Perceptions of Peer - to - Peer File Sharing Among University Students

In recent years the issue of digital file sharing has become a hotly debated topic among those in the fields of computer science, the music industry, and the movie industry. The purpose of this research was to examine the perceptions of peer-to-peer file sharing among university students. The results of the study revealed that a majority of respondents did in fact use peer-to-peer file sharing and generally perceived the use of the software to be neither illegal nor unethical. Male respondents were found to generally be more certain that the act of file sharing was ethical and legal, while female respondents were more uncertain about the legality and ethics of file sharing. Within the last five years, the landscapes of the music and video industry have dramatically changed. Like many areas of life that have undergone change with improvements in technology, the acquisition of popular music and movies has moved to the Internet. Gone are the days where consumers wait anxiously in the streets for the release of the latest compact disc from their favorite singer, as are the days where moviegoers camp out over night to catch the latest release of a long-awaited movie. Today, consumers merely connect to the Internet and begin downloading their favorite movies and music without ever leaving the comfort of their homes. According to a recent congressional report (2002), there are over 3 million users online at any given time swapping music at an incredible rate of 2.6 billion songs per month and movies at a rate of 12 to 18 million files per month. With such a massive amount of file sharing occurring via the Internet, the congressional report argues that songwriters are now losing $240 million a month to Internet piracy, and if the problem persists, it is estimated that the annual costs to the performers could reach $3.1 billion a year by the year 2005 (Gillen & Garrity, 2000). Unfortunately, the very nature of the retail industry makes estimating the impact of file sharing on CD sales difficult. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA; 2003), record sales have dropped drastically in the wake of advances in peer-to-peer file sharing. Personal experiences of these authors in researching file sharing and discussing the activity with file sharers would support this argument, as many individuals have indicated that they have not purchased a CD since they learned how to use file sharing programs. 2 / JCJPC 11(1) ,2004 Hollywood insiders also fear the impact that online file sharing will have on the future of box office sales. Many in the industry believe that the sharing of movies via the Internet is certain to lead to a decrease in sales at the box office. Others, however, argue that while file sharing is sure to impact the purchase of videos and digital versatile discs (DVDs), the box office will most likely see very little, if any, losses (“Lights! Camera! No Profits!,” 2003). Perhaps this view is due to the fact that outings to a movie theater are often more than a trip to see a movie, and are additionally an opportunity to engage in social outreach. The downloading of films is certainly cheaper, but it removes the face-to-face contact a consumer may have with their peers, and therefore the box office will not suffer the same consequences as the purchase of videos and DVDs that are used more for private, home viewing. Over the last three years there has been a considerable amount of media coverage devoted to the issue of online file sharing through the use of peer-to-peer file sharing programs, which are commonly referred to as P2P programs. The vast majority of this coverage, however, has discussed theories and beliefs espoused by those in the music and movie industries, and as such, the reports have been one-sided and contained little in the way of actual empirical research. Additionally, many articles have claimed that universities have become breeding grounds for Internet piracy because of open access to computers and non-stringent computer security policies. However, there has been little research concerning the use of peer-to-peer software on university campuses, and how university students perceive file sharing. It was the intent of this article to provide an introductory examination of these issues through consideration of students’ perceptions at a mid-size state university in the South. Students’ perceptions concerning issues of traditional copyright violations were examined in conjunction with students’ perceptions of peer-to-peer file sharing, in an attempt to determine: (a) students’ feelings about ethical and legal issues surrounding file sharing, and (b) the extent of file sharing among university students. In an attempt to better facilitate this understanding, however, it is first necessary to briefly examine peer-to-peer file sharing and how the technology has developed. The development of peer-to-peer networking Peer-to-Peer networking, which is commonly denoted by the designation “P2P”, refers to the connecting of two or more computers via the Internet or another computer network in order to share files and resources more efficiently (Jacover, 2002). The concept behind peer-to-peer is certainly not new, as the networking protocols that make up the Internet were designed to allow for computers to share files and resources. In fact, it was this necessity of sharing resources and files that led researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to develop the early forerunner of the Internet, the ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) (Segaller, 1998). Therefore, it should be noted that there are legitimate uses for peer-to-peer networking programs. However, in reality there are relatively few individuals who employ the technology for legitimate business uses. Today, peer-to-peer networking has become synonymous with the violation of copyright law in regards to transfers of music, movies, software, pornography, and text