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 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban
byMichael Geist

February 9, 2026
Michael Geist
Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act's Private Right of Access
February 2, 2026
Michael Geist
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 255: Grappling with Grok – Heidi Tworek on the Limits of Canadian Law
January 26, 2026
Michael Geist
December 22, 2025
Michael Geist
December 8, 2025
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Recent Posts
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 257: Lisa Given on What Canada Can Learn From Australia’s Youth Social Media Ban
Court Ordered Social Media Site Blocking Coming to Canada?: Trojan Horse Online Harms Bill Clears Senate Committee Review
An Illusion of Consensus: What the Government Isn’t Saying About the Results of its AI Consultation
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 256: Jennifer Quaid on Taking On Big Tech With the Competition Act’s Private Right of Access
Government Says There Are No Plans for National Digital ID To Access Services

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?