A copyright ethics quiz

From the Chicago Tribune comes this copyright ethics quiz. At 28 questions, it's too long, but it zooms in on some important questions facing society. Example:

You bought the vinyl LP years ago. Now you no longer have a turntable. Is it OK to download the album or burn a copy from a friend's CD without paying for it?

Fascinating stuff. Chicago Tribune blogger Eric Zorn, who devised the poll, has an accompanying column about digital rights and copyright, "an area of law with lots of wrinkles, few sharp boundaries and enormous gray areas." And Eric's blog points us to a sampling of national surveys on the subject.

I don't know how long the blog poll will be up so, ironically perhaps, I'm reposting the results to date below.

1. You hear or hear about a song that you think youíd like to have. Is it OK to download that song from a free file-sharing site on the web?

A. Yes, always (38%)
B. Yes, but only occasionally (20%)
C. No (42%)

2. You hear or hear about an entire album that you think youíd like to have. Is it OK to download that album from a free file- sharing site on the web?

A. Yes, always (22%)
B. Yes, but only occasionally (10%)
C. No (68%)

3. You hear or hear about a song that you think youíd like to have. Is it OK to burn a copy of that song from a CD that a good friend bought?

A. Yes, always (53%)
B. Yes, but only occasionally (17%)
C. No (30%)

4. You hear or hear about an album that you think youíd like to have. Is it OK to burn a copy of that album from a CD that a friend bought?

A. Yes, always (43%)
B. Yes, but only occasionally (16%)
C. No (42%)

5. You bought the vinyl LP years ago. Now you no longer have a turntable. Is it OK to download the album or burn a copy from a friend's CD without paying for it?

A. Yes, you paid for the music once and that's enough (75%)
B. No, you should pay again in order to have the music in a new format. (25%)

6. You bought the CD a year ago, but now itís lost or ruined. Is it OK to download the album or burn a copy from a friend's CD without paying for it?

A. Yes, you paid for the music once and that's enough (74%)
B. No, it's still stealing. (26%)

7. You love the CD you bought by the hot new pop star. Is it OK to burn a copy of the CD for your friends?

A. Yes, for 20 or more friends (15%)
B. Yes, but only for 10 to 20 friends (0%)
C. Yes, but only for fewer than 10 friends (4%)
D. Yes, but only for fewer than five friends (22%)
E. Yes, but only for just one friend (13%)
F. No. Friends should buy their own copy of the music and support the artist (45%)

8. You love the CD you bought by the local struggling musician Is it OK to burn a copy of the CD for your friends?

A. Yes, for 20 or more friends (14%)
B. Yes, but only for 10 to 20 friends (1%)
C. Yes, but only for fewer than 10 friends (3%)
D. Yes, but only for fewer than five friends (14%)
E. Yes, but only for one friend (11%)
F. No. Friends should buy their own copy of the music and support the struggling artist (58%)

9. A friend tells you she loves the new CD she bought by the hot new pop star, and offers you a pirated copy. Is it OK to take it?

A. Yes, always (33%)
B. Yes, every so often, as long as you don't make a habit of it. (11%)
C. Yes, but only if it inspires you later to buy a different album by that same artist (4%)
D. Yes, but only on the condition that if you like it, you'll buy the album later (8%)
E. No. You should ask to borrow the original so you can try before buying (28%)
F. No. You should write down the title and artist name and buy the album yourself (16%)

10. A friend tells you she loves the new CD by the local struggling musician and offers you a pirated copy? Is it OK to take it?

A. Yes, always (24%)
B. Yes, every so often, as long as you don't make a habit of it. (8%)
C. Yes, but only if it inspires you later to buy a different album by that same artist (5%)
D. Yes, but only on the condition that if you like it, you'll buy the album later (11%)
E. No. You should ask to borrow the original so you can try before buying (33%)
F. No. You should write down the title and artist name and buy the album yourself (18%)

11. Is it OK to use your VCR to create videotape library of episodes of your favorite TV programs for your personal use, even though the studios sell such libraries?

A. Yes (93%)
B. No (7%)

12. Is it OK to use your VCR to create videotape library of episodes of your favorite TV programs and then lend or give those tapes to friends?

A. Yes, to 20 or more friends (40%)
B. Yes, but only to 10 - 20 friends (1%)
C. Yes, but as long as it's to fewer than 10 friends (5%)
D. Yes, but as long as it's to fewer than five friends (18%)
E. Yes, but as long as it's for just to one friend (13%)
F. No. (24%)

13. Does it make any difference, above, if the program was on free TV as opposed to on a subscription service, such as HBO, to which your friend does not subscribe?

A. No, the principle is the same and it's always OK (54%)
B. No, the principle is the same and it's sometimes OK, depending on the number of friends involved (15%)
C. Yes: HBO is OK, but people should make their own free-TV program anthologies (3%)
D. Yes: Free TV is OK, but no one should be allowed to freeload off HBO or the like. (8%)
E. No, it's never OK (19%)

14. You read a fabulous column in the newspaper. Is it OK to make photocopies and pass or mail them around to friends and neighbors?

A. Yes, for 20 or more copies (54%)
B. Yes, but only for 10 to 20 copies. (3%)
C. Yes, but only for fewer than 10 copies (6%)
D. Yes, but only for fewer than five copies (15%)
E. Yes, but only one copy (6%)
F. No. (17%)

15. You read a fabulous work of short fiction in a published anthology Is it OK to make several dozen photocopies and pass or mail them around?

A. Yes, for 20 or more copies (27%)
B. Yes, but only for 10 to 20 copies. (2%)
C. Yes, but only for fewer than 10 copies (5%)
D. Yes, but only for fewer than five copies (11%)
E. Yes, but only one copy (6%)
F. No. (49%)

16. Does it make any difference, in the above question, if the work of fiction is novel-length?

A. No, it's still OK (34%)
B. Yes, copying a novel is wrong, but copying a short story is OK (16%)
C. No, it's still wrong (50%)

17. Does it make any difference, when it comes to copying material that's still under copyright, whether it's out of print or otherwise difficult if not impossible to purchase?