documents. Recognition of this use for peer-to-peer software was brought to the attention of the public in the late 1990s with the release of the Napster file sharing program. Napster was developed by a college dropout, who at the age of 19 wrote the computer program that would Peer-to-Peer File Sharing / 3 allow users to swap music files stored on their computer’s hard drive. To facilitate faster transfers of these files, the software took advantage of the new MP3 file compression algorithm; an algorithm that allowed for significantly greater file compression of audio files (Carey & Wall, 2001). MP3 is the abbreviation for motion pictures group audio layer 3, and is a compression algorithm that allows for compression of audio files at a rate of 10:1 or 12:1. The MP3 algorithm works by stripping away portions of an audio file that is inaudible to the human ear, in a process known as perceptual audio coding (Blackowicz, 2001; Golangelo, 2002; Greene, 2001). The value of MP3 compression became immediately apparent with the release of the first version of the Napster software. Prior to employing the MP3 compression algorithm, a music file stored on a computer could be as large as 40 to 45 megabytes in size, and would take around one and one-half hours to transfer over a phone line connection that was limited to a speed of 28.8 to 56.6 kilobytes a second. After using the MP3 algorithm, the same music file would be around 3 to 5 MB and would take around 8 to 15 minutes to transfer. Users of the Napster software were required to download a program from the company’s official website that would allow for access to the Napster music servers, a collection of central computers administered by the Napster company. Once users logged onto the Napster network they were asked which files they desired to share from their computer’s hard drive. When a user established their shared folder, they were allowed to begin uploading and downloading music files. The one limitation to the file sharing allowed under the Napster software was that it only allowed for the sharing of audio files that were compressed with the MP3 algorithm (Jacover, 2002; Zepeda, 2002). Napster became incredibly popular in a short time. With the increased awareness of the software’s existence, hundreds of thousands of individuals began using the technology to transmit audio files that were copyright protected. At Napster’s highest volume of file sharing, it has been estimated that 87% of the files on the network were believed to be in violation of copyright law (Berger, 2001). The RIAA, along with several high profile musical groups like the heavy metal band Metallica, began legal proceedings against the Napster Company in 2000 after repeated attempts to have copyrighted music files removed from the Napster network were disregarded. Napster immediately countered the lawsuit by attempting to argue that their situation was analogous to that of Sony in the case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (1984). The situation in the Napster case was considered significantly different from that of Sony in that users of Sony were using the videocassette recorder (VCR) technology as a means of viewing non-commercial programs at a later date. Napster, on the other hand, was used as a means of circumventing copyright protections, and was costing artists considerable amounts of money as fewer people were purchasing music cassettes and compact discs (Greene, 2001). When Napster began to realize they were more than likely going to lose their fight, they began a series of creative arguments as a means of stalling their demise until they could establish a pay-for-service program. One argument launched by Napster was that the record industry had failed to provide adequate proof of which copyrights they owned that were being violated through the use of the Napster software. Napster was aware that the RIAA did not maintain 4 / JCJPC 11(1) ,2004 these records in digital format, and would therefore have to take the necessary time and financial expense to transfer this information from paper format to digital format (Pitta, 2001). The ploys were unsuccessful in saving Napster, but these attempts to stall did allow other peer-to-peer software manufacturers to begin developing new and improved versions of peer-topeer software. Out of the ashes of Napster arose new file sharing programs like Morpheus, BearShare, Limewire, and Kazaa. These newer programs, however, differ from their predecessor in two primary ways. First, current programs do not require a central server to operate, which means that each user running the software is in essence running a miniature server and the software’s designers are removed from the networking circuit (Gillen & Garrity, 2000). Second, newer peer-to-peer programs allow for users to swap more than music. Today, it is possible to transfer movies, software applications, pictures, and document files (Kazaa, 2003). Subsequent legal maneuvers against these software manufacturers have resulted in little progress, as the software’s designers are constantly improving their technology to provide better pirating techniques (Congressional Report, 2002). The role of the university The original benefit of using the MP3 algorithm was the speed associated with downloading files compressed with the technology. Today, it could be questioned whether compression is as important to peer-to-peer file sharers, as high speed Internet access is more commonly available. Cable modems and Digital Subscriber Lines (DSLs), which are referred to as broadband Internet connections, allow for transfers of data at speeds greater than 50 times that of traditional phone modems. Both forms of broadband Internet access are becoming more commonplace in residential establishments, making file sharing an even faster activity. When discussing the issue of high-speed Internet, the university is normally mentioned because of the Internet connectivity offered by most institutions. Many, if not all, universities