Third Party & Independents: Archives

God forbid that the government should interfere with my inalienable right to steal the copyrighted intellectual property of artists! I knew there was a reason that patriots have fought and died through the ages—thanks for reminding me.

This law is not retroactive, right? (that would violate the constitutiona prohibtion against ex-post-facto laws), so it wouldnt make a felon out of anyone. If you steal 1000 dollars worth of CDs from a store, you are a fellon (right?), so why is it any less wrong to steal those same songs via the internet? I dont quote Bill Maher very often, but he said this perfectly- just becuase its easy doesnt make it any less like stealing. Maybe the fellon status is too harsh because of the voting disqualification thing, but there has to be some way to get people to realize that theft is theft, no matter how rich the company you are stealing from is.

Martin, there does seem to be an indifference to the shackles being placed on everyone. The attitude seems to be, “I think it’s wrong and I don’t do it, or at least I don’t do it anymore, so I don’t care what happens to those who do.” Yet when your child/sister/brother/yourself is shackled for life with a ‘convicted felon’ tag, it will seem to matter a little more. When people think ‘felon’, they WON’T think copyright thief. They will see a ‘felon’ as a murderer, robber, rapist.
If this bill is not a big deal, would you support them convicting someone who records cd’s onto tape so they can play it in their car? Someone who makes copies of tapes, as was common in the 80’s, for their friends? Someone who tapes songs off the radio? Or how about someone who records tv shows with a VCR/PVR? If you’ve never done any of these things, or at least not since 1997 (see second link), then I guess you’re clean. If not, you’re thought of as an ‘unindicted federal felon’, which bans the ‘reproduction or distribution’ of more than $1000 of any copyrighted work. Are people who copy or redistribute these works REALLY criminals that deserve to have the book thrown at them, deserve the lifelong stigma of a ‘felon’ tag? Does their acts merit this? Is the act of copying a copyrighted work, especially if not done for profit (as most are not), really harm anyone other than these large companies? Is there any real evidence that these companies are even being harmed? As for our patriots, the original patriots fought over a three pennies a pound tax on tea.
Misha, see the above. I don’t think the law will be retroactive, but the ‘No Electronic Theft Act’, which was signed into law in 1997, does cover those crimes, so anyone file trading, or actually, just copying copyrighted works, could be considered a criminal under those laws. A felon tag, for all the reasons mentioned above, I certainly feel is harsh. Not to mention the $250,000 fine which goes along with the prison time will bankrupt many a person for life. Not only will they not be able to get most jobs, they will not be able to keep most of the money they earn from the jobs they CAN get. That, to me, seems a little harsh, especially when it is realized this bill is only there to protect companies that distribute music. They are trying to turn back the clock to when they held all the power for what music people listened to or bought.

As a former musician, I’m all for it.

would you support them convicting someone who records cd’s onto tape so they can play it in their car?

Totally legal to make backup copies for personal use.

Someone who makes copies of tapes, as was common in the 80’s, for their friends?

Ooops! Illegal!

Someone who tapes songs off the radio? Or how about someone who records tv shows with a VCR/PVR?

Again, totally legal if it’s for personal use. If you’re charging admission, that’s a problem.

Perhaps the penalty is a little harsh, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the law apply to those who rip off artists for much less than $1000.

BTW, doesn’t the whole libertarian thing depend on individuals taking responsibility for their own actions? You sound like a Kazaa user, Rob. You must realize that stealing an artists work is wrong. Isn’t that a little irresponsible?

This is the kind of thinking that keeps ideas that look good on paper (libertarianism, communism, supply-side economics) from working with large numbers of people.

Thanks for your comment Lee. I have to disagree with you on a couple of points though.

>>would you support them convicting someone
>>who records cd’s onto tape so they can play it >>in their car?

>Totally legal to make backup copies for personal >use.

>>someone who tapes songs off the radio? Or
>>how about someone who records tv shows with a >>VCR/PVR?

>Again, totally legal if it’s for personal use. If >you’re charging admission, that’s a problem.

According to the “NET” act signed into law in 1997, NEITHER of these are legal. I’ve placed in bold the relevant point of the bill …

(a) CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT- Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—

`(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

`(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code.’.

Don’t forget, nobody sharing files off Kazaa or WinMX are charging for their download. It really does fall more under ‘personal use’, although on such a scale as to cause all the issues we’re seeing now.
The whole idea of ‘personal use’ is what is falling by the wayside in the RIAA’s assault.

