Future of Music 2010: Copyright czar outlines file-sharing agenda at odds with how many Americans consume music
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- An indication of just how urgent (or how out-of-hand, depending on your perspective) the concern has become over file-sharing was President Barack Obama's recent appointment of the first so-called copyright czar in the nation's history.
The new czar -- Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement coordinator -- visited the Future of Music Policy Summit on Tuesday and offered a brief summation of what's on her agenda. She represents an administration that is showing troubling signs of skewing toward established corporate interests and 20th Century business models and legal practices at a time when technology has fundamentally changed the way fans consume music and interact with artists.
Earlier this year, the Department of Justice approved a controversial merger between North America's largest concert promoter, Live Nation, and ticketing agency, Ticketmaster, creating a powerhouse with the potential to control every aspect of the music business.
A few months ago, Espinel's office released a 33-point agenda after what she said was a thorough inventory of opinion on both sides of the file-sharing debate. In presenting the Joint Strategic Plan to Combat Intellectual Property Theft, Espinel was joined by Vice President Joe Biden, who gave reporters a great sound bite even as he demonstrated an incredibly unnuanced understanding of how file-sharing works:
"We used to have a problem in this town saying this," Biden said. "But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It's smash and grab. It ain't no different than smashing a window at Tiffany's and grabbing (merchandise)."
The intellectual-property plan itself was a bit more balanced, and Espinel provided an overview at Future of Music. She said it's her job is "to protect the creativity of our citizens" because "the protection of innovation ... and creativity is essential for economic recovery."
She zeroed in on music as a particular problem area because "95 percent of (music) downloads are illegal," a figure that is commonly linked to a 50 percent decline in music-industry revenue over the last decade.
While embracing the notion of a "free and open Internet," she echoed policymakers in recent years by saying that such freedom can flourish only once "Illegal and infringing activity" has been cut back. She said her office received more than 1,600 public comments in coming up with its 33-point strategy, and suggested that the majority came from those interested in protecting their copyright -- artists, publishers, record companies and other license holders. But fair-use advocates were also heard, helping to create a distinction between infringers and artists who "build upon the work of others."
That's an enlightened view. But her presentation at FMC was focused on violators. She said the government is starting to pressure the private sector, particularly Internet service providers, "to do more to reduce the flow of illegal content," echoing efforts in some European countries to reduce or even cut off Internet access to customers found to be engaging in illegal file sharing. She also said foreign Web sites pushing illegal content and "dangerous" products were being addressed, though it was unclear how, and that American law was under a comprehensive review "to keep pace with technology on the Internet."
It all came off as sufficiently vague enough not to raise any alarms. But the policy in general sounded as if it was framed in such a way not to ruffle the feathers of established license holders, without acknowledging that if the vast majority of downloads are being considered "illegal," a lot of everyday Americans are engaging in "criminal" activity. In a brief question-and-answer session after her speech, I asked Espinel to address this fundamental disconnect between the government's agenda and the way many citizens interact with their computers and cellphones in their daily lives. They're sharing files, after all, which is what these devices were built to do.
"I don't see an inherent conflict," she said. "The majority of consumers don't want to engage in illegal content."
But, wait, didn't you just say that 95 percent of downloaders are doing exactly that? I didn't get a chance to ask that follow-up question, but Espinel did say that the administration would primarily focus its crackdown on "Web sites distributing illegal content for profit" or those that "mimic legal sites by charging a subscription fee or attracting advertisers." All well and good, but that's a small percentage of the "problem" as defined by the music industry. The real issue is with those tens of millions of everyday citizens doing something that the goverment says could cost them their Internet access, or worse.
Greg,
You seem to believe that if it is popular and fun to break a law, then it should no longer be a law. But if we follow that line of reasoning, what you are advocating is essentially the abolition of copyright. Because what is any copyright worth, if there should be no legal way to enforce it?
In truth, computers do not make copyright irrelevant. They make it more important. The digital IP economy is going to be crucial to the 21st century, and there is going to be a need for far better protections than currently exist.
e-Books, e-Textbooks, video games, movies, software, Apple/Android apps, subscription websites, paysites, and yes music - under a regime like you are suggesting, all IP ownership in these domains would be forfeit.
It would be a matter of take what you want, when you want, because no one's going to stop you.
Such an approach would eliminate billions of current and future revenue, and millions of jobs in numerous markets.
These are all growing sectors in the new digital economy. But their DRM and copyrights are being circumvented for piracy at an alarmingly increasing rate.
