Copyright vs. Privacy
The folks at the Center for Democracy and Technology favor changing the Digital Milennium Copyright Act so that big content providers (i.e., the entertainment industry) won't have the right to subpoena Internet Service Providers for the names of users suspected of illegally downloading copyrighted materials. As it stands now, media companies don't have to file a lawsuit to make the request.
Regardless of one's position on downloading, this case highlights the tensions between privacy and copyright--tensions that are growing as content providers become more active in going after alleged infringers. (Yes, a Reason feature story on this very topic is in the works.)
From a Cox News Service report published in the Grand Junction Sentinel:
Seven and a half billion music files on American computers are from peer networks, and 64 percent of households with Web access have at least one digital music file on their computers, according to the NPD Group, a market research company.
Most of the providers subpoenaed in July, including Atlanta-based BellSouth and Earthlink and New York-based Time Warner, have handed over more than a 1,000 customer names to the recording industry association. San Antonio- based SBC Communications, however, refused to hand over the information, saying the subpoenas violate its customers' privacy because the association only needs to allege wrongdoing to file a request.
"Once [the association] makes its filing and pays $25, due process and privacy are out the window," James Ellis, general counsel of SBC, told the panel. "It will be inevitable that the Internet stalker or child molester will use this approach to find victims."
William Barr, general counsel of Verizon, cited Titan Media as an example of a group exploiting the 1998 act. The group, a file sharing network for gay pornography, asked an ISP to hand over the identities of 59 users it suspected of illegally using its network. Titan withdrew the subpoena, but now requires Internet users to buy its material, threatening to use the subpoena process to disclose their identity, he said.
Brownback's legislation would require the copyright holder to file a lawsuit to obtain a customer's identity, not just hand over a document to a clerk.
Music industry leaders said that the Millennium copyright act allows them to enforce valuable copyrights, but does not give them far reaching powers. John Rose, executive vice president of recording company EMI, said it had cut its artist roster by a quarter last year, and laid off 20 percent of its workforce because of digital piracy.
"We are entitled only to name, address, phone number and e-mail," said Cary Sherman, president of the recording association. "That's the same information SBC and Yahoo routinely give out to marketing partners." Alternative proposals by SBC and Verizon would allow Titan to acquire the same information, he said.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So if they're only asking for information routinely given to marketers, can I opt out?
After all, that is my routine marketer response.
A serious question:
Under the PATRIOT act, can they look at "tangible things" acquired by the entity subpoenaed before the act was passed?
Oops, wrong thread. Sorry.
Attention, Reason subscribers: The magazine's monthly content is available on Kazaa and other peer-to-peer services in both .pdf and .doc formats. Both current and archived issues are yours for the taking -- all that juicy content you can't get at Reason.com, available for quick and easy downloading. And of course -- it's free!
Don't bother to renew your subscription to the magazine. The numbskulls who run the thing don't even realize they're the [insert lame cliched metaphor here -- "buggy whip manufacturers of the 21st century" will work]. Here's your chance to teach them how dumb they are for putting out a magazine on paper. It's vital that we let them know their "business model" is outdated. Give them a comeuppance for ripping off struggling writers all these years!
Best of all, they can't track you down to protect their copyrights, because that would be infringing your privacy and stuff.
Now have at it. This isn't just downloading, this is a crusade! This is a Serious, Important Movement That's, Like, Ushering In A New Order.
BusinessPundit:
Interesting chart. Here are some other stats to consider:
Since 1999, CD prices have gone up 6 percent in real terms, to an average $15.25 (in '97 dollars).
Since 1999, the number of new titles has fallen 14 percent.
Courtesy of the October ish of Wired.
Actually, I thought reason did put everything online. Even the letters to the editors. Is that not true? Am I missing something in the print edition?
Dear Citizen,
You are missing a helluva lot by only reading Reason Online. The print edition is one great looking mag, with fantastic illustration that we recreate on the Web site. A mag subscription is cheap, too-- just $15 for a year.
Subscribers get the print edition a month before any of the content from the mag goes up on the Web site.
What're you--and all other non-subscribers--waiting for?
Go to
https://www.kable.com/pub/anxx/newsubs.asp
Nick,
While I buy the magazine on occasion, I have to say I prefer the online edition WAY more than the print version because of the hyperlinks in the articles. Now, don't go taking the hyperlinks off the stuff, or I'm outta here (which may be what you want anyway).
The mag is great for reading in the shithouse, though. And yes, there is content that's not online. If the magazine published the URL's used in the hyperlinks, then I would probably call it a toss-up. I guess those hyperlinks are put in after the fact, but surely some of them are known at the time the article is written.
"The mag is great for reading in the shithouse." Can we use that in an ad campaign?
The hyperlinks are an advantage of the Web, to be sure. But if I may continue this line of tactful begging: While free to readers, it costs money to produce Reason Online and the easiest way to keep it coming is to buy a $15 (cheap, as Mad Magazine used to insist) sub to the print edition. You'll get stuff sooner and prettier. And you'll keep getting the hyperlinks later when it all goes up on the Web.
I'm trying to project how Reason could be anything other than opposed to free downloading. Property Rights? Contract Enforcement? Rule of Law? The fabulous internet has not superceded the foundations of a stable free market, has it?
"Seven and a half billion music files on American computers are from peer networks, and 64 percent of households with Web access have at least one digital music file on their computers, according to the NPD Group, a market research company. "
Since Windows ships with digital music files, does this mean that 36% of households with web access aren't using Windows? Or that so many windows users are removing these files from their computers? Does anyone have any analog files on their computers?
And how would they even have any information on how many files on personal computers are from peer networks without having first trespassed on the property of a relevant sampling?