A. No, it's OK no matter what (29%)
B. Yes. If you can't buy it, it's OK to copy it. (45%)
C. No, it's still wrong (27%)

18. You read a compelling article on a magazineís website. Is it OK to copy the text electronically and paste it into e-mail to friends?

A. Yes, to 20 or more friends (49%)
B. Yes, but only to 10 - 20 friends (2%)
C. Yes, but only to fewer than 10 friends (4%)
D. Yes, but only to fewer than five friends (9%)
E. Yes, but only to one friend (4%)
F. No. Websites depend on visitors for revenue. Send your friends the address of the site. (32%)

19. You read a compelling article on a magazineís website. Is it OK to cut and paste the text electronically and post it to an online message board?

A. Yes (28%)
B. No. You can summarize and post brief excerpts, but you should post the web address, not the article (72%)

20. In the above examples, does it make a difference if the website is free to all or available only to paid subscribers?

A. No. Information wants to be free. Send it around. Post it at will. (31%)
B. Yes. If the site is free, send the URL. If it's paid-access, send the text. (20%)
C. Yes. If the site is paid-access, don't try to send the article around. (21%)
D. No, it's always wrong. (28%)

21. Is it OK for the owner of a business to play a music radio station over the intercom to provide background entertainment for employees and customers?

A. Yes, always (71%)
B. Yes, but only if it's a small business. (10%)
C. No, not without paying royalties to the musicians' unions. (19%)

22. You rent a movie from the video palace. Is it OK to show it at a meeting of your club?

A. Yes, always (63%)
B. Yes, but only if the club has 25 or fewer members. (5%)
C. Yes, but only if the club has 10 or fewer members (6%)
D. No. The video is rented for home viewing only, not for showing at a club, no matter how small. (26%)

23. You rent a movie from the video palace and must return it before you can watch it. Is it OK to dub a copy to watch later at your convenience?

A. Yes, you paid for it. (35%)
B. Yes, but only if you erase the copy of the movie after you view it. (17%)
C. No. (48%)

24. You check out a movie from the library and must return it before you can watch it. Is it OK to dub a copy to watch at your convenience?

A. Yes, always (38%)
B. Yes, but only if you erase the copy of the movie after you view it. (16%)
C. No. (46%)

25. A friend offers you a copy of a bootleg recording made at a concert with the permission of the band. Is it OK to take it?

A. Yes. The recording isn't for sale anyway, and it will improve your relationship with the artist. (45%)
B. Yes if he wants to give it to you. No if he wants to sell it to you. (39%)
C. No. Such recordings deprive artists of a market for their own, sanctioned live recordings. (16%)

26. Has the recent publicity about music piracy, file-sharing and so on changed your views about what is and isn't "fair use" of copyrighted material?

A. No, I remain aggressively opposed to attempts to limit my ability to acquire and disseminate material at will. (32%)
B. Yes. Although I'll continue to dabble in everyday copyright violations, I will be thinking twice as I do. (23%)
C. Yes, I'm cutting way back and being much more careful because, hey, it's only right. (11%)
D. Yes, I'm cutting way back and being much more careful because, hey, I might get sued. (9%)
E. Yes, I'm going to be as scrupulous as possible from now on. (14%)
F. Yes, I'm going to be as scrupulous as possible from now on and I plan to destroy all illicit copies in my possession.. (4%)
G. No, I followed the copyright laws before and I'm following them now (6%)

27. How do your feelings about the business / industry behind the artist influence your decision about whether or not to pay for the use of copyrighted material?

A. Not at all. I use what I want and try never to pay. (11%)
B. If an industry has been ripping off the consumer and the artist for years, I'm more likely to try not to pay. (50%)
C. Not at all. Stealing is stealing. Two wrongs don't make a right. (39%)

28. When it comes to everyday copyright dilemmas such as these, how do your beliefs ñ the dictates of your Better Self ñ square with your actual behavior?

A. They are in sync. I take what I can and I believe it's OK (19%)
B. They are not in sync. I believe I should be violating copyright more often than I do (11%)
C. They are not in sync. I violate copyright more than I should. My Better Self reproves me. (38%)
D. They are in sync. I respect copyright and make every effort never to violate it. (32%)

Whoopsie! RIAA withdraws suit

Gosh, looks like the recording industry wasn't all that careful when it picked out some of its initial legal targets. Turns out, the Boston Globe reports, that one of its targets wasn't a file-trader at all. And now they've withdrawn their suit.

Mary has more at bIPlog.

Jury convicts man in DMCA case

CNET News.com:

A federal jury has convicted a Florida man of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, in the first jury-trial conviction under the controversial law, according to a U.S. attorney's office.

The Los Angeles jury found 38-year-old Thomas Michael Whitehead guilty on Friday of selling hardware that could access DirecTV satellite broadcasts without paying for them, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.

I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for people who pirate cable or satellite TV. On the other hand, surely this was illegal before the DMCA?

File traders get kick out of soccer flick

Wired News:

Among the top 10 movies downloaded on the Internet in August were the usual blockbusters: Pirates of the Caribbean, The Hulk, Matrix Reloaded ... and Shaolin Soccer.

A comedy about a group of Shaolin monks who blend their kung fu skills with soccer is a smash hit with file sharers (watch the trailer). ...

Fans of the Kung Fu genre have been waiting for Shaolin Soccer for months. Miramax has postponed its release date at least three times. Originally released in Cantonese with English subtitles, the film was dubbed into English for U.S. audiences. Now, the studio intends to release the movie in the original form with English subtitles instead.

