[IP] Fred von Lohmann op ed in LA Times
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:56:47 -0700
From: Cindy Cohn <cindy@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Fred von Lohmann op ed in LA Times
X-Sender: cindy@localhost
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Hi Dave,
I thought your IP readers might be interested in this Los Angeles Times
op-ed, written by EFF's own Fred von Lohmann. In addition to pointing out
the problems with the RIAA's faux "amnesty" program, Fred articulates how
the record companies could turn the filesharing revolution into the biggest
financial victory for the entertainment industries since they lost the
Betamax case.
Cindy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-vonlohmann10sep10,1,804028.story
COMMENTARY
'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
Eff-ip@xxxxxxx
https://owl.eff.org/mailman/listinfo/eff-ip
--
*********************************************
Cindy Cohn Cindy@xxxxxxx
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)
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/