This is a journal article in a journal called Popular Music, and it is by Eamonn Forde.  It was written in 2004.  This article gives information about the state of file-sharing in 2004, and explains that record companies shouldn’t worry so much about it.  The article’s argument is that record companies will still be able to sell a large amount of CDs despite file sharing, and that there are other forms of media from which they can profit.  
    The film and TV industries are also becoming upset about the use of P2P networks to share files, because many of them are video files.  In other countries, the government has tried to help these industries with the use of levies.  In Germany, there are levies on PCs and CD-Rs that go to record companies.  And all over the world, record companies are flooding P2P networks with fake versions of songs to frustrate the users.  This is called “spoofing.”
    I doubt the “spoofing” tactic works very well, and the levy idea seems unfair to the consumer, who would be forced to pay higher prices for goods.  This article is important to my research because it suggests it might be best for the record companies to ignore P2P file-sharing.  In France, CD sales have been going up by 5 percent every year, and they also have P2P networks.  It is possible that the record companies may just need more creative marketing schemes to attract more customers.  Also, they need to take advantage of the market for music on cell phones, because that market is less likely to be affected by file sharing.  As the author says, “Online delivery is not the death knell for record companies.  It should be seen, ideally, as the wake up call they so dearly needed.”  If record sales are still increasing in countries that face the same file-sharing problems, American record companies need to try to emulate some of these other companies’ strategies.  They claim that their lawsuits are necessary, but maybe if they are more creative, they can avoid angering their customers and causing additional damage to their industry.

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/RIAAatTWO_FINAL.pdf

This is a document called RIAA v. The People: Two Years Later, which is on the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s website. It was written in 2005, which is two years after the file sharing lawsuits started. The article provides information about the legality of the lawsuits along with their results, and it also shares personal stories about individuals who have been sued. One interesting note is that the RIAA used to offer amnesty to anyone who deleted their copyrighted files and signed an agreement to stop file sharing, but some of these people were sued anyway. The RIAA was sued for false advertising.
The EFF wants the public to know that the people being sued are chosen randomly, and there is no end in sight to the flood of lawsuits. The lawsuits have not worked at all, and “Today, downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of the lawsuits.” The number of P2P users increases every month. 89 percent of high school students reported that they knew file-sharing was against the law, and that they would continue doing it anyway. The EFF suggests cutting the prices of songs on iTunes (because there are 35 times as many songs downloaded illegally as there are downloaded on iTunes), or having the record companies collectively license music to individuals for a flat fee of around five dollars a month.
The EFF shares the stories of many people who have been sued and are in terrible financial situations, to elicit the sympathy of the public. For example, a 71 year-old grandfather was sued, along with a 12 year-old girl who had a single mother.
This document is extremely useful to my argument because it provides statistical evidence that the lawsuits have not slowed down file sharing, which was their goal. The RIAA wanted to use the lawsuits to educate people, but people clearly don’t care about the legality of their downloading. P2P programs are extremely easy to design, and even if they add filters to the popular ones, other unfiltered applications will be created eventually. The RIAA needs to take drastic action in the form of large-scale licensing, or their problems will never be solved.
While I agree with the EFF on most accounts, I strongly disagree with their use of sob-stories to promote their views. It is unfortunate that some people with very little income were sued by the RIAA, but a person’s financial situation should not affect whether or not they are sued. If the RIAA is going to file lawsuits, they should sue the users with the most copyrighted material, regardless of their income. The whole strategy of using lawsuits to stop file sharing, however, just doesn’t seem like it will ever work. And hopefully, ISPs and universities will do their best to protect the identities of their users.