Illustration by Arnie Bermudez

As Monday's Wildcat reported, a recent deal between the Napster music downloading service and Penn State will allow students access to the contents of Napster's server while reducing the bandwidth consumed by illegal music downloading. However, the access, available only on campus, will come at a cost: a technology fee leveled against the student population at large. We asked our columnists: Is it worth it for UA administrators to follow Penn State's lead?

Thanks, but no thanks

The UA's response to a Napster deal should be summed up in something as short and simple as a resounding "hell no!"

Jason Poreda Columnist

Despite what some may believe, such a deal would not save the university money or alleviate the need for more bandwidth here on campus. It's ridiculous to blame the entire rise in Internet usage on illegal downloading. As Ockham's Razor dictates, the real reason is much simpler: Over the past five years or so, computers have become faster and cheaper. More students have them and are able to dabble in the vast, ever-growing world the Internet has created, whether it be by putting up their own Web sites, watching episodes of their favorite TV shows, doing late night research for papers or downloading music. Just five years ago, many of these things where not possible, but technology has improved.

As a result of this Internet boom, more bandwidth is needed, and will always be needed. That's just a fact of life in today's world.

Paying Napster for a service that about nine people would use would do nothing more than waste more money and make life more complicated.

For so many reasons, this is one of the most absurd ideas I have ever heard. It may have made sense for Penn Sate to get into bed with the Recording Industry Association of America, but the UA should do us all a favor and leave the issue alone.

Jason Poreda is a political science and communication senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu

Daniel Scarpinato Columnist

Contract or no contract, it still seems wrong

On the surface, the university striking a deal with Napster sounds nice. Dorm dwellers could download all they want, and the UA would avoid constant upgrades of its equipment.

But who's to say students would use the legal service, and not just opt to continue downloading tunes the old illegal way? Also, the plan is a bit too trendy. Downloading music is very popular right now, but how long will the obsession last?

And is it really necessary for the UA to strike a deal with a company founded on illegal principles?

Although this plan would allow for "legal" downloading of music, it still damages the profits of the music industry and its artists. Many listeners have taken a view that, since the music industry makes a ton of money, it should have fewer rights than the rest of us. The artists are underpaid, they claim, while the corporations are making all the cash.

Get real. First of all, pop singers are far from struggling. And second, it doesn't matter what the yearly profits of Time Warner or Universal add up to: Stealing is still illegal.

Considering the police state tactics the university has taken with drinking in the dorms, it's amazing it's taking an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" approach to this one and not knocking down the doors of students from Coronado to Hopi.

Daniel Scarpinato is a journalism and political science senior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu

Afshan Patel Columnist

Napster after KaZaA? No way

Cracking down on illegal activity stuff seems to be the demand of the day.

This time it's stolen music.

For all those who don't know yet - who are those people, anyway? - downloading songs from KaZaA is stealing music.

So in the spirit of doing right, paying Napster to listen to music sounds like a good plan.

But it isn't as convenient as it sounds. If such a deal were to go through, all students would be charged for the service, but only on-campus students would be able to utilize it.

Some students would pay for it, but wouldn't get to listen to the songs. Hmm ... seems a bit unfair, doesn't it?

Who seriously thinks that students are going to pay an extra 99 cents to download a song that they can get for free on KaZaA?

News flash: College students try to get as much free stuff as they possibly can. They're poor college students, after all.

Very few students are going to use Napster and actually pay to burn a CD.

Most of us feel it's our right to use KaZaA anyway, and some of us are too addicted to KaZaA to ditch it.

Let Penn State make deals with Napster; UA students are happy with KaZaA.

Afshan Patel is a finance junior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu

Jessica Lee Associate Editor

UA should make deal

The Penn State-Napster deal provides a quasi-solution to two big problems facing universities nationwide: legal squabbles involving on-campus residents illegally downloading music and technological complications from excessive file sharing.

For those of us who have spent time in the dorms, the Ethernet is the Holy Grail of freshman-sophomore procrastination. With the snap of your fingers, hundreds of songs can suddenly be available on your hard drive. Many download just because they can.

It is pointless for universities to attempt to impose moral regulation on students. Students will find some way to take advantage of the Internet connection in their dorm rooms to pirate entertainment.

Thus, it is a smart move for Penn State to strike a deal that would limit student and university liability as well as free up bandwidth on the university system.

But there are two aspects of the Penn State arrangement that are unsettling. First, the costs of the deal would come out of students' individual technology fees. Ultimately, every student would be paying for a service that only the dorm students with PCs would initially benefit from. Second, much of the technological backloading caused by file sharing is not solely from music files, but rather from music videos, movies and (gasp!) porn.

While students should have to pay to download songs, the university should nail all downloaders to the regulation board.

Jessica Lee is an environmental science senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu

Sabrina Noble Columnist

Don't fix what isn't broken

Initially, a UA-Napster deal sounds OK. Students could listen to music without having to worry about any pesky legal consequences, with one stipulation: There shall be no burning. Still, it might be worth it if downloading from other services was a huge risk. But it's not. Of the 420 complaints filed this year, none have led to lawsuits. The worst anyone has seen is a letter of warning - since, according to Karen Williams, the copyright librarian, many students "didn't know it was illegal." Yeah, right.

With that in mind, here's why the deal wouldn't work:

First, while many students keep their music only on their computers, they still want at least the option to burn CDs. We always want what we can't have. That's the root of the whole issue.

Others, suspicious from the beginning or loyal to KaZaA, would never turn to Napster in the first place. Yes, Napster will always be the founding father. But even it can admit it's not what it used to be. It's gone legal and we've gone elsewhere. If students didn't agree to go where the agreement was herding us, the bandwidth would continue to eat money on top of what the university would be paying for the Napster deal.

Finally, it's interesting to note that Penn State agreed to this because an RIAA exec was on its governing board. And tradition tells us that if it's in the best interest of the Recording Industry Associatoin of America, it's most likely not in the best interest of our CD players.

I say let the music industry's agenda guide us ... in the opposite direction.

Sabrina Noble is an English and creative writing senior. She can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu

Kendrick Wilson Columnist

Don't charge all for problem caused by few

While bandwidth used by dorm residents to download music and movies is a serious problem, entering into an expensive and potentially entangling deal with Napster is not a reasonable solution.

Dorm residents depend on fast Internet connections, and as more residents download music and movies, the fast connection is bogged down for the students who are conducting legitimate research. Penn State's solution of providing students with Napster's database directly on its campus server will reduce the use of bandwidth if students actually use the service.

However, there is no reason to believe that the UA dorm residents would give up free downloads to listen to music that cannot be recorded from the campus server. Indeed, many students download movies and music videos, neither of which would be available if a deal similar to the one created by Penn State were to take place at the UA.

Most importantly, while any formal proposal has yet to come before the UA community, it would be unfair to apply a fee to all students that provides a service that only some dorm residents can use. Many poor students can barely scrape together enough tuition money as it is. There is no reason to charge everyone to cure a problem caused by a few chronic downloaders.

Kendrick Wilson is a political science junior. He can be reached at letters@wildcat.arizona.edu