A Miramax spokesman said that the company is looking for the right time to release the film to give it the best chance of success in the market. There's no set release date at the moment.

Hitler at home and other Internet adventures

The Sunday New York Times carried an interesting article about the power of the Internet as a distribution medium, even against the powers of copyright interests. Case in point: A 1938 article in Homes & Gardens, a British magazine, that featured Hitler's mountain retreat in the Bavarian Alps. It showed up on the Net, despite protests from the magazine.

Excerpt:

The episode is an object lesson in the topsy-turvy world of copyright and "fair use" ó an area made far murkier by the distributive power of the Internet and the subsequent crisscrossing of international legal codes. In the United States, the posting would most likely be considered fair use, said Wendy Seltzer, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. "Reprinting the article now, 65 years after its original publication, strikes me as more like reporting or commenting on a news story, or fair use, than photocopying a current scientific article to save the cost of buying more magazines," she said.

Also from the Times: Students Shall Not Download. Yeah, Sure.

And this, appearing Monday in the Times, which has suddenly discovered IP issues: Music's Struggle With Technology. The current fight over file-trading technology resembles a grand battle in the 1990's over encryption technology.

Think Debate on Music Property Rights Began With Napster? Hardly. The music industry has grappled with the uncertainties wrought by new technologies for over a century.

Musicians on the RIAA and file trading

The other day I mentioned Ken Layne's pointer to a posting by Marc Brazeau about the RIAA and music file sharing. The pointer wasn't working. Now it is.

Studios sue DVD software maker

Wired News: Paramount Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox sued Tritton Technologies on Wednesday, accusing the company of distributing software that can crack technology used to prevent unlawful copying of DVDs.

Is it wrong to share music?

Katie Hafner in the New York Times: "Is It Wrong to Share Your Music? (Discuss)" (It's an article, not a discussion forum.)

I'm using a Userland RSS/NY Times link for the first time. With some articles, the different url means it's accessible after the regular version hits the pay archives. We'll see. (I'll have to check back in eight days, a month or longer to see if this is worth doing.)

Mary at bIPlog reminded me that I should do this more often by trolling this Userland partners directory, which is updated daily.

Insiders blamed for movie piracy

New Scientist: Insiders blamed for most online movie piracy.

Digital music copying legal in Canada

Tech Central Station: Digital music copying legal in Canada.

Digital rights bill introduced

Electronic Frontier Foundation: Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) today introduced the Consumers, Schools, and Libraries Digital Rights Management (DRM) Awareness Act of 2003. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) supports the bill as an important step toward balancing the rights of the public and the interests of entertainment industries in the age of digital commerce.

IBM prepares lockbox for home networks

News.com: IBM is readying a digital rights management strategy for securing content everywhere from Hollywood to Wall Street.

This is potentially significant, though it may be too early to say whether the DRM involved will be flexible enough to appeal to customers. I wish the article mentioned similar initiatives at other companies and quoted someone with a more skeptical eye.

Howard Dean, Larry Lessig and the DMCA

The Village Voice on Howard Dean, Larry Lessig and the DMCA.

On the surface, at least, Dean's campaign is operating very much in sync with the idea of the creative commons. His campaign manager, Joe Trippi, a software industry insider and a self-described avid reader of blogs, extols the virtues of Dean's "bottom-up" strategy over "broadcast politics."

An in-depth look at file sharing

A four-part (badly linked) package on file sharing in the Sunday NY Times:

• File-Sharing Battle Leaves Musicians Caught in Middle

• Beyond File-Sharing, a Nation of Copiers

• The Sharing Society: Whatever Will Be Will Be Free on the Internet.

• The Music Industry Reveals Its Carrots and Sticks

Apple sues Apple

More legal madness: Remember the Beatles' old Apple label? They're suing Apple Computer because the computer company has the audacity to get into the digital music field.

Germany toughens copyright laws

DW-World: Computer addicts nonchalantly offering and downloading music and films on the Internet in Germany now face legal crackdown as the countryís new copyright law comes into effect this weekend.

Copy-protected CDs move ahead

News.com: Copy-protected CDs take step forward.

Two views of the file sharing wars

Scott Matthews wrote this essay in Salon: Copying isn't cool. File sharing isn't just a problem for the music industry. It's a threat to anyone who depends upon intellectual property for a living.

And the EFF wrote a response: File sharing must be made legal. (If you don't subscribe to Salon, a one-day pass is easily obtained.)

Can rip-proof CDs save the music biz?

Business 2.0 story on the CNN.com site (so no subscription needed): Can rip-proof CDs save the music biz? Coming soon: The untouchable compact disc.

Ideas as property

Corante's Jonathan Peterson writes about Ideas as Property -- the Big Lie of Big Content. Why suing a 12-year-old girl for sharing her record collection is not the same as protecting your barn from intruders. Thanks to Doc for the pointer.

The BBC's lessons for US media

New dad Larry Lessig had a good essay earlier this week in the Financial Times:
The BBC's lessons for America. Didn't take long for Larry to latch on to the BBC Creative Archive as a lesson for US media companies.

FCC OKs new rules for digital television

San Jose Mercury News: FCC OKs new rules for digital television.

... The agency also adopted rules clarifying consumers' rights to make copies of digital programming, a hotly debated issue that has pitted Hollywood against consumer electronics manufacturers. ...

The digital copying agreement would allow consumers to freely make copies of over-the-air broadcasts for personal use. It sets tighter restrictions for making copies of programming on premium services and prevents copying of pay-per-view programming.

No mention of the broadcast flag. I'll post something later today if the EFF or DigitalConsumer.org have an update.

Digital Freedom Update

Bill Hobbs has this Digital Freedom Update about the Super-DMCA making its way through the Tennessee legislature.

