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 268: Sara Grimes on the Moral Panic Behind Banning Kids from Social Media and AI Chatbots
byMichael Geist

May 11, 2026
Michael Geist
May 4, 2026
Michael Geist
April 27, 2026
Michael Geist
Ep. 265 – Jason Millar on Claude Mythos, Project Glasswing, and the Governance Crisis in Frontier AI
April 20, 2026
Michael Geist
Search Results placeholder
Michael Geist on Substack
Recent Posts
The Online Streaming Act Bill Comes Due: Why the CRTC’s Latest Ruling Guarantees Years of Trade and Legal Battles
The Government Tries to Make the Case for Bill C-22: Why Its Own Use Cases Reveal Disproportionate Overreach
Tech Exodus: Why Bill C-22’s Privacy and Security Risks Will Drive Digital Services Out of the Country
The Lawful Access Two-Headed Surveillance Monster: How Bill C-22 Went Off the Rails
How Much Further Will Lawful Access Go?: Police Chief Tells Bill C-22 Hearing That Three Years of Metadata Retention Would Be “Ideal”

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?