The problem with all of this IP protection stuff is that the people who are writing these laws don’t have the foggiest idea of what the underlying technology actually is. For instance, by telling you to hold down the shift key on your keyboard everytime you insert a music CD, I have just made myself into a felon. Literally. As funny as it might sound, that sentence carries with it a HUGE penalty. Likewise, Sharpies are illegal, and the possession of them could be used to prosecute you under these laws. I wish to god I was joking.

There’s nothing wrong with protecting artist’s intellectual property. There is, however, something very wrong with having aging lawyers write laws about things they have absolutely no understanding of. They constantly overstep their bounds, crippling our fair-use rights to the products we have legally bought. I’d rather have the industry destroyed than destroy my right to use a product the way I want to (not counting pirating, of course).

I felt that it wouldn’t be long before someone mentioned that I ‘sounded like a Kazaa user’. That is the Godwin’s Law of the copyright debate. Tell me, if I am against the death penalty, does that mean I ‘sound like a murderer’?
Libertarianism is EXACTLY about individuals taking responsibility for their own actions. It’s NOT about sitting back and letting the government do it for them. It’s not about having the government make all kinds of laws that are only there to shape behavior.

Gaelen, I think you’re exactly right and have said it better than I could. Another example would be something like Freenet, which is built to be anonymous and make all these laws unenforceable. It doesn’t stop the behavior, it only creates a new class of criminals out of those who use the ‘mass market’ programs.

If there were a problem with records sales being tied to downloading and the artists were being screwed by the public I’d agree with civil penalties. A major distributor making money from the use of the material, I.E. Napster, Kazaa ( Ad sales).

A new study by Harvard and UNC staff indicates no coorelation between sales and downloads.(see the Boston Globe)

The Grateful Dead understood this years ago. Music lovers get this. They go to the concerts, they buy the CDs, the T-shirts. Greedy, theiving business types just see another oppurtunity to squeeze out a buck for themselves. God only knows succesful artists are starving and the recording industry is always fair to the artists and the public. Bob Dylan’s carreer was saved during his recovery from a motorcycle accident by the “underground bootleg” tapes. Wanna be successfull in music….how about produce some good material? The DJ is dead and the conglomerates cram Britney down our throats at $25 bucks a pop and wonder why record sales are down.

I find it funny that the music industry has only posted sales records after the start of the 2000 recession and then on top of it, this recently came out. Study: File-Sharing No Threat to Music Sales

All file sharing does is enhance Darwinism among the music industry. Companies such as The End Records has not had a problem and they spend more time restocking their inventory then bringing in new albums. Take a look for yourself Omega. Go ahead and scroll down and you will see what capitalism is all about. A company like this is doing incredibly well compared to other companies who release the same type of music continuously. The average consumer is getting tired of it and when a group like Sony will only release a pop star over and over again, people will stop buying.

Top that off where many artists state that they are more then willing to have their music shared in order to promote, where does that leave the record company? People are so quick to look myopicaly at the problem, the “why get the cow when you can get the milk for free” analogy does not work in this case.

Citing the digital music industry’s innovative business model, auto makers will soon create cars that work only on authorized roads and cannot be resold

This from my EFF “April Fool’s” Newsletter.

Every musical artist I know personally ENCOURAGES piracy - excellent free advertising. However this is probably because they are not beholden to record labels. I think that’s the reason people balk at the argument of intellectual property. The monetary motives behind the voice are so tranparent that it makes me WANT to commit a felony. My musical friends are also the biggest file sharers I know. Something about a love for their craft and a need to share beauty…maybe Metallica might like to give it a try sometime.

Oh, and by the way - I buy every album I respect.

Let’s set aside the morality of distributing illicit copies of music. The issue on my mind is how much government resources should be directed toward protecting the music industry. Consider the lousy state of our health care system, the lousy state of our schools, and the fact that terrorists are desperately trying to kill us, I say: Not much.

For once I agree with John Ashcroft. It would be absurd for federal agents to run around arresting music piraters. If the recording industry can’t stay in business without calling in taxpayer-funded “muscle”, that’s their own problem.

As for Bill Maher’s comment, if he supports government involvement here is it is just more evidence that he isn’t really a libertarian. This is classic example of the government being called upon to enforce virtuous private behavior.

