina State University SMA 2004)

(32) "RIAA Brings Lawsuits Against 762 Illegal File Sharers", RIAA Website at http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/093004.asp (RIAA 2004)

(33) Dean, Katie, "RIAA Hits Students Where It Hurts", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58351,00.html (April 5, 2003); See also, Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra.

(34) Losi, Stephanie, "RIAA Sues Hundreds in 'First Wave' of War", Ecommerce Times News Network (September 8, 2003), http//www.technewsworld.com/perl/ story/31525.html; Dean, Katie, "RIAA Legal Landslide Begins", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60345,00.html; Mello, Jr., John P., "RIAA Settles First Lawsuit Against 12-Year-Old Brianna LaHara", TechNewsWorld at http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31561.html (9/11/03)

(35) Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra. (indicating individuals sued averaged 1000 music files made available to others); see also, Statements of Senator Susan M. Collins, Senator Norm Coleman, Senate Hearings, Supra, indicating concern over the RIAA tactics and unintended potentially harsh consequences on some defendants; see also, press release of Senator Coleman, "Coleman Concerned Recording Industry's Rubber-Stamp Subpoenas Inadvertently Target Unwary Consumers: 'Law of Unintended Consequences' May Be Needlessly Threatening American Citizens", http://govt-aff.senate.gov/index

(36) See Press Releases dated 2/17/04, 3/23/04, 4/28/04, 5/24/04, 6/22/04, 7/20/04, 8/25/04, 9/30/04, 10/28/04 and 11/18/04, each indicating a new set of lawsuits and sporting similar titles to the 3/23/04 release: "RIAA Brings New Round of Cases Against Illegal File Sharers", RIAA website, supra, http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter (The site was accessed 12/03/04--too early for the next round. It remains to be seen whether the industry will take a holiday break or whether file-sharers will receive subpoenas for Christmas.); see also list of "John Doe" suits found on the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) website at http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/?f=riaa-v-thepeople.html. The suits make good on the RIAA's promise following the initial September 2003 John Doe suits that further legal action would follow. Lyman, supra. Groups in other countries have joined the front line on this fight against P2P file sharing as well. See, for example, "Music Industry Calls Time on Illegal Downloading", Swissinfo at http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4862096 (4/13/04); Arthur, Charles, "Record Bosses Sue for Downloading of Songs", The Independent (London), October 18, 2004 (2004 Newspaper Publishing PLC)

(37) See RIAA Press Releases, supra.

(38) Id.; Huseby, Josh, "Entertainment: The Dish Live--The RIAA Targets Colorado Campuses", The Rocky Mountain Collegian.com of Colorado State University at http://www.collegian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/04/01/406ba75e8082d (April 1, 2004)

(39) "Illegal File Sharing Targeted in Wave of New Lawsuits", Press Room, RIAA website, supra. (11/18/04). It is also noted that the RIAA also works with various colleges and universities in enforcement and encourages the institutions of higher education to enter into agreements with legal file-sharing sites. Id. In fact, a Joint Committee of the Higher Education and Entertainment Communities was appointed to review the matter of file-sharing on campus and recently issued its report to Congress. "Universities, Entertainment Industry Leaders Issue Report to Congress on Latest Efforts to Curb Illegal File Sharing on College Campuses, [CITE] August 24, 2004; Dean, Katie, "RIAA, Colleges Seek Piracy Fix", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,59743,00.html (July 25, 2003)

(40) RIAA, Inc., v. Verizon Internet Services, Inc., 351 F.3d 1229, 1232 (2003), as amended January 16, 2004, cert. denied, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 6700 (2004) and by 2004 U.S. LEXIS 6701 (2004), citing the DMCA, 17 U.S.C. [sections] 512(h); SBC, the other major ISP rejecting the subpoenas, took a different route and filed for declaratory relief against the RIAA. McMillan, Robert, IDG News Service, "Judge Considers Pacific Bell, RIAA Case--ISP hopes to protect names of 200 customers accused of file sharing", PCWorld at http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0%2Caid%2C113641%2C00.asp (11/24/03)

(41) Id. at 1234-35

(42) Id.

(43) Id. at 1235-36

(44) Id. at 1236; See also, Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra, regarding the industry's position that the DMCA exemptions from liability were a "trade-off" for disclosure of information necessary to pursue infringers.

(45) Subpoena Defense Alliance website at http://www.subpoenadefense.org/index.htm (citing and attaching the court order from Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. v. Does 1-6 out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and dated 10/13/04; the IRAA argues that the ISPs involved are not attempting to protect identities of customers, but are, in fact, protecting their own future DSL earnings. Mr. Bainwol points out that where information is obtained in a [sections]512 subpoena, it is protected from disclosure outside of the stated use, but information obtained from a lawsuit subpoena is not. Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra

(46) "Court Blocks Movie Studios' Bulldozer Legal Strategy", EFF, supra at http://www.eff.org/news/

(47) Sony Music Entertainment, Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556, 558 (S.D. N.Y. 2004)

(48) Statement of Alan Morris, Executive Vice President of Sharman Networks Limited (KaZaa), Senate Hearings, supra; Lyman, Jay, "RIAA Showdown Set, FCC Rules Blasted", TechNewsWorld at http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31585.html (9/15/03)(noting the EFF filed a supporting brief on behalf of about 45 consumer privacy, civil liberty and ISP associations in the Verizon appeal)

(49) Id. at 564.