Profiling the music pirates

CNN/Money: A new survey finds that just 10 percent of Web users hold three quarters of downloaded music files.

Almost two-thirds of Americans with Internet access have at least one digital music file on their computer but most downloaded music is held by a relatively small group of users, according to a study released Thursday.

Plus, this: The Kazaa conundrum. The RIAA's lawsuits have split the broadband ISP industry and will likely split investors as well.

EFF: RIAA amnesty 'a sham'

Fred von Lohmann, senior intellectual property attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (whom I interviewed a couple of months back for my book), has a commentary in today's LA Times: 'Amnesty' for Music File Sharing Is a Sham.

A 'sniffer' tool for copyright infringement

Business Wire (Sept. 10, 2003): WeComply, Inc., a leading provider of online training for corporate employees, announces the release of "Copyright Law Basics," an online training program designed to help companies control digital piracy by their employees and avoid possible civil and criminal liability. The program includes a digital "sniffer" that enables employees to catalog questionable files on their computers and delete those that are unlicensed.

Suit filed against RIAA's amnesty program

A lawsuit was filed today on behalf of the general public of the State of California against the RIAA for unfair, deceptive, and unlawful business practices regarding its "Clean Slate" program. Said attorney Ira P. Rothken: "This lawsuit below seeks a remedy to stop the RIAA from engaging in unlawful, misleading, and fraudulent business practices including advertising an 'Amnesty Program' to members of the general public that does not provide real amnesty from being sued and a 'Clean Slate Program' that does not provide a real 'clean slate.' "

Here is a copy of the lawsuit (PDF) filed today in Marin County Superior Court.

Flansburgh, Cannon face off over file sharing

PBS' NewsHour had a pretty entertaining back and forth tonight between John Flansburgh of the seminal band They Might Be Giants and Chuck Cannon of the Nashville Underground, representing the music publishers, on -- what else? -- the Recording Industry Association of America's decision to sue hundreds of music file sharers.

Said Flansburgh at one point: "I think there is a real generation gap between the record industry and record consumers. The kids who are downloading MP-3s don't even feel as guilty as they would if they were stealing penny candy. They feel so alienated from the music business and all the money related to the music business."

RIAA sues 12-year-old

Fox News: 12-year-old sued for music downloading.

Later: Less than a day after filing suit against the 12-year-old girl and her mother, the RIAA settled the claim -- for $2,000.

We don't need your stinkin' amnesty!

Some friends and acquaintances are quoted in Salon today in the story "We don't need your stinkin' amnesty!" File sharers scoff at the recording industry's offer of forgiveness for repentant downloaders.

Among those interviewed: Lisa Rein, Mary Hodder of Berkeley IP Blog fame, Joseph Lorenzo Hall and Eric Olsen of Blogcritics.org .

Can the music revolution be slowed?

Jon Healey in today's LA Times: Legal Effort May Slow but Not Stop Music Revolution. Fans will find other ways to copy songs if file sharing is blocked, critics say.

... Some critics say the major record companies are trying to slow the online music revolution when they should be capitalizing on it by taking the music business to the masses. That means allowing the copying of an unlimited number of songs for a reasonable monthly fee that would encourage people to be paying customers, instead of pirates.

"We have to get to the place where we can collect the money, but we can't control the business," music publisher Jim Griffin of Cherry Lane Digital said at a recent industry conference.

Label executives offer a slew of reasons not to go that route. For one thing, they say, file sharers never would accept a monthly fee high enough to pay for all the music, movies and games they download. Record companies have begun talking to the file-sharing companies about offering services that pay royalties to artists, but in the meantime the industry is escalating the technological arms race against unauthorized copying. ...

Will Europe's Copyright Directive mirror DMCA?

New Scientist: The proposed European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) could have consequences similar to the highly controversial US law, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Associated Press's digital challenge

Missed this the other week from Editor & Publisher: The Associated Press plans "to transform the news service to meet the challenges of the electronic age."

CEO Tom Curley says of the new electronicAP: "We are transforming the AP from a wire service, which we've been for 150 years ... to an interactive database and news network that connects us, and not just connects us technically, but more importantly connects our common business and journalistic goals."

Over at bIPlog, Mary Hodder observes: "Sounds great, except this: Curley said that to increase revenues, the AP must expand its foreign presence, photo services, and revenue from the Internet, while increasing anti-piracy protection from those who would use AP's product without paying for it. Huh? I'm sorry, but that's absolutely hilarious."

AP is probably the ultimate poster child for content that's freely available everywhere. How are they going to lock text down with DRM?

Moby's advice to the music industry

[1 - An online store should offer digital downloads of music under these criteria:] a-the price needs to come down b-the value needs to increase c-the product has to be easy to acquire.

2-sell cd's at two retail prices ... sell your basic cd for $5 or $6 with very minimal packaging, and sell an enhanced cd package for $15 that would include bonus discs and posters and free access to on-line material and discounts on concert tickets, etc.

3-stop spending insane amounts of money making records and videos. ...

4-stop putting out shitty records. ...

5-stop persecuting people who are music fans. people who engage in file-sharing are people who like music. you can't make people feel guilty about loving and listening to music. the record companies need to see people who engage in file-sharing as music fans and not as criminals. and then they need to try to convince people to spend a little bit of money for music (with added value) rather than downloading it for free.

record companies and rich musicians complaining about file-sharing rings terribly false with most people. i mean, how can a 14 year old who has an allowance of $5 a week feel bad about downloading music produced by multi-millionaire musicians and greedy record companies?

Eminently sensible advice.

RIAA sues 261 file sharers

The Recording Industry of America today began suing hundreds of music file sharers. I haven't been able to get onto the RIAA site all morning -- either it's extremely busy or they're under attack.

CNET News.com: RIAA sues 261 file swappers.

