I have been working on an article taking a sociological look at the major labels' pursuit of copyright infringers. There is still a lot of detail I could add, as well as some revisions of its current content, both of which I may continue to do when I have time.

Aiming for the crux

The events between the major labels', artists, and customers has been discussed innumerable times on this site. As a studying sociologist I've seen some interesting and disturbing trends on a societal level. In this essay I'm going to cover some of the major societal issues, such as the general indifference of the populace and the possibility of changing values/norms.

The Recording Industry has pursued individuals for copying intangible digital files, but as they attempt to halter that, there is another corporeal war at stake. Much of how we act and perceive things are determined by our values. The United States has its own general set of values, which vary from subculture to subculture and from individual to individual. Values can be described as desired traits-- which means we may not actually abide by such traits, but we find them desirable or attempt to convey ourselves as having such traits. For instance an individual may find it desirable to be truthful, since employers, dating partners and coaches find it to be a positive trait, that greatly denotes how well their relationships will be. The individual may then assess that he wants that as a value of his or one that he wants to convey that he is honest so he can find employment, a dating partner and join a soccer team. Values are normally taught by family and friends during our youth, in a process called “socialization,” which basically teaches individuals how to act, react and even think in social situations.

Values generate norms within our society. Since we find it favorable to be honest, polite, kind, hardworking, and others, many expect people to act in such ways, whether they are part of their values or not. People are often expected to hold the door open for the person behind them, or to greet an acquaintance passing by with a nod of the head or a “Hello, how are you?” When you don't adhere to a norm, you often get a social sanction, such as a frown, scowl at the lower end, and the loss of a job, or being ostracized by your neighbors at the higher end. There are also positive social sanctions, which accompany completing a norm.

The RIAA has been filing subpoenas and lawsuits and settling, essentially using the law to get individuals to conform to their perspective, and they have also started to affect our values as a society. While breaking laws usually have more serious punishments then do norms, but norms crux, values, may have the preponderance in this situation. Once values are embedded in our society, it is difficult to eliminate them, which can also be said for laws, though there are some exceptions. The Volstead Act(Prohibition) was passed in 1919 banning the sale, manufacture, or transportation of beverages that contained one half of one percent or more alcohol. Passed for various reasons, the temperance movement, to maintain moral of troops in the World War, and to save grain for more nutritious products, the Volstead act represents a highly unpopular and unenforceable law. A act that outlaws or bans Peer-to-Peer might encounter similar results. Currently, it is estimated that there are 60 million Peer-to-Peer users in the United States which has a population of approximately 260 million. Thats 23% of the population that would be labeled criminals, who might otherwise be law abiding citizens.

Then comes actually enforcing such laws, which may become easier or harder depending on the upcoming years technological advancements. Increasingly, Peer-to-Peer applications are attempting to pursue a higher level of anonymity on their networks. Conversely hardware and software producers such as Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM are integrating Trusting Computer Platforms into their products. Depending which one becomes paramount in the future of computing, will determine the capability of enforcement. The RIAA has pursued file sharers as mentioned before, but currently Peer-to-Peer is still legal. Approximately 1,500 individuals have been sued for copyright infringement, accounting for a whopping .0025% of the estimated filesharers.

Despite the litigation and the limited air time these topics have received, the issues are still relatively undiscussed. Most people have heard fragments of these events, and have from that formed or kept their opinion on the issues. All in all though there seems to be a relative disinterest amongst most people about the issues at hand. This means there aren't really any values or norms formed on such behavior. If perpetuated such a trend could prove detrimental. The indifference may allow the Recording Industry to continue to pursue more control over their artists and music, as long as they can keep themselves guised in the shadows. On a number of occassions, moves like suing Brianna LaHara and Sarah Ward created immense public backlash. If they constantly append more stipulations without arising much interest though, by the time the public realizes what they have done, it may be too late. Another possibility is that the indifference may give way to the major labels incessant complaining and distortion of facts. If they have the majority of the public behind them, then the general values of the United States have been effectively altered to their favor, allowing them to continue segue with activities like suing file sharers or outright banning P2P.

Obviously groups are stronger then individuals; The major labels' have formed a group, but it is different than that of other groups. They are a large group, essentially a bureaucracy. While it contains many members, at different levels of the hierarchy, its influence over individuals is weaker than that of other groups, such as family and friends. There coalition is a secondary group, whereas a family is a primary group. Secondary groups typically are larger, but have a weaker influence over personal decisions, individuals in these groups have “weak ties” to its other members. Primary groups are smaller and usually have “strong ties” therefore having more influence in individuals decisions. Interestingly, Cary Sherman himself has said that the lawsuits against alleged copyright infringers has incited discussions at the dinner table, referring to the family. Sherman is directly targetting the family institution which normally socializes individuals. If parents are convinced to do so, the major labels idea's will become socialized into the next generation, which could cause them to become future values.

Sherman's “family discussions” and indifference are not the only forces that might cause more acceptance of the major labels' perspective. Even though people have never met them, watching the same news broadcaster continuously may result in one sided strong ties. This could be a local news broadcaster or someone such as Tom Brokaw. Many individuals only rely on a few or one source for “news” and if they become familiar with an individual such as Tom Brokaw, they may come to accept most of what he says, even if it gets a bit extreme. In all reality though, this problem has not become manifest since the issues have been mostly undiscussed. Nevertheless it is a possibility of the future, though perhaps unlikely since the major labels' seem to prefer operating discretely.

The results of the action between customers, artists, and major labels' is still unclear, but one thing is clear. Whatever the final result is, it will come with considerable change and an acceptance of new values.

Suikio