FC: EFF's Cindy Cohn on RIAA amnesty, alternatives to lawsuits

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Sep 11 2003 - 21:11:01 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: One more round of replies to Florida legislative survey"

    Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:39:50 -0700
    To: Declanat_private
    From: Cindy Cohn <cindyat_private>
    Subject: Fwd: [E-IP] LAT file sharing op ed
    Hi Declan,
    Thought you might find this interesting for Politech.  The first part is 
    about the phony "amnesty" that the RIAA is touting, but the second is the 
    more important, I think, pointing just one of the many ways the RIAA could 
    embrace its customers rather than sue them, and end up making more money in 
    the bargain.
    >    'Amnesty' for Music File Sharing Is a Sham
    >         By Fred von Lohmann, Fred von Lohmann is senior intellectual 
    > property attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation.
    >No one can hold a candle to the music industry when it comes to 
    >squandering an opportunity. Having gotten everyone's attention by 
    >threatening to sue 60 million American file-sharers, flooding Internet 
    >service providers with more than 1,500 subpoenas and on Monday suing 
    >hundreds of individual file-sharers (or their parents) in federal court, 
    >the Recording Industry Assn. of America has blown it again.
    >  Here's what the RIAA has proposed as its "solution" to file-sharing: an 
    > "amnesty" for file-sharers. Just delete the MP3s you've downloaded, shred 
    > those CD-R copies, confess your guilt and, in return, the most 
    > change-resistant companies in the nation will give you nothing. Oh, the 
    > RIAA promises not to assist copyright owners in suing you. But its 
    > major-label members reserve the right to go after you, as do thousands of 
    > music publishers and artists like Metallica.
    >  In other words, once you have come forward, you are more vulnerable to a 
    > lawsuit, not less. This is more "sham-nesty" than "amnesty." What a waste.
    >  Rather than trying to sue Americans into submission, imagine a real 
    > solution for the problem. What if the labels legitimized music swapping 
    > by offering a real amnesty for all file-sharing, past, present and 
    > future, in exchange for say, $5 a month from each person who steps forward?
    >  The average American household spends less than $100 on prerecorded 
    > music annually. Assuming that many people will continue buying at least 
    > some CDs (a recent survey by Forrester Research found that half of all 
    > file-sharers continue to buy as many or more CDs as they did before 
    > catching the downloading bug), $60 per year for file sharing seems reasonable.
    >  And such a plan would surely be more popular than the use-restricted and 
    > limited-inventory "authorized" alternatives. After all, the explosive 
    > growth of file-sharing is the strongest demand signal the record business 
    > has ever seen. The industry should embrace the opportunity instead of 
    > continuing to thrash around like dinosaurs sinking in hot tar.
    >  Rather than asking music fans to brand themselves as thieves, the music 
    > industry could be welcoming them back into the fold as customers. Five 
    > bucks a month doesn't sound like much, but it would be pure profit for 
    > the labels. No CDs to ship, no online retailers to cut in on the deal, no 
    > payola to radio conglomerates, no percentage to Kazaa or anyone else.
    >  Best of all, it's an evergreen revenue stream - money that would just 
    > keep coming during good times and bad.
    >  It has been done before. This is essentially how songwriters brought 
    > broadcast radio in from the copyright cold. Radio stations step up, pay 
    > blanket fees and in return get to play whatever music they like. Today, 
    > the performing-rights societies like ASCAP and BMI collect the money and 
    > pay out millions annually to their artists.
    >  It's easy to predict the industry's excuses: "We don't have all the 
    > rights." "Antitrust law prevents us from acting together." "What about my 
    > cut of the CD?"
    >  Puh-leeze. You tell us your industry's on the brink of extinction: It's 
    > time to do something daring, not suicidal.
    >  The labels can create a new business model that will serve as an example 
    > to other copyright owners. After all, it's no more radical than their 
    > threatening millions of Americans - customers - with ruinous litigation. 
    > What court or regulator is going to get in the way of a new approach that 
    > turns fans back into customers? Especially if the labels decide to offer 
    > a piece of the pie to artists - the only group with a credible claim to 
    > victimhood, even if most of their victimization has come at the labels' hands.
    >  There are only two possible outcomes here: Either the music companies 
    > stop whining and woo the 60 million potential customers who have voted 
    > with their PCs for file-sharing, or some new companies will. There's no 
    > place in the world for companies that are bent on holding back the future.
    >  Let's see a real amnesty, one that displays respect instead of spite for 
    > customers.
    >Eff-ip mailing list
    Cindy Cohn                            Cindyat_private
    Legal Director                          www.eff.org
    Electronic Frontier Foundation
    454 Shotwell Street
    San Francisco, CA 94110
    415-436-9333 x 108 (tel)
    415-436-9993 (fax)
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 00:25:42 PDT