The Internet, even post tech bubble and bust, has transformed the meaning of property, but for the most part has failed to overturn our stubborn concept of ownership. Although it often goes unacknowledged, possessions in the digital age are often intangible. Indeed, intellectual property -- research, movies, music, literature and other forms of information -- are the most influential products of this era, and they collectively define the advanced society in which we live.Despite our dependence on it, intellectual property retains a bastardly status among other things ownable. Our society (particularly the college students within it), often ignores the fact that information is the fruit of someone's labor. Our age group consistently assumes that whatever someone else makes "free" is ours for the taking, disregarding the circumstances of availability.

There is the MP3, the anti-establishment bastion -- the weapon of the masses against the musical aristocracy. The record companies are ingrained in our minds as an oppressive force, akin to the regime in Pink Floyd's "The Wall"; they are conniving, shadowy despots whose purpose is to abuse us, to greedily and tyrannically deprive us of our God-given right to everything.

Over and over, it is said the record companies are too "greedy"; people say they download MP3s because they cannot afford CDs. Indeed, CDs are costly -- two or three times the expense of seeing a movie (which can also be downloaded for free!). And, yes, few people can afford to buy every CD they would like. But, few can afford to buy every car or funky T-shirt, bracelet or baseball cap they admire either, and fewer would condone lifting a leather jacket they spot in Filene's because they can't afford it. That would be easily recognized as theft because the object in question is tangible.

When a possession can be understood as a binary file -- perhaps only series upon series of ones and zeros -- stealing it and enabling others to is more easily defended. So, people rationalize their theft: The establishment is "keeping them down"; the so-called "crime" is victimless; and, most alarmingly, one's own desires constitute need while someone else's ownership is avarice. The MP3 downloaders and file-sharers become the Robin Hoods of our time, stealing from the rich record companies and giving to the less-rich masses, self-righteously hungry not for bread but for music and ready to make excuses to condone their actions and to scapegoat the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Disguised as war cries of a revolution, these arguments are fallacies used to rationalize what is morally wrong: The theft of someone else's creation. Just as music consumers haven't come to terms with intellectual property, the record companies have yet to discover how to make money in the information age. The burst of the technology bubble taught that few have learned to harness the awesome capabilities of the Internet in ways that generate profit consistently and in the long term.

In a misguided effort by both large corporations and small Internet start-ups to cultivate interest in e-commerce and to help the Internet attain its potential as a marketplace, originally, everything was free or nearly free.

Some businesses intentionally lost and still lose money, while others do not earn enough revenue to cover enormous start-up costs -- all in an effort to give their sites name recognition and to grow a loyal customer base. In these risky ventures, some corporations brought about their own demise: They inadvertently cultivated consumers uneager to consume -- masses of individuals who believe anything worth having ought to be so inexpensive that the seller loses money, if the product is not free entirely.

To call peer-to-peer networks, CD burners or MP3s the Devil, however, is to find one more scapegoat for the actions of individuals, who in the millions commit a crime that is anything but victimless. When one downloads "Material Girl," it is not just Madonna whose work is not being compensated for. It is her back-up singers, it is the instrumentalists, it is the technicians, it is the producers, it is the songwriter, it is the person who cleaned the studio, it is the person who was never hired -- and it is everyone who would have benefited from their labor indirectly -- their families, local businesses and all the other avenues in which money would otherwise have been spent. What seems like inconsequential pennies for an individual, multiplied by thousands is millions, and in reality, anything but.

And, music buyers lose as well: They pay more because some don't pay at all. Record companies and artists, while not the horrible oppressor they are scapegoated into resembling, need to be forward-thinking. More effective than litigation, they should learn to take advantage of the technologies whose abuse is costing them dearly. Often, a person wants only one song off an album. Given available technology, it should be easily buyable on the Internet -- with the reduced cost to show for it; a song purchased online should be cheaper because there is no compact disc to pay for, and no carrier is required to transport the product from factory to store.

Currently, websites exist at which a user can pay a fee to download songs for given duration or per song, but an artist's participation is not guaranteed and so music buyers have been uneager to explore this option. Ultimately, record companies would benefit from mature policies and new technologies that make buying music on the Internet as speedy as downloading an MP3, but also less costly than purchasing a CD. They will revive their industry by only throwing aside tradition and realizing that litigation and anti-piracy technologies will perpetuate a cyclical battle with music pirates, alienate consumers and never bring back profits.

In the meantime, however, that does not make the gluttonous consumption of "free" music correct. Brandeis prides itself the intellectual integrity of its members, and in that spirit students cite outside sources in papers; they do not claim someone else's work as their own. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon to go back to dorm rooms and browse the Brandeis Intranet and outside peer-to-peer networks for pirated copies of someone else's work. Doing this, integrity is left in the classroom, and downloaders forget that someday their studies and labor may culminate in writing, art and invention that can blossom only in a culture that recognizes the value of information and respects the artist.

-- Michaela May '03 submits a column to the Justice