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 247: My Senate Appearance on the Bill That Could Lead to Canada-Wide Blocking of X, Reddit and ChatGPT
byMichael Geist

October 27, 2025
Michael Geist
October 20, 2025
Michael Geist
October 6, 2025
Michael Geist
September 22, 2025
Michael Geist
September 15, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 247: My Senate Appearance on the Bill That Could Lead to Canada-Wide Blocking of X, Reddit and ChatGPT
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 246: Mohamed Zohiri on the Rise and Emerging Regulation of Stablecoins
Senate Bill Would Grant Government Regulatory Power to Mandate Age Verification For Search, Social Media and AI Services Accompanied By Threat of Court Ordered Blocking of Lawful Content
Government Reverses on Bill C-2: Removes Lawful Access Warrantless Demand Powers in New Border Bill
Why The Recent TikTok Privacy Ruling Swaps Privacy for Increased Surveillance

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?