In last week’s column, I took a look at the ways online music file sharing has advanced since the days of Napster. After taking a quick look at all of the available resources out there, it became clear to me that the currently available free music resources eclipse the paying options. Even when you take money out of the equation. This is especially true for audiophiles like me who currently have no option for purchasing lossless downloads of their favorite music.

So illegal file sharing isn’t going anywhere. What’s being done to stop it? Well as it turns out, the recording industry has used varying strategies, and none appear to have had any success. Their first attempt to discourage illegal file sharing has been a resounding failure. I’m of course talking about the high profile targeted lawsuits where they would force individuals to either settle for exorbitant sums of money. Those who decided to face the lawsuits would invariably lose and face crippling judgments. Even when lowered, the amounts have been http://topnews.net.nz/content/26106-judge-reduces-joel-tenenbaum-s-file-... “>staggering. But apparently it’s still not high enough for the Obama administration and some douchebag columnists.

But this is all old news. And apparently it’s also the old battle plan. The RIAA has decided to move away from suing individual file sharers. The reasons are both plentiful and obvious. Despite their victories, these lawsuits were huge financial losers for the RIAA. And there’s been no indication that they’ve done anything to slow down the flow of free music over the internet. So the RIAA has given up targeting individual file-sharers with lawsuits. But that doesn’t mean we’ve seen the end of digital copyright shakedowns. That practice has shifted over to the film industry where unscrupulous law firms are trolling independent filmmakers willing to make a quick buck. But even this scheme has not been totally successful.

So if the industry can’t shake down consumers, what can they do to stop free file-sharing? The answer is probably not very much, but that has not stopped them from trying. The latest tactic has involved both the recording industry and the feds targeting students at universities and threatening to throw them off the internet if they don’t stop sharing music. It’s certainly a step up from shaking down kids and single mothers. And universities can provide free enforcement assistance to the recording industry. As a student at Brooklyn Law School, I was the recipient of one such mass threatening emails. It didn’t win the administration any fans among the student body, but it sure generates a lot less negative publicity than suing those that are too poor to buy your music anyway.

Ultimately though, this tactic is doomed by the same problem that doomed the original lawsuits at the start of the last decade. Ultimately, both strategies are based on the same core tactic: intimidation. There’s just no way to sue or even threaten every file sharer. You can’t even come close. And we all know this. So without federal involvement, enforcement seems futile. Fortunately for the movie and recording industry, the federal government’s position is pretty clear, especially now that Joe Biden stupidly compared file-sharing to “smash and grab” robberies. I’ll credit my readers with the intelligence to figure out for themselves why this analogy is stupid.

But “piracy” isn’t just a national issue. It’s global. As I mentioned last week, a lot of those torrent sites are hosted abroad, insulating them from legal action in the United States. And other countries have joined the fight. The guy who ran Oink.cd was prosecuted (and acquitted) by the English government. Australia just released an absurd study claiming that 89% of all torrents are illegal. Presumably, this will be fodder for shutting down torrents in the future. Fortunately for file sharers, while nations are increasingly taking firmer anti-piracy positions, there does not appear to be a coordinated global campaign against file sharing. Unfortunately though, I have yet to hear of any developed country offering itself as a haven for those that aid file sharers. Until file sharing is legal and/or accepted globally, we will continue to see the same cat and mouse games.

So as you can see, I’m not very worried about the future of file sharing. For the last decade, the file sharers have stayed one step ahead of law enforcement. Sure, Napster, Audiogalaxy, Grokster and now potentially Limewire were shut down thanks to various legal challenges, but there has always been something there to take the place of the last service. As long as there is such a widespread desire for free information, music and art, there will always be ways to acquire it for free. Even though I pay for most of the music I listen to, something seems wrong to me about not allowing those who can’t afford it to enjoy music. I’m sure I am not alone in this sentiment. And this kind of sense of purpose and mission will always make the file sharers more determined than their opponents.

Which is why I am somewhat ambivalent about proposals to legalize file sharing and tax the internet to compensate the industry and artists. These proposals are pitched as a compromise, but it’s a compromise offered by someone with nothing to offer. Well nothing but the political power to push their proposals in place. However, I’m sure that there are plenty of people who’d gladly pay slightly more to use the internet to avoid the risk of lawsuits.

But what has me truly skeptical of these proposals is their ability to fairly and accurately compensate artists and the industry for any losses they may or may not suffer as a result of file-sharing. If file sharing were completely legal, I have trouble seeing a reason for major labels to exist anymore. Are we going to subsidize an entire industry through tax surcharges? And what about smaller independent artists? Independent artists receive more from the sales of their music than major label acts. A system that sets uniform compensation would invariably enrich the bigger acts at the expense of the smaller ones. Maybe some will view something as better than nothing, but I think the sooner we stop funding a bloated dinosaur the better.