The Globe and Mail has launched an ambitious and exciting five-part series called the Download Decade. Part one focuses on Napster with further segments planned over the next two weeks on business models, copyright laws, and more. There are lots of older articles (including one of mine), podcasts and video documentaries – the first batch available via BitTorrent. The series will apparently also launch a copyright reform project at its public policy wiki.
Globe and Mail Launches the Download Decade
May 10, 2009
Share this post
One Comment

Law Bytes
Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards
byMichael Geist

March 31, 2025
Michael Geist
March 24, 2025
Michael Geist
March 10, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 231: Sara Bannerman on How Canadian Political Parties Maximize Voter Data Collection and Minimize Privacy Safeguards
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 230: Aengus Bridgman on the 2025 Federal Election, Social Media Platforms, and Misinformation
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 229: My Digital Access Day Keynote – Assessing the Canadian Digital Policy Record
Queen’s University Trustees Reject Divestment Efforts Emphasizing the Importance of Institutional Neutrality
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 228: Kumanan Wilson on Why Canadian Health Data Requires Stronger Privacy Protection in the Trump Era
The RIAA is going after the wrong thing
When the RIAA decided to take a run at Napster, fiscally from their perspective it made a lot of sense.
1) A lawsuit against a single small organization such as Napster was more likely to succeed as he most likely didn’t have the financial means to defend himself in the trial as well as appeals.
2) Shutting down a site like Napster meant that indie artists were getting less exposure, so they would get less market share. If they wanted more exposure, they needed to make an agreement with the devil and sign on with a publisher.
Unfortunately the approach is akin to making GM responsible because a car they produced was used to intentionally run down someone, rather than going after the driver.
As far as Lars Ulrich’s complaints, so they tracked it to Napster. Did they track it back any further, i.e. to the person who leaked it in the first place? Perhaps a member of the band leaked it to gauge public reaction?