Here's what the Slashdotters and some Guntella News readers have to say, as well as a Gnutella News spoof about a proprietary peer-to-peer application beging developed by the Big Five music labels. Here's some Gnutella News advice on what to do about the RIAA's proposed amnesty deal.

And below is the RIAA's press release announcing their legal assault. They also rounded up a number of music publishers and songwriters who suggest "zero tolerance" for the file-sharing movement:

RECORDING INDUSTRY BEGINS SUING P2P FILE SHARERS WHO ILLEGALLY OFFER
COPYRIGHTED MUSIC ONLINE

Will Agree Not to Sue P2P Users Who Voluntarily Pledge to Stop Distributing
Music Illegally

Copyright Infringement Claims Filed Against Hundreds of Major Offenders In First Round of Potentially Thousands of Lawsuits

Lawsuits Part of Industry's Multi-Prong Approach That Includes New Business Models and Education

WASHINGTON (September 8, 2003) The Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) announced today that its member companies have filed the
first wave of what could ultimately be thousands of civil lawsuits against
major offenders who have been illegally distributing substantial amounts
(averaging more than 1,000 copyrighted music files each) of copyrighted
music on peer-to-peer networks. The RIAA emphasized that these lawsuits
have come only after a multi-year effort to educate the public about the
illegality of unauthorized downloading and noted that major music companies
have made vast catalogues of music available to dozens of new high-quality,
low-cost, legitimate online services.

At the same time, the RIAA announced that the industry is prepared to grant
what amounts to amnesty to P2P users who voluntarily identify themselves
and pledge to stop illegally sharing music on the Internet. The RIAA will
guarantee not to sue file sharers who have not yet been identified in any
RIAA investigations and who provide a signed and notarized affidavit in
which they promise to respect recording-company copyrights.

"For those who want to wipe the slate clean and to avoid a potential
lawsuit, this is the way to go," said Mitch Bainwol, RIAA Chairman and
CEO. "We want to send a strong message that the illegal distribution of
copyrighted works has consequences, but if individuals are willing to step
forward on their own, we want to go the extra step and extend them this
option."

"Nobody likes playing the heavy and having to resort to litigation," said
RIAA president Cary Sherman. "But when your product is being regularly
stolen, there comes a time when you have to take appropriate action. We
simply cannot allow online piracy to continue destroying the livelihoods of
artists, musicians, songwriters, retailers, and everyone in the music
industry."

Since the recording industry stepped up the enforcement phase of its
education program, public awareness that it is illegal to make copyrighted
music available online for others to download has risen sharply in recent
months. According to a recent survey by Peter D. Hart Research Associates,
fully 61% of those polled in August admitted they knew such behavior was
against the lawup from 54 percent in July and 37 percent in early June,
prior to the announcement.

"We've been telling people for a long time that file sharing copyrighted
music is illegal, that you are not anonymous when you do it, and that
engaging in it can have real consequences," said Sherman. "And the message
is beginning to be heard. More and more P2P users are realizing that there
are dozens of legal ways to get music online, and they are beginning to
migrate to legitimate services. We hope to encourage even the worst
offenders to change their behavior, and acquire the music they want through
legal means."

Over the past year, the RIAA has also worked closely with the university
community to combat piracy. In recognition of the seriousness of the
problem, colleges across the country are implementing new restrictionsand
issuing severe warningsto discourage the swapping of pirated music and
movies over high-speed campus Internet connections.

Additional education efforts include more than four million Instant
Messages sent since May directly to infringers on the Kazaa and Grokster
networks warning them that they are not anonymous when they illegally offer
copyrighted music on these networks and that they could face legal action
if they didn't stop. The RIAA sent such a warning notice to virtually every
Kazaa and Grokster user who was sued today.

"Obviously, these individuals decided to continue to offer copyrighted
music illegally notwithstanding the warnings," said Sherman. "We hope that
today's actions will convince doubters that we are serious about protecting
our rights."

In today's first round of lawsuits, RIAA member companies filed copyright
infringement claims against more than 250 individual file sharers.

The RIAA announced on June 25 that it would be gathering evidence in order
to bring lawsuits in September against computer users who illegally
distribute copyrighted music through such peer-to-peer file distribution
networks as Kazaa and Grokster. Individuals caught distributing copyrighted
files on Kazaa, Grokster, Imesh, Gnutella, and Blubster were targeted in
this initial round.

Since it announced its lawsuit plans, the RIAA has been contacted by a
number of illegal file sharers expressing concern over their actions and
wanting to know what they could do to avoid being sued. In response, the
RIAA has decided not to pursue users who step forward before being targeted
for past illegal sharing of copyrighted works. Instead, those who want to
start fresh will be asked to sign a declaration pledging they will delete
all illegally obtained music files from their hard drives and never again
digitally distribute or download music illegally. Detailed information on
how to apply and qualify for this amnesty is available at the web site
www.musicunited.org.

Over the past year, an unprecedented campaign by a coalition of
songwriters, recording artists, music publishers, retailers, and record
companies has heightened music fans' awareness of the devastating impact of
illegal file sharing. A series of print and broadcast ads featuring top
recording artists, as well as numerous press interviews by music industry
figures, have conveyed the message that file sharing not only robs
songwriters and recording artists of their livelihoods, it also undermines
the future of music itself by depriving the industry of the resources it
needs to find and develop new talent. In addition, it threatens the jobs
of tens of thousands of less celebrated people in the music industry, from
engineers and technicians to warehouse workers and record store clerks.

At the same time, the industry has responded to consumer demand by making
its music available to a wide range of authorized online subscription,
streaming and download services that make it easier than ever for fans to
get music legally and inexpensively on the Internet. These services also
offer music reliably, with the highest sound quality, and without the risks
of exposure to viruses or other undesirable material.

