Downloading copyrighted materials is not a new concept among
college students. But apparently the University of California
thinks now is the time to offer a solution ““ and its
preliminary plans are missing the point.
This week, according to a Cal State University press release,
the UC and California State University systems announced a deal to
offer discounted services from subscription music service Cdigix
Inc. as a legal alternative to illegal file sharing. Each UC or CSU
campus will decide whether to offer the service to its students and
how much to price it, though costs for Cdigix’s music and
video services would probably be about $3 and $6 per month,
respectively.
UC students have not been clamoring for subscription music
services. They’ve been protesting fee increases, budget cuts
and diversity on campus. So why is the university bringing a
service to students they aren’t even asking for?
David Walker, director of advanced technology for the UC, told
the Los Angeles Times, “We’re doing this because we do
recognize that there is illegal file sharing of intellectual
property.”
Translation: “We recognize that there is pressure from the
copyright holders who say we should be doing something to combat
the trading of these files on our networks. Now we can say,
“˜Look, we are.'”
Offering these services to students without using students fees
to subsidize them won’t really do any harm. And it may even
be a nice gesture on the university’s part. But is it really
the university’s place to provide this kind of service?
Shouldn’t UC officials be more worried about, say, running a
university system?
For something like this to work, students need to have
incentives to stop sharing copyrighted files illegally. The music
industry has tried the “stick” approach ““
lawsuits against students who share files illegally, seven of which
were aimed at UCLA students in May. The latest foray into legal
downloading is arguably the “carrot,” but right now, it
looks like a pretty measly one.
At least in its current form, the university-provided service
doesn’t seem to offer anything new or attractive that
wouldn’t be available to students otherwise, whether it be
through legal download services ““ such as iTunes ““ or
illegal ones.
Cdigix touts its discounted rates, but saving a few dollars
isn’t likely to swing many to the legal side of the tracks if
they aren’t there already. Subscription music services
don’t have the complete volume of music available on
file-sharing networks, and often have limited ability to transfer
files to portable music players.
The university is pandering to the interests of the business
world ““ specifically the recording and motion picture
industries ““ over the interests of its students. It is
spending its time and resources to investigate and negotiate
discounted rates on music when it could and should be using its
energies on addressing other issues.
Ultimately, it’s the student who decides whether to
download music and movies legally ““ not the industry, and not
the university.
The question UCLA should ask itself when considering this
services is simple: “Who are we serving?”