The Supreme Court hears arguments this week from film and recording industries against Grokster and Morpheus, makers of peer-to-peer file exchange software used by millions of people. The suit seeks to hold software makers responsible for copyrighted material that is downloaded and distributed illegally with their software.
The applications of U.S. copyright laws hang on the outcome of this case. If file-sharing software production is ruled illegal, the companies that now produce the software will disappear.
Though both locally and internationally known entertainment artists support the suit, it will likely do little to curb file sharing.
One solution production companies have proposed is copy-protection software. But discs released with this software hurt buyers' ability to enjoy their purchases because it prevents some computers and media players from playing the music or watching the movie.
And if the Supreme Court upholds the case, software that transfers files from discs to computers may come under greater attack.
CD and DVD prices remain high, and yet many people want to sample music from a variety of artists before they invest in the tangible product. Retailers such as Virgin Megastore in Arizona Mills mall have kiosks where consumers can listen to clips from albums before they buy.
This has encouraged consumers to be more informed and satisfied with the product, potentially avoiding the one good song out of a dozen tracks.
While Internet sites selling downloads have allowed many people to accrue only the tracks they want and fill their media players with a variety of songs, many artists are still not listed on these sites -- especially small artists with local followings and limited publicity.
One of the legal uses of file-sharing software, however, allows artists who want to freely distribute music to promote their work to do so at relatively no cost.
But the real argument should not be between the production companies and the software makers, rather between artists and the consumers who don't want to pay for a product without extras.
The existence of file-sharing software encourages music and movie creators to add more to their products to motivate purchases. Many people -- even on high-speed Internet connections -- would not bother downloading lengthy movies like "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and they would miss out on many of the extra features if they did.
Those who are determined to download anyway still have the option of getting more in the packaging and extra scenes that the produced DVD movie set includes -- an option that encourages many to lay down between $20 and $50 per film.
If the music and movie companies prevail in their case, software development may slow down and become even more unsafe. But only music and movie companies will profit if this case is won. The artists won't be making out, since the bulk of the money most artists make is from performances, not music sales. And with file-sharing software development made illegal, there will be less motivation to make a high-quality product for consumers.
At the least, hearing music downloaded from a file-sharing network has allowed me and many students on campus to experience new music from small artists and support them in their live concerts -- the original market of entertainment.
Audra Baker is a journalism and biology senior. Reach her at audra.baker@asu.edu.