(50) Id. The industry would argue that the constitutional rights of the copyright holders were violated, copyright being a direct result of powers given in the constitution to protect creative works, by the lack of ability to quickly gain access to infringers information where continual infringement would be an issue. Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra.

(51) Id. at 566

(52) Id. at 567 (citing In re Verizon Internet Servs., Inc., 257 F. Supp 2d 244, 267 (D. D.C. 2003), rev'd on other grounds, RIAA v. Verizon, 351 F.3d at 1229)

(53) Cox, Evan R., "RIAA Resumes Legal Offensive: Recording Industry Association Uses John Doe Lawsuits Against P2P File-Swapping Post-Verizon", Internet Newsletter, January 28, 2004 (ALM 2004) and "Jailing Joe College", Editorial, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20, 2004 (both citing study conducted of 1300 internet users from November 18--December 14, 2003, by Pew Internet & American Life Project, www.pewinternet.org)

(54) Huseby, supra.

(55) Statement of Jonathan D. Moreno, PhD, Director , Center for Biomedical Ethics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Senate Hearings, supra; See also, Statement of James V. DeLong, Senior Fellow & Director, Center for the Study of Digital Property, The Progress & Freedom foundation, Senate Hearings, supra (discouraging "quick fixes" by Congress in addressing problem of illegal filesharing)

(56) See, Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra (noting that lawsuits targeted infringers who averaged distribution of 1000 copyrighted recordings)

(57) Testimony of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra; see also, Sullivan's website to raise money to cover costs of her settlement, "Sued By The RIAA" at http://www.suedbytheriaa.com/ (accessed 4/16/04)

(58) Sullivan website, supra (Noting, "As far as opening my 'shared folder' I didn't even know I was doing it. I'd installed p2p software and it went automatically to a folder which stored the songs I'd downloaded.")

(59) Aimster, 334 F.3d at 646

(60) Dean, "RIAA Hits Students", supra

(61) Statement of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra

(62) Id.

(63) Dean, Katie, "Schoolgirl Settles With RIAA", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,60366,00.html (9/10/03)

(64) Id.; Statement of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra (indicating RIAA attorney told her that she would not be able to settle for as low an amount as the school-girl's mom, because the mom was on public assistance); Mello, supra.

(65) Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles", supra; Statements of Norm Coleman and Susan M. Collins, Senate Hearings, supra.

(66) A Pennsylvania Federal District Court recently ruled that it would require notice of the subpoenas be given to potential defendants when information was sought from the ISP, in order that the individual could take steps to challenge the subpoena prior to the time the information was given out. See, Subpoena Defense Alliance, supra, citing Elecktra v. Does 1-6.

(67) Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org, supra, attaching a copy of Sample Recording Industry Letter Threatening to File a Lawsuit. Interestingly, while attorneys apparently told Sullivan and others to destroy all illegal files and this is part of the Doe Settlement Form, infra, the notice letter specifically warns that destruction of such evidence could lead to severe legal consequences.

(68) McCausland, Margaret A. and Jennifer J. Platzkere, "Warning! Employee's Entertainment May Be Employer's Headache", The Corporate Counselor, Vol. 18, No. 11, p.1 (Feb. 2004)

(69) Statement of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra.

(70) Id.; Doe Settlement Agreement Form, accessed from Electronic Frontier Foundation at http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/?f=riaa-v-thepeople.html

(71) Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles", supra; Mello, supra

(72) Mello, supra.

(73) Sullivan website, supra

(74) Dean, "Schoolgirl Settles", supra

(75) See http://www.boycott-riaa.com/; Crawford, Michael D., "Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads", GoingWare, Inc. at http://www.goingware.com/tips/legal-downloads.html. The article is an eclectic mix of topics, at one instance dedicated to drawing support from independent artists for the proposal to bypass the record industry and market directly from P2P networks, not charging for licensing, but potentially benefiting from other sales, and at another, calling for the complete dismissal of copyright law; Sandburg, Brenda, "File Sharing Seeks Special-Interest Status", The Recorder (2004 ALM Properties)

(76) Mello, supra, quoting Adam Eisgrau of P2P United, who calls the RIAAs suits, including that against the 12-year-old, a "legally suspect and morally reprehensible ... terror campaign."

(77) Electronic Frontier Foundation, supra; Subpoena Defense Alliance, supra.

(78) Initial lawsuits against students running sites for downloaders settled for between $12,500 and $17,000. Statement of Mitch Bainwol, Senate Hearings, supra. Most of the individual lawsuits appear to have been settled in the range of $3,000, according to one student writer. Huseby, supra.