commonly use connection lines that are several times faster than Cable modems and DSL modems. However, the question here is whether college students increase their peer-to-peer file sharing when they have access to university high-speed Internet connections? Representatives of the RIAA claim this answer is yes, and further argue that allowing students easy access to such high-speed connections has led to the point where universities can be labeled as breeding grounds for Internet piracy (Ostrom, 2002). In response to this criticism, some universities have begun implementing better policies concerning the use of university Internet access. These policies, however, have been implemented not as a means of regulating peer-to-peer usage but instead are being used because file-sharing has been cited as a cause of slow network traffic within the university setting (Carlson, 2001; Ostrom, 2002). The RIAA has also attempted to force universities to ban the use of peer-to-peer software on campus. Within the last two years, several larger universities have received letters from the RIAA indicating that they will be named as defendants in future lawsuits if they do not remove access to peer-to-peer programs (Carlson, 2003). It is believed that these letters resulted in one university seizing 100 computers that were believed to have been used in wide-scale file sharing activities. In response, the RIAA claims they do not desire for universities to seize computers, they merely desire for universities to block access to peer-topeer programs. Citing their fear of becoming a “spy” for the RIAA, many universities have Peer-to-Peer File Sharing / 5 refused this request (Ostrom, 2002). Should it be found that universities are truly becoming breeding grounds for Internet piracy, it would seem a logical step for universities to begin work on developing programs to possibly control the growth of the problem. These programs do not necessarily require regulation of Internet activities, but could instead instruct users of university services to better understand the proper use of university resources. Responses by the criminal justice system to the problem With increasing pressure from the RIAA, legislators have begun drafting legislation that deals specifically with the issue of copyright protection on the Internet. One such piece of legislation is that of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which deals with copyrights of materials that are digital in nature (Ginsburg, 2000; Greene, 2001; Johnstone, 2001). While the DMCA has received some coverage because of its mention in several highprofile copyright infringement cases, it has only recently been used with frequency as a justification for obtaining subpoenas for users who have been accused of trading copyrighted materials. Instead, the recording industry, while arguing for better legislation, has turned to creative means of responding to the problem of peer-to-peer file sharing. For example, the RIAA has recently applied the use of “spoofed” files, which are files that appear to be a popular song or movie but when opened contain no content (Snider, 2002). The use of these files does little to punish those who share files, but it does result in frustration for users who devote the necessary time to download the file, only to subsequently discover that the file is a fake. Other techniques involve the use of NetPD software that allows users to trace a copyright protected file that is being traded online. The creators of the software claim that the software is even capable of tracing the file back to the original individual that posted the file, but the software has received little attention and this feature has never been verified by an outside source (Masson, 2000). Gillen and Garrity (2000) have long argued that attempts by the RIAA and programmers to develop copyright protections will be unsuccessful. Citing research conducted by Forrester Research, the two researchers have claimed that the solution lies in accepting MP3 technology and developing better awareness campaigns. Additional research has shown that the large number of users who share files online has created a situation where the criminal justice system simply cannot handle the problem with any true level of success (Congressional Report, 2002). The belief that enforcement by the criminal justice system is impossible has led some to argue that the solution lies in empowering the copyright holders to protect their materials (Fazekas, 2002). A recent bill (H.R. 5122) introduced by Congressman Berman would allow copyright owners to remove copyright protected materials from the computers of individuals who are sharing the files online and via peer-to-peer networks (Snider, 2002). Bill H.R. 5122, which is commonly referred to as “Berman’s Bill”, would allow for copyright owners to interdict, redirect and spoof users who are sharing files; the problem with this aspect of the bill is that many believe the bill would allow for copyright owners to launch denial of services attacks against individual users (Fazekas, 2002). 6 / JCJPC 11(1) ,2004 Other opponents of the Berman Bill claim that passage of the bill would create a scenario analogous to that of the Wild West, where the user with the greatest technological “guns” will win (Congressional Report, 2002). The Berman Bill may be too broad and would allow for copyright owners to hack into the computers of personal users who are found to be sharing copyrighted materials (Fazekas, 2002), thereby creating a dichotomy in that hacking is still criminalized under the United States Criminal Code, so one piece of legislation cannot legalize such attacks against personal users and then penalize personal users for responding to attacks. Currently, the Berman Bill is still in Congress being debated and it will be interesting to see if the bill makes it out of Congress as it currently stands, or if there will be changes made that govern when copyright holders may access the computers of private citizens.