Federal law and the federal courts have been quite clear on what
constitutes illegal behavior when it comes to "sharing" music files on the
Internet. It is illegal to make available for download copyrighted works
without permission of the copyright owner. Court decisions have affirmed
this repeatedly. In the recent Grokster decision, for example, the court
confirmed that Grokster users were guilty of copyright infringement. And in
last year's Aimster decision, the judge wrote that the idea that "ongoing,
massive, and unauthorized distribution and copying of copyrighted works
somehow constitutes
'personal use' is specious and unsupported."

A number of other music community leaders expressed support for strong
enforcement against egregious instances of copyright theft.

Bart Herbison, Executive Director, Nashville Songwriters Association
International:
"When someone steals a song on the Internet it is not a victimless
crime. Songwriters pay their rent, medical bills and children's'
educational expenses with royalty income. That income has been
dramatically impacted by illegal downloading, so many have reassessed their
careers as songwriters. It breaks my heart that songwriters are choosing
other professions because they cannot earn a living in great part due to
illegal downloading."

Thomas F. Lee, President, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada: "No one is eager to see copyright infringement lawsuits against
individuals. But copyright infringement hurts many thousands of other
individuals. Most musicians who depend on CD sales and legal downloading
are not wealthy mega-celebrities. They are artists struggling to succeed
without a
'day job.' They are ordinary session musicians who depend on
union-negotiated payments that fall drastically when sales fall. They are
songwriters who depend on royalties to put food on the table. The AFM has
said it before: Musicians make music for love, but they can't afford to do
it without an income. The AFM urges all music fans to support artists by
using only legal means to distribute and obtain music."

Lamont Dozier, Legendary songwriter:
"I wish people who are practicing illegal file sharing would stop for a
moment and think about the damage that is being done here, and step in the
shoes of people who have families and children, who have been laid off from
jobs they've held for over 20 years. In a time where jobs are very hard to
come by, and you find yourself forced to be un-employed, because the
business is falling apart, deals aren't being made, record stores are
closing, lay-offs are happening world-wide in every aspect of music, from
cd packers to guitar players to secretarys to hopeful songwriters and
artists, who will not have a music industry any longer., People are being
lied to about the damage that piracy and illegal file sharing is doing to
our country, not just to the music industry, but it is effecting every
aspect of our lives. Each business in this country is linked to each other,
and all industries are failing and the economy is falling apart. Illegal
file sharing is one of these cancerous straws that are breaking the camel's
back."

Frances W. Preston, President of BMI:
"Illegal downloading of music is theft, pure and simple. It robs
songwriters, artists, and the industry that supports them or their property
and their livelihood. Ironically, those who steal music are stealing the
future creativity they so passionately crave. We must end the destructive
cycle now."

Rick Carnes, President, Songwriters Guild of America:
"It breaks my heart to see the great songs of American songwriters
electronically shoplifted by the millions every day. Like everyone else,
songwriters can't make a living if we aren't paid for our hard work. We
have done all that we could to educate and warn the public that rampant
internet piracy is killing our music. Anyone still sharing copyrighted
music files without the permission of the copyright holder should know what
they are doing is not only wrong, it is illegal."

National Association of Recording Merchandisers:
"NARM believes the RIAA has the right to act on behalf of copyright holders
and recording artists to protect their rights, their interests and their
creative works as the law provides."

Gary Himelfarb, President, RAS Records:
"In 1981, as an aspiring entrepreneur and reggae music lover, I started a
small label (RAS Records) in the basement of my home right outside of
Washington DC. I did this, like so many other independent label owners (of
which there are literally thousands of-as compared to only 4 majors) not to
make millions of dollars, but instead to create music which I loved and to
have a profession that I loved doing each day.

"Over the years we created over three hundred full length CDs and I have
been able to support myself and my wife and two kids. I have always
considered myself to be very fortunate to do what I love, fairly compensate
the artists and writers I work with and build a company that has respect
and integrity within the music industry.

"The way independent labels have always made money is by selling catalog,
since we are not able to promote our songs on radio and create hits, like
the majors. The majors, although they also over time create impressive
catalogs, depend on the sales of
'hit' records to generate the income they
need to run their companies. We independents have always depended on
catalog sales.

"We have always had consistent sales of our catalog titles, even if a
release was 10 years old. Since the invention of Napster and other illegal
file sharing activities, the independent labels have experienced a serious
drop in the sales of our catalogs. It is not mere coincidence that this
drop off has occurred concurrently with the advent of peoples ability to
get music for free on the Internet.

"As an independent label owner who has now seen my sales consistently
shrink from year to year, I am firmly against the activities of people and
companies who allow my music to be illegally downloaded on the Internet. I
am strongly in favor of allowing legal websites to offer my music for a
fair price (and sometimes even free-with my prior permission) and look
forward to participating in the legal digital distribution of music.

"If it is necessary to prosecute those who are purposely sharing large
numbers of music files without regard for the artists, writers and labels
that work so hard day in and day out, then so be it. If we do not get this
problem under control, the public will suffer as less entrepreneurs like
myself will be willing to invest their time or money into creating music
catalogs for the world to enjoy."

Bill Velez, President and COO, SESAC:
"In the current atmosphere of widespread online copyright piracy, SESAC
endorses efforts to protect the livelihoods of songwriters and music
publishers and the sanctity of intellectual property."

Bruce Iglauer, President, Alligator Records:
"No one is hurt more by the illegal
'sharing' of copyrighted music than
the independent artist and the independent record label. The struggling
indies already occupy a much smaller market share than the majors. The
independents' loss of income from the elimination of even a small number of
sales can be the difference between whether much independent music is
recorded or not. If this proliferation of the theft of the creations of
artists continues, less and less music will be recorded. The public must
be educated about the real results stealing music from its creators.