(79) Cassavoy, Liane, "Consumers Strike Back, Sue RIAA--'Deceptive' Amnesty Program Puts Participants at Risk, Lawsuit Claims", PCWorld.com at http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/article/0,aid,112428,00.asp (9/11/03); Dean, Katie, "Lawsuit Attacks RIAA Amnesty Plan", Wired News at http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,60376,00.html

(80) Fineman, Samuel, "Record Industry Still Pursuing File Sharers--One Alleged Abuser Fights Back in Court", The Internet Newsletter, March 9, 2004 (2004 ALM Properties)

(81) See, Answer to Complaint (1/14/04) and Counterclaim (2/04/04) filed in Sony Music v. Michele Scimeca, accessible from through EFF website, supra. Although not apparent from the answer and counterclaim, Scimeca may attempt to revamp antitrust violation allegations, last seen in the Napster trial court on remand, under the listed defense of "misuse of copyright." In re Napster, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7236 at p. 56-57 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

(82) Statement of Lorraine Sullivan, Senate Hearings, supra

(83) Senate proceedings and transcripts are available at http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs

(84) See, Statements of Mitch Bainwol, Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA, Chris Gladwin, owner of a "pay per" site, Senate Hearings, supra.

(85) See, Statements of Susan Collins, Lorraine Sullivan and Norm Coleman, Senate Hearings, supra.

(86) Statement of Alan Morris, Senate Hearings, infra

(87) See, "Jailing Joe College", supra (Editorial: House Committee approves bill making file sharing a federal crime; "...college dormitory will contain more criminals than the county jail."); Proposed Author, Consumer and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act of 2003 (ACCOPS) (as indicated above, for enforcement); Proposed Piracy and Deterrence Education Act of 2003 (to enhance copyright laws and provide more power for enforcement); Proposed Consumers, Schools and Libraries Digital Rights Management Awareness Act of 2003 (requiring a John Does suit to be filed for a subpoena)

(88) See, for instance, EFF site and Boycott-RIAA site, supra; RIAA site, supra.

(89) http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/28/technology/personaltech/ music_downloads/index.htm?cnn=yes

(90) http://news.com.com/iTunes+hits+250+million+downloads/ 2110-1027_3-5547939.html

(91) "Is P2P Dying or Just Hiding?" Karagiannis, Thomas, at al (2004), http://www.caida.org/outreach/papers/2004/p2p-dying/p2p-dying.pdf

(92) "Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Brought Against 753 Additional Illegal File Sharers," (Feb 28, 2005), http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/69951/ riaa-fires-off-freshsuits-against-filesharers.html

R. Nicholas Gerlich, West Texas A&M University

Nancy Turner, West Texas A&M University

Pamela H. Wilson, Consultant, Amarillo, Texas Table 1 Variable Group 1 Group 2 V1: Gender Male (121) Female (133) V2: Age Age 18-24 (146) Age 25 and up (106) V3: Class rank Undergraduate (206) Graduate (48) V4: PC ownership Own PC (234) Do not own PC (18) V5: Internet access Internet service at No internet service home (225) at home (28) V6: CD burdner Own CD burner (182) Do not own CD burner ownership (72) V7: iPod, etc., Own iPod, etc. (53) Does not own iPod, ownership etc. (199) V8: Internet usage <=5 hrs per week >5 hrs per week online (151) online (103) V10: CD purchases Buys <5 CDs per year Buys 5 or more CDs (176) per year 78) Table 2: Summary of attitudinal measures (Strongly Disagree = 1 to Strongly Agree = 5) Variable Mean V17: It is morally wrong to copy CDs for friends 2.35 V18: It is morally wrong to download unauthorized music from 2.98 the internet. V19: The record industry should prosecute those who have 2.33 downloaded songs illegally from the internet. V20: Prices ranging from 88 cents to 99 cents per song download 3.24 are fair for consumers. V21: The retail price of CDs is about right. 2.37 V22: File-sharing sites emerged because the perceived value of 3.37 CDs was too low in relation to the number of good songs on each CD. V23: The government will eventually be able to put an end to 2.26 illegal file sharing on the internet. V24: The threat of being sued will keep me from illegally 3.23 sharing files on the internet in the future. V25: It is wrong for the record industry to make such a big 2.79 deal about music piracy. V26: The relative ease of downloading and/or burning CDs makes 2.92 it too tempting for me to swap music illegally. V27: Other people in my household/dorm have engaged in 3.18 unauthorized file sharing and/or CD burning. V28: People would burn fewer CDs and share fewer files if the 3.81 retail price of CDs were not so high. V29: It is OK to burn a "mix CD" of your favorite tunes to give 3.76 to a friend. V30: I resent the anti-copying features some record labels have 3.07 started putting on their CDs. Table 3: Summary of t-tests for significant difference of means (* denotes p < = 0.05) Variable V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V10 V17 * * * V18 * * * * V19 * * * * * V20 * * * * V21 * V22 V23 V24 * * * * V25 * * V26 * V27 * * V28 * * V29 * * * * V30 * *