Jayson:
To sum up quickly (if you're a newcomer)
No one's sure if ideas are the same thing as property.
People buyind CD's probably aren't under any contract other than the one line on the back of it. And since no one's sure if ideas are the sam thing as property, it may not even be a valid contract anyway.
Since laws aren't subject to Rules of Logic and often are against the free-market, Rule Of Law is about the lamest argument anyone could make. In fact, Rule Of Law logically translates to the "violence inherent in the system".
We're being pulled into a relativist black hole!!! Full Reverse!!!
It appears as though you're making a "one man's rule of law is another man's unjust oppression" argument. "No one's sure if ideas are property?!!?" I can refer you to reams of case law on defineable intellectual property rights.
Please explain how free downloading is different from the unfortunate experiences of music/SW companies in China, where thousands of bootlegs appear hours after a title is released, and the government yawns.
And don't try any Monty Python references, or I may be forced to bring in Brother Maynard and the holy hand grenade of Antioch....1, 2, 5!
The problem is the RIAA & others using the compliant State to prop up their archaic business models which *should* go the way of the buggy whip factories. If they had half a brain they'd figure out some way to cash in on technological advance, rather than fighting it. I guess they figure their phoney-baloney middleman jobs are doomed under any sort of scenario which embraces technology.
The immediate issue here is not whether downloading copyrighted materials via file-sharing programs such as Kazaa is legit or not. It's whether provisions in the DMCA adequately defend individuals' right to privacy and due process. At the moment, I'm not weighing in on that. Instead, I'm posting to an article that shows how copright enforcement and privacy are starting to clash.
As for the larger issue of copyright, I direct Jayson and others interested in the topic to this link (which includes other links in the lefthand margin):
http://reason.com/0107/cr.mg.copywrong.shtml
A somewhat outdated archive of Reason stories on the topic is at:
http://www.reason.com/bi/bi-ip.shtml
I wasn't trying to be a relativist here, I wasn't even trying to take sides. I was merely trying to sum up the counter arguments because I did not recognize the poster's name and the questions he raised have more detailed discussion on other areas of the site (as Nick showed, and any quick search of the site would have shown).
Thanks for the link, NG. I do agree with the other guy who shall remain nameless that the RIAA's business model is flawed and that it's ripe for crative competitors.
Currently, the new disruptive player with the best viability is Apple Itunes, but there will probably be others.
Hey Nick, check out the chart I found in a Fortune article on video games. It shows time spent listening to music is way down, and video games and movies are up. Maybe this is why CD sales are down, and peer-to-peer doesn't have that much to do with it.
Jayson,
There's a great deal of case law from certain periods that say that people can be property, but you won't find many people arguing the case now. Just because someing is law doesn't mean it should be or will be in the future.
Jayson,
Case law? That's a pretty historicist (not to say relativist) way of establishing a "right." By that standard, anything could be a right, or not, depending on whether the State decides to enforce it or abrogate it from one day to the next.
And the point of the original post, I believe, was not on the substantive merits or demerits of downloading, but on the PROCEDURAL recourses properly available to the music industry. The assumption of quasi-police powers by private entities should be troubling even to libertarians who believe in intellectual property. Whether stealing from Wal-Mart is wrong, and whether the Wal-Mart "Loss Prevention Associates" have a right to invade your home, are two different questions.
Is it ironic (or just business as usual) that Apple Corps (actually, the Beatles) is suing Apple Computer for violating their trademark agreement? This, while Apple Computer is trying to work within the copywriting issues of the record industry.
The kicker is that Itunes doesn't even offer Beatles tunes.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/business/cst-fin-apple15.html
Business pundit:
Scary, I just happened to be reading that article in the dentist office yesterday. I don't usually read Fortune, but I happen to have some shares of EA in my IRA, so I took a glance. Good article.
In any event, I'm fairly certain that I'm uncomfortable with the idea that that they don't even have to file a lawsuit. It is a fishing licence where the goal is to intimidate the fish.
Good God what was with Maddog's post about how people used to be property in slavery, so ideas can't be property? That was nonsense.
There is no doubt that songs are property. It is intellectual property. An artist writes a song and enjoys a common law copyright so that if others steal it he can sue. Artists can register their copyright with the federal copyright office and get statutory damages and attorney fees under the copyright statutes. Artists can sell that song to anybody they want, or the asset can be used to satisfy a judgment, etc. It *IS* property, you unnamed wanker who says "we don't know if ideas are property." It is intangible intellectual property, but it is property that deserves legal protection from those who might steal it, just as the law protects your ownership of your hemp hacky sack.
I hate these scofflaws who download music that DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM and then say it's not stealing. It is stealing. It is taking something that you could go to the store and buy (or order online, etc.), but saying "no, I'm going to steal it because it's easy, free, and I'll never get caught." Some say the record companies are greedy, that the artists aren't putting out good music or music fast enough, that cds are too expensive, etc. etc. etc. But the bottom line is, if you download music that you don't pay for, you are a thief.
I totally support RIAA in these lawsuits against the worst offenders (people with 1,000+ stolen songs on their computers). These vocal critics of RIAA are a bunch of scofflaws. Not a day goes by that the RIAA website is operational due to the hackers. Guess what: you don't have a right to steal people's songs, even if it's easy for you and free. That's what the lawsuits are about. Inspiring some fear into the scofflaws, so they'll stop stealing.
Abu Hamza
EMAIL: master-x@canada.com
IP: 82.146.43.155
URL: http://www.americanpaydayloans.net
DATE: 02/27/2004 10:58:08
Just because there's a pattern doesn't mean there's a purpose.