"It is unfortunate that the problem of illegal
'sharing' of copyrighted
music has grown to the point where legal action is necessary, but that is
the case. Until such time as the public is jarred into awareness, it is
the sad necessity that the people who create and own the music must
aggressively defend themselves from having their creations stolen."

Sharon Corbitt, Nashville Studio Manager:
"As studio manager of Ocean Way Nashville and my 19 years on Music Row, I
have seen our industry go through many changes. We are faced with even
larger obstacles than ever due to the illegal downloading of music on the
internet. It may seem extreme to people to pursue legally those who
continue to "illegally obtain music on a daily basis" . Illegal downloading
of music is the same as someone walking into your home and stealing
something that you had created and was of value. People make their livings
creating music. The cost of a recording is covered by that recording being
sold to consumers. In the end, the consumer suffers from illegal
downloading because proper funding will not be available to cover the cost
to produce that recording.

"A songwriter has a job just like an electrician or a computer programmer.
They sit down and write songs in the hopes that their creation will be
recorded by an artist and eventually purchased by the consumer. That's how
they make their money. By illegally downloading music we are effecting the
creation of the music itself. The quality of music will suffer and the
consumer will in return suffer. Music is healing. You would only want the
best medicine and doctors to fight a disease. Illegal downloading is not
allowing the
'best cure' to find its way to the person seeking healing.
Something has got to change or we are all going to regret what the final
outcome will be, no more quality music, fewer healing words..."

Courtney Proffitt, Executive Director of the Association for Independent Music: "The Association for Independent Music has been educating people for the past year that online music piracy is hurting everyone in the music industry not just the major labels. The independent sector has been hard hit the past few years, even though this is the sector that often has the most innovative and creative music production. The small indie labels are struggling to promote and sell their music, in order to stay in business. If they are not getting paid for the music they create, they cannot continue to operate. This results in a loss to our overall culture.

"Many talented musicians are no longer receiving royalty payments that they have been depending upon as income. These royalty payments were supporting them and helping them to continue their craft: creating new music for the public's enjoyment. With the loss of this revenue, many musicians have had to quit and find "day jobs" to make a living. I consider this to be a loss for everyone.

"Additionally, my organization has independent music retail as members. Many of the independent music stores have lost revenue due to illegal downloading, and loss of customer base. They are having trouble continuing to stay in business as the "local record store." Many have been forced to close their doors due to this downturn in business, and it also affects the economy of the community where they are located.

"I urge people to be aware of this situation, and the consequences that are the result of illegal downloading of music. It is not just hurting an anonymous "music industry". It is hurting real people such as the artists who create the music, people who promote and distribute the music, all the way to the music store clerk who works at your local music retailer."

Chuck Cannon, President, Wacissa River Music, Incorporated: "I'm a professional songwriter. This means I provide for my family by receiving a royalty when a CD containing one of my songs sells. This also means if you acquire possession of one of my songs without paying for it, you have intercepted my paycheck. That makes you a criminal.

"If you engage in illegal downloading, that is, if you download a song without paying for it, you are a common thief. If you allow your children to engage in illegal downloading, you are telling them 'in our home, thievery is acceptable.' If you are a college administrator and you turn a blind eye to illegal downloading on your campus, you are encouraging larceny in your hallowed halls of education."

Mike Negra, President, Mike's Video:
"Mike's Video continues to see the effects of illegal downloading and burning. Our chain has shrunk from five stores to one, resulting in a loss of 12 music-oriented jobs and over $2 million dollars a year in music revenue. Even with that consolidation, we face an uncertain future due to the core customers of our town, 42,000 Penn State University students. This year's results to date show sales down 45% overall versus 2002. The single store comparable is down 6.2%.

"The message of zero tolerance towards digital thievery needs to be delivered to those who continue to ignore the obvious. The facts of the situation are people are buying less music and record stores are going out of business. This is a direct result of illegal downloading and burning and is especially prevalent in college towns such as State College.

"The story of stores like Mike's is being played out across the country next to or on college campuses. It is one the downloading public isn't aware of or concerned about. I applaud the effort the RIAA has given this problem but I don't believe either of us are satisfied with the results. The continuation of lawsuits and awareness towards the overall ill effects throughout the industry is paramount if we hope to save the industry we all love.

"I'm willing to do whatever it takes to help save or reshape the music business and change the attitudes that exist. Maybe it will help personalize the deep effects this so-called victimless crime has had."

Cecilia Carter, the R&B Foundation:
"The R&B Foundation provides medical and financial assistance to older musicians. Many of the people we serve can barely survive without our help and the few dollars they receive from royalty payments. The downloading and sharing of music files, negatively impacts the amount of royalty payments received by our artists. Although the amount of money may seem insignificant at the time you are getting it for free, it can mean the difference in a musician's ability to pay rent or face homelessness. We strongly support the music industry's effort to stop free downloading and file sharing. It is a matter of survival to our constituents."

John W. Styll, President, Gospel Music Association:
"The gospel music community has not been immune from the financial damage caused by those who illegally obtain music through downloading. Some may argue that it is an act of ministry to give Christian music away. The GMA certainly believes that it is good for people to be exposed to the message of gospel music, just as it would be good for people to read the Bible, but stealing either music or Bibles cannot be justified. It's unfortunate that the music industry has had to resort to prosecution to deter theft, but there seems to be no other choice and thus we lend our support. And as believers in the concept of grace, we are glad to support the amnesty program as well."

Dale Mathews, President, Christian Music Publishers Association: "The surge and volume of illegal file-sharing over the past several years cry out for action rooted in strength. This latest legal action by the Music Coalition meets that criteria and is supported by the Church Music Publishers Association. We feel it is the small, grass roots writer who is most severely damaged by the all too common illegal acts of file-sharing."

