On February 11, the River Front Times published an article written by Ben Westhoff, describing the campus-wide file-sharing program Direct Connect as a bastion of “illegal” file-sharing. This article is yet another misguided and misinformed attempt to bash file-sharers, not to mention the entire university and its students. Westhoff presents a weak case, overlooking important facts about file-sharing, and repeating common misconceptions.
There is one redeeming quality to the article. His choice of ResTech director Matt Arthur as a source. Arthur is directly involved with the campus network, is in control over decisions regarding file sharing, and is well-spoken and knowledgeable. However, his other main source is an unnamed conglomeration of people, labeled “Hal.” This source adds no factual information, isn’t even directly quoted.
Fair and balanced. We’ve heard it before, but until Fox News tainted (read: utterly distorted) the phrase, journalism was supposed to be just that. However, Westhoff presents his argument one-sidedly, choosing not to include any counterarguments or sources to balance his views.
He says, “Of course, downloading with DC++ is just as illegal as downloading with Kazaa.” First of all, downloading files with DC++ is not inherently illegal, and the illegality of file-sharing in general is also in question. A federal appeals court recently ruled that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (the RIAA’s legal shield) was not written for, and cannot be used to implicate file-sharers and file-sharing. Realize that the DMCA is the only legislation on which the RIAA bases its legal claims. And if the court says that it doesn’t cover file-sharing, then file-sharing is not illegal.
That doesn’t cover the ethical and moral aspects of sharing “ripped” material, you say. Well, consider the “moral” aspects of how the RIAA shares its wealth. According to Steve Albini, who produced Nirvana’s “In Utero” album, the one-year net royalty for any band with four artists and a $250,000 advance is about negative $14,000. That’s right. The band actually owes money. Why? Because the record company figures royalties AFTER all expenses are subtracted from the artist’s advance. And this is how much money a band “makes” after selling 250,000 records. The record company’s cut? $710,000. The artists could have worked at 7-11 for six months and made more total income than they did with the label in a year.
Perhaps Westhoff’s most blatant journalistic blunder is his overindulgence in speculation. I quote: “Where do these pirated products come from? No one seems quite sure, although some speculate that students in the film department who receive advance copies of movies and TV shows might be responsible. Other possible culprits are among the university’s large crop of foreign students, who go home to countries where copyright controls are less stringent than those in the United States.” According to the author, who makes no attempt to disguise his opinion, film students and foreign students are the most likely originators and distributors of the material on DC++. As a film student myself, this is terrifically offensive, and the Department of Film and Media Studies should demand a retraction. I am not a foreign student, so I cannot speak authoritatively on their behalf, but I am assuming that they would also be offended at the accusation. And calling us “culprits?” We have committed no crime, have been convicted of no charge and have been sentenced to no penalty.
It is our responsibility as students and consumers to stand up to gross generalizations like these and larger restrictive forces such as the RIAA. I believe that we should reopen DC++ and show the industry and the world that they cannot, should not and will not push us around. People can disagree about file-sharing, but they should at least make the effort to respect the other side of the argument. Ben Westhoff may just be one writer, but we should not sit idly by and let him unabashedly denigrate our students and, more importantly, our school.