Apologizing for piracy by saying "everyone else is doing it" doesn't make the argument for taking away IP owners' rights any more compelling. If you want to suggest that, you will have to find a better way to support it.
The other old arguments for IP abolition tend to center around music only, by claiming musicians should "make their money on touring, endorsements, and t-shirts". But these arguments are just as tired, shallow, and don't apply to any of the other digital economies I've listed.
Should Adobe sell t-shirts? Harper-Collins put on concert tours? UpToDate start a line of branded stethoscopes?
I certainly hope you can do better than that.
Posted by: Jon | October 06, 2010 at 02:24 AM
All music should be free. If you are good people will support you and buy tickets to live shows and merchandise.
And all pop music is garbage. Mtv sucks. Also 95% of radio is un-listenable.
The fact that no talent rappers make millions then cry that people download their crappy so called music makes me sick.
Livenation, ticketmaster, and clear channel are ruining music.
Does any one remember the days when djs could play what ever they wanted? Now everything is set to what they must play.
Keep downloading music and don't pay a dime to these ....
Posted by: dankgoat | October 06, 2010 at 10:47 AM
Really interesting post. It's definitely a big mess to clean up; I don't know how anyone changes the philosophy and morals of the millions of people who are happily downloading music illegally, while enforcing the laws appropriately at the same time.
That whole Policy Summit was actually really interesting. There's a bunch of coverage here http://weallmakemusic.com/tag/fmc10/
Posted by: Adam Sisenwein | October 06, 2010 at 11:27 AM
goatboy - all music should not be free. if you like something, you should buy it. if you are going to see the band, buy the record from them. if the band does not tour, buy it from their website.
also pop radio has gotten consistently better, arcade fire and lcd soundsystem being prime examples of artists that are in the top ten billboard charts. things are changing in interesting directions, such as remixes of la roux being on the pop radio. another example is kanye sampling can and working with daft punk on the same album.
Posted by: j | October 06, 2010 at 01:31 PM
If all music is free how will the producers get paid? How about the engineer? Lawyer? Manager? Writer? Artist and record labels are not the only ones that have to get paid. I always hear the argument the artist and labels are rich. Well what about that producer who finally landed an album placement then the song gets leaked and he doesn’t get paid. Or the writer who spent hours penning songs for the album only for it to get leaked? But I guess you don’t’ care about the little guy huh. You just go back to the old labels are greedy artist are rich argument meanwhile the label can put out more albums and the artist can tour but you blew that producer’s one shot at making some money. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get an album placement? I didn’t think so.
Posted by: Angry Industry Insider | October 08, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Hi Greg,
While I like your reporting and respect your opinion, there are a few misconceptions here.
First, the fact that devices were "built to do" something does not mean they shouldn't be restricted. Guns are built to kill and we restrict how, when and by whom they can be used to do that. Cars are built to be driven - some very fast - and we restrict their use as well.
Second, as far as a lot of Americans engaging in "criminal" activity - it's not; it's a matter for civil suits - how would this be any different from issuing speeding tickets? According to some estimates, the U.S. issues 40 million speeding tickets a year. We could easily do the same with file-sharing if we chose to do so. Why don't we?
Third, most of the larger pirate sites _are_ run for profit. The Pirate Bay was financed by a Swedish neo-Nazi and run very much as a business. Megaupload is run by a German hacker who did jail time for stock fraud and just bought the most expensive private residence in New Zealand with his ill-gotten gains. And on Russian mp3 sites, the songs pirate you! We're a long way from Shawn Fanning here.
Posted by: Rob Levine | October 15, 2010 at 09:37 AM
The only quibble with the moral arguments that just because a device can do something, it shouldn't be used for something, is that broadband internet wouldn't have taken off if not for Napster. The devices and the market have been developed because of people taking up the behaviour change of sharing data freely.
Seriously, why else would you need broadband or larger and larger memory storage if you were not sharing data?
So it is not naive or or misconceived to see that a mess has been created on top of this social change. And rest assured there are legitimate businesses that are making money from all of this. Apple. Blackberry. Your ISP.
I can't imagine very many people can own enough music from legitimate sales to actually fill a 120 or 160 GB iPod classic in the way it is advertised. It is listed as holding 10s of thousands of songs, not the few hundred if you copied you CDs at the highest sound quality.
For those who question why enforcement is slow to come, just follow the money.
Posted by: Joel H | October 20, 2010 at 01:09 PM