Members of the Tennessee Songwriters Association:

Tom Mobley:
"It is, of course, illegal. It robs from everyone. Many great songs will never be heard because they will not be on a CD or cassette with a hit song. If a CD sells a million so does every song on it. If someone downloads only one song, the others will never be heard."

Jan Johnson:
"I am a songwriter, and even though I have not received any royalties to this date, I think it is so absolutely absurd that people have the mentality about using someone else's product for free."

Clark Snyder:
"I think we need TV and radio spots like Hollywood is doing for illegal movie downloading. Creating a legal downloading system is the key. I would infiltrate illegal sites with legal downloading options that pop up like some other sites are now doing effectively. More artists & writers need to tale the risk and stand up and take a public stand on this matter."

Donna DeSopo:
"Doesn't illegal say it all? This is against the law. Music is a creative intellectual property and the creators are entitled to earn a profit. They own it and no one should steal their work. Great music comes with a price, because it is priceless."

Harry Date:
"It's wrong, but people won't stop doing it until they fear the penalty for doing so. The current industry approach is the correct response go after
them."

Ann Roux:
"I'd like to ask one question of those who defend this illegal activity. How would you like it if I just waltzed into your house and walked out carrying every belonging of yours I felt like owning and not paying for? That's how I feel about it."

D.R. Theroux:
"Illegal music downloading is a form of theft, the taking of intellectual property. Such theft degrades the songwriting profession greatly."

Donna Dean:
"More education is needed on illegal downloading to let people know that even though the record companies and recording artists may be filthy rich, most songwriters are not."

Rodney Hayden:
"Downloading music from the Internet is nothing more than stealing, plain and simple. It is also an easy way steal. It's about time people in the music industry come together and legally put an end to this abomination."

Hugh Prestwood, number-one Country Music hit songwriter:

Dear File-sharers,

What is becoming increasingly clear is that the great majority of you truly feel no guilt about the "sharing" of what I have created and own -- my music. You have lumped together many professions artists, songwriters, engineers, producers, publishers, etc. into one big ugly corporate caricature -- a rich and corrupt industry that can be stolen from remorselessly. Additionally, in your "yes, Virginia, there is a free lunch" mentality, you have unthinkingly devalued songs to the extent that you perceive them as trifles something of little value to be partaken and enjoyed at no cost. Moreover, you have unfairly condemned me and my record industry peers for bringing the law to bear against you. In classic "blame the victim" reasoning, you lay the responsibility for my losses at my feet, saying, in essence, that the problem is not your theft, but rather my inability to prevent it.

Well, file-sharers, I righteously say "bull." I, songwriter/publisher, labored for years to create those songs, and I really do legally own them. I not you -- have the right to control what happens to them, a right your technology does not trump. You are dead wrong to simply give my songs away and undermine my only chance to profit from my creations. Don't tell me that I should gracefully pardon your hand in my pocket. Don't insinuate to me that, because your thievery is so facile, perhaps I should find some other way to make a living. Your "hobby" is taking the bread off my table, and I have every right to use any and all legal means possible to discourage your destructive practices.

Let us come together. You often love what I create, and I need to make a living. I have been trying for several years now to find a way for us both to be happy where you can easily acquire my songs and I can be justly rewarded for my creativity. Try as I might, however, thus far I have been unable to find a way to compete with "free". You must help me.

First, you must wake up from your fantasy that songs should rightly be free, and that no one is being hurt by your theft. I and all my fellow songwriters (among others) are seeing our futures seriously threatened. Second, you must "raise your consciousness" to where you understand that a career in music is brutally serendipitous and difficult to maintain. The ability of artists and songwriters to have any kind of dependable, longer-term, income is entirely linked to their ability to control their copyrights. Without copyright protection, aspiring artists and songwriters had best not ever consider quitting their day jobs.

Finally, you must realize that in real life you really do get what you pay for. If you won't pay for music, you will soon be receiving a product commensurate with your thriftiness. A society that doesn't value a commodity enough to pay for it will soon see the creation and production of that commodity cease.

--Hugh Prestwood

Downloaders: Repent and get amnesty

Reuters: Internet users who promise to stop illegally copying music will be able to avoid prosecution under an amnesty program to be unveiled by the recording industry next week, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Does the right of first sale still exist?

Here's someone who bought an (encrypted) iTunes song from Apple and is selling it on eBay. He wonders: Does the right of first sale still exist?

It's a peer-to-peer world

Siva Vaidhyanathan, an assistant professor of Culture and Communication at New York University and author of Copyrights and Copywrongs and next year's the forthcoming The Anarchist in the Library, wrote a four-part series this summer on "The new information ecosystem: cultures of anarchy and closure" for openDemocracy.net (I think a fifth part may still be coming).

This month he's answering questions about P2P and copyright on openDemocracy's discussion forums.

Colleges plan music services

Boston Globe: Colleges plan music services, would charge students fee to download tunes over schools' networks.

It's a worthy experiment. Let's see if it works.

The courts and DVD encryption

From CNN's Law Center: California's Supreme Court and the DVD encryption-cracking code.

Another DMCA claim against Google

Gary Price points me to a new Chilling Effects Clearinghouse news item: Westchester Life Magazine complains of copyright infringement and asks Google to remove offending material under the DMCA. As of this moment, still has the link to www.westerchester1.com in its database.

Google bows to DMCA pressure

vnunet.com:

Popular search engine Google has been sucked into the ongoing legal battle between the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) and peer-to-peer sites (P2P). Following a court ruling in favour of the RIAA, Sharman Networks, the developers of the popular Kazaa P2P site, sent a letter to Google requesting that it remove links to certain sites.

Fifteen sites are thought to be in breach of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and are said by Sharman Networks to be running unauthorised copies of its Kazaa P2P software.

The letter demanded that Google should "immediately remove or disable all access to the infringing material."

Google has now removed the URLs from its search listings. ...