4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, February 11, 2003 i OPINION 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com opinion. michigandaily .com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE- UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JORDAN SCHRADER Editor in Chief JASON Z. PESICK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE i was wrong. I am not pleased about it at all and I think all Americans should be concerned about this." - Author and talk show host Bill O'Reilly, apologizing to viewers for supporting claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, as reported yesterday by Reuters. SAM BUTLER THiiE SoApBox \ 5 asesomve! ,. - r U S 0L 91 One fallen tower I'm not crying about A RI PAUL I FOUGHT THE LAW Tower Records, the McDonalds of music mer- chants, announced that it has filed for bank- ruptcy. The BBC reported that the chain "filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after illegal music downloading and heavy competition hit revenues." After five-fingering at Tower in my younger years, downloading MP3's on the web and patronizing independent record stores, I'm glad to know that I have done my part in bringing down part of the juggernaut of the corporatization of the musical medium. This all comes amid lawsuits from the wealthy Recording Industry Association of America against people, mainly people of moderate incomes and broke college stu- dents like you and me, involved in file- sharing on the Internet. Both the RIAA and now Tower Records are pointing the finger at poor suckers like us who make playlists on Winamp via high-speed Inter- net for sending platinum jewelry-clad record company executives on Sunset Boulevard into financial ruin. Hogwash. During the carefree days of the late '90s and the first years of the new millen- nium, when the economy was roaring and the prospect of war was a laughable con- cept, MP3 downloading was in its heyday, as Napster was the ubiquitous open pro- gram on computers in dorm room parties across the nation. What the RIAA, record companies and music mega-chains don't want you to know is that they were not excluded from the wealth and prosperity of the Clinton years, and it can be argued that Napster helped their profits. The economist Michael Perel- man writes in his book, "Steal this Idea," "Napster actually seemed to increase sales of CDs, by allowing people to become familiar with new music." The controversy surrounding file shar- ing leads into a discussion of the biggest threats to economic democracy in general: copyright and patent laws. These laws, sometimes known as intellec- tual property laws, like the ones the RIAA are exploiting, are the ultimate contradiction of capitalism. Rich industrialists know that even in a free market, their positions as rulers are under threat of the potential success of upstart entrepreneurs. So the capitalist class has collaborated with the government to set up a complex system of legislation to protect its position as the exclusive owner of intel- lectual property, the means of scientific and artistic innovation. The common myth about capitalists is that they are against all government inter- vention in the market. In capitalist ideolo- gy this is true, but in reality capitalists welcome government intervention with open arms when that intervention protects the profits and influence on the market of the existing capitalist class. If markets are, indeed, democratic and the forces that drive the market will raise the quality of life, then wouldn't copyright laws get in the way of maximizing growth? While markets are by no means democratic, neither are these laws. Intellectual property laws let record companies, stores and radio stations pre- sent only the music they deem fit to become popular. Through this system, independent musicians are practically pro- hibited from promoting their art. This gives more credence to the theory that intellectual property laws are a barrier, not an impetus, to the free exchange of infor- mation and an enemy to innovation. File sharing allows for newer artists to disseminate their work. People will be more likely to go to their shows and buy their CDs. And at the same time, as the history of the market proves, record companies will still make money. Thus, getting rid of our copyright laws will provide for a more robust flow of information allowing for more variety and innovation in music, pub- lishing, technology and lots else. Tower Records did not fall because of people downloading music. Tower could have fallen for a variety of reasons, including that it was out of touch with younger consumers' desire for diversity in selection and availability of new art. Steal this column. al Paul can be reached at aspaul@umich.edu. Estoy enojado DANIEL ADAMS SPITTING INTO THE WIND overnor Jennifer; Granholm has laid down thei gauntlet: a 5 percent reduction in state fund-1 ing for all state universi- ties that fail to keep i tuition increases below1 2.5 percent. Those that cut costs and keep tuition increases under that magic numberI will only see a 2 percent reduction. The University administration now has some tough choices to make. It's clear that cutsl are going to have to be made, but after steep cuts in funding last year, what's left to slash? Let me make a humble sugges- tion: Cut the LSA language requirement.I Let me start with a disclaimer: On princi- ple, I have no problem with the language departments, their instruction, or their pro- grams in general. In an increasingly global economy, it's evident that a second language can be a valuable asset. However, the big problem with a four-term language require- ment, especially at the University, is in its inherent inefficiency. It's a waste of the university's money. I pay the same tuition whether I sit in a 600-person lecture hall or whether I sit in one of the 30-person discussion rooms typical to language classes. So if I'm University Presi- dent Mary Sue Coleman, I try and make sure that Dan Adams and all the other undergrads are packed in like so many sardines into lec- ture halls. That's pretty much how it works, but due to the inherent intimacy required for proper language instruction, lecturers who could and often do teach several hundred stu- dents in one sitting, instead teach around 30 students. If the university wanted to cut costs, instead of requiring foreign language, just require something else. Pack me and a couple hundred other kids into the Natural Science auditorium and hire someone smart to talk to us for a couple of hours a week. Even with a full professor making six figures, it'd still be a more efficient use of the University's pre- cious time and resources. Sure, if I had my preference, I'd like all my classes to be small- er, but the benefits of small classes are some- what muted when the topic of instruction is how to ask where the bathroom is in French. It's a waste of my money. It's no surprise that the University, the world's most expensive public university, has a foreign language department. Then again, so does Washtenaw Community Col- lege. This isn't intended to be a knock on the language instructors here, many of whom are among the university's best and most dedi- cated faculty, but their hourly rate is pretty steep, whether I'm learning advanced game theory, or how to speak elementary Spanish. Where is the value in that? Truth be told, there are dozens of ways to learn a language: Take night classes at a local school or pick up a language program for the computer - virtually anything would be cheaper than University tuition. Too little, too late The University only seems to care enough to make me go through the motions, but not enough to force me into actually learning the language. Do the math: One semester of lan- guage, at 15 weeks a semester, and four hours a week, comes out roughly to only 60 hours of total class time spent speaking and learning a language. Factor in the 120 hours of recommended study time at home for 60 hours of class time, and you get a generous estimate of 180 hours spent in one semester speaking your language. I have an experi- ment: Cash in that tuition check, and spend two weeks in Puerto Vallerta drinking beer and eating tamales on the beach, and you'll probably speak more Spanish and get more culture than if you'd spent that time in Ann Arbor, filling out worksheets and barely passing Spanish 231. Tomorrow, though, I won't bolt to Mexico. Instead, along with the rest of the damned, I'm going to make my lonely march up to the Modern Languages Build- ing and stumble through Spanish as best I can. Maybe I shouldn't complain - after all, I did sign up for a liberal arts educa- tion and the diversity of classes that such a program entails. But no matter how much sugar I sprinkle on, the medicine isn't going down any easier. I have a sneaking suspicion that this half-assed knowledge of a language that's being jammed like the proverbial round peg into my square hole is going to abandon me somewhere between fluency and ignorance. So just let me choose. From how I understand it, the language requirement isn't all about language - it's about teach- ing students about the culture of other nations through a language-oriented curricu- lum. If this is the case, give me the culture and spare me the cost and time of a four- term language requirement. The language departments will get students that won't behave like the condemned, and those who don't care to learn a language here can opt out, painlessly and without a peep. Adams can be reached at dnadams@umich.edu. 0 0 6 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 0 Bible is easily used to justify intolerance; some passages should not be taken literally TO THE DAILY: In a letter published in Monday's Daily regarding a lecture on Christian values (Speech was misunderstood, but remained true to the Bible, 09/02/04), Deborah Wig- Americans agree that the proper punish- ment for a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day is being stoned to death (Numbers 15.35)? Would most Americans agree that a man who marries a previously divorced woman has committed adultery (Matthew 5.31)? The Christian response to these questions will generally be, "No good Christian would agree with those passages. They are not central to what Christianity is about. Christianity is about finding a loving relationship with Jesus." people are disgusted by people using the Bible to promote intolerance in our pro- gressive society. STEVE DANNEMILLER LSA Senior D a r E n o t a o " C O O L LK E IC EM A N ..:: L G4U3 > _, : <: i Il a