Oops - I realize that “pirater” isn’t a word. Long day. ZZZzzzzzz

Woody-

(1) if you really want to count dollar and cents, the music industry pays A LOT of taxes, and I doubt they get nearly as much in terms of government services “out” as they get in. If the government were to enforce property laws, which is their JOB, you can call it using the tax payer’s money, but the record industry ARE tax payer’s, so you can just look at it as the government using the industry’s money to protect the industry’s rights… I am not saying you should feel “bad” for them or anything, I dont really care for them, but theft is theft, and its the government’s job to enforce laws against theft.

(2) every true libertarian is a proponent of property rights- its one of the major issues that unites the party. What makes bill maher not a libertarian because he supports progressive taxation, universal health care ect, this is one of his better stances on the libetarian scale.

Misha,

You have a point about the music industry paying taxes, but so does every legal industry, we hope.
The government has to set priorities. Recorded music is entertaining, but nobody is going to drop dead because the music industry is in trouble.

I don’t know whether this is a libertarian principle, but it seems to me that the government should not waste it’s time trying to enforce laws that are nearly impossible to enforce. One could argue that digitally stealing a song is just as immoral as stealing a candy bar from a store, but there is a big practical difference — the person who steals the candy bar is quite likely to get caught! (One could also point that digital music, unlike candy bars, is an infinite resource, but that is another issue…) Does it really make sense for the government to be part of a quixotic crusade to eliminate crack down on behavior that is impossible to eradicate?

If you think about it this way, the crusade against music downloading is not much different than a certain “war” that libertarians love to hate — the “war on drugs”. (Fortunately, there aren’t thousands of people in jail for downloading music.) If literally tens of millions of people engage in an activity, and it is easy to do, what on earth can the government do to stop them?

Hey Rob,

I read through the NET Act and it looks like personal copies are ok.

I’ll highlight the parts you missed:

No Electronic Theft (NET) Act - Amends Federal copyright law to define “financial gain” to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period…

So it’s only illegal if you are reproducing for “financial gain”. Personal backups of CDs and taping “Baywatch” off the TV for your personal enjoyment are fine.

Tell me, if I am against the death penalty, does that mean I ‘sound like a murderer’?

That obviously depends on if you are against the death penalty and have committed murder. have you? :)

What I meant was what Misha said,

every true libertarian is a proponent of property rights

If you realize that downloading songs from Napster is financially detrimental to the artist and the industry, then you may not be responsible enough to be a true libertarian.

And how come I haven’t seen anything about the Free State Project here? Or is that something the rest of us aren’t supposed to know about? :)

You make a good point that its not the nation’s #1 priority, but I still think the government should enforce property rights. Second, I do not think this is anything like the war on drugs, because the war on drugs is telling people how to live their lives when they arent hurting anyone but themselves, while this is telling people you cannot steal someone else’s property.

Lee, I guess I still don’t see what you’re seeing in the NET act. I do see the ‘financial gain’ section, but this section below,

Sets penalties for willfully infringing a copyright: (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; or (2) by reproducing or distributing, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period…

The “or’s”, to me, state the financial gain is ONE way of violating the copyright, but not the only way. Reproducing OR distributing copyrighted works are other ways. Thus, copying for personal use would be a crime as I read the act…

Describing myself as a libertarian probably is not accurate, I admit. I am very much an independent minded person. I feel the role of government should be limited, but not non-existent. I usually vote Republican, but I treasure my independent streak and enjoy seeing things as they are, not through blue or red colored glasses.

All that being said, I am a tech geek who has worked in the industry since 1997, and have watched corporate power (in the guise of the RIAA and SCO, etc), try to take their piece of the pie by stifling innovation and opportunities for everyone, for the sole purpose of enriching themselves. I look at this from the perspective of an IT professional, NOT from a p2p user who is afraid of losing any ‘Kazaa’ privileges. Since I own a good number of Johnny Cash’s cd’s, I can’t honestly think of much worth downloading. :)

Woody, I agree with your statements, both about the having the govt arresting music pirates being a waste of time, and the fact that keeping the record industry in business is NOT the job of the Justice Dept, especially when there are people out there who want to do actual harm to citizens.

>the war on drugs is telling people how to live their lives when they arent hurting anyone

Really? I thought that every stoner who buys marijuana at a Phish concert is helping to blow up a buildng. ;)

Whether drug abuse is victimless crime depends on who you ask. I would basically agree. Many people would ardently disagree. Which is a big limitation to any kind of limited-government philosophy: You need a consensus on what the “minimal” functions of the government are.

Hey Rob,

That threw me at first, