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 250: Wikimedia’s Jan Gerlach on the Risks and Challenges with Digital Policy Reform
byMichael Geist

November 17, 2025
Michael Geist
November 10, 2025
Michael Geist
November 3, 2025
Michael Geist
October 27, 2025
Michael Geist
October 20, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 250: Wikimedia’s Jan Gerlach on the Risks and Challenges with Digital Policy Reform
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 249: The Debate Over Canada’s AI Strategy – My Consultation Submission and Appearance at the Canadian Heritage Committee
How the Liberal and Conservative Parties Have Quietly Colluded to Undermine the Privacy Rights of Canadians
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 248: Mark Surman on Why Canada’s AI Strategy Should Prioritize Public AI Models
We Need More Canada in the Training Data: My Appearance Before the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on AI and the Creative Sector

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?