The Recording Industry Association of America recently sued 532 individuals for illegally downloading and sharing music. The group focused on colleges, prosecuting a number of individuals from 21 colleges all across the United States.
This massive number of lawsuits marks the first time that the RIAA has specifically targeted file-sharing on university networks.
This increased number of suits against users of peer-to-peer networks shows the rising problem of copyright violations and especially the number of occurrences among the collegiate demographic.
These lawsuits have given rise to legal music-purchasing programs such as Apple’s iTunes, the reformatted Napster, and, new to the market, Wal-Mart’s online song store.
Wal-Mart’s online store offers song downloads at the low price of 88 cents a song, establishing itself once again as being undersold by no one.
Their online music store, which has been tested since December, offers exclusive downloads from “wholesome” artists like Jessica Simpson and even “rockers” such as Three Doors Down, as well as the standard album cuts of countless artists.
The only problem with this is that I cannot see Wal-Mart’s motives behind their move into this growing field.
Although the 88-cent songs will yield some profits to the superstore’s company, even if the online music store’s profits exceed predictions of over 100 million downloads a year, it would not even be a small fraction of the profits the company already receives.
It only makes sense that the company has gone into the online song market because it wants to offer copyrighted music legally in efforts to maintain artist integrity, which has been on a slide since illegal music sharing began.
Upon closer inspection, however, it doesn’t seem like Wal-Mart’s motivation for this music selling has anything to do with its concerns about the musicians.
When taking a closer look at Wal-Mart’s track record in record sales, it becomes obvious that the store does a great deal to put down artistic integrity, including its massive efforts of censorship.
Wal-Mart’s policy regarding music requires them to prohibit any CD with offensive language or imagery from being sold, instead putting out “edited” versions of the albums.
Although many stores offer “edited” recordings, Wal-Mart offers solely these, neglecting the artistic integrity.
By offering no alternatives to these “edited” slanderings, Wal-Mart does not give its customers a fair choice. The store also does not give true exposure to the artists whose music it sells.
Profanity in recording may not always be necessary or “artistic,” but Wal-Mart does not have the right to edit every artist’s work because a few bands enjoy using the “F” word a little too much.
This censorship is just as bad as outright stealing, as it compromises the artistic vision of the musician.
It is hypocritical for Wal-Mart to condemn illegal downloading and then censor the artists’ music from which it is receiving profits. Although I agree that illegal downloading hurts musicians financially, I feel that this censorship hurts them as well from an artistic angle.
The need for regulations on file-sharing is a necessary requirement in today’s rapid-download Internet days. However, Wal-Mart is definitely not a company that needs to involve itself in this business. Wal-Mart compromises artistic integrity that companies such as iTunes are trying to preserve.
Wal-Mart may know how to sell a whole lot of cereal and lawn equipment, but when it boils down to it, the superstore needs to leave art to those who have an open mind that isn’t dominated by profits.
Edd Mullin is a sophomore English major. He can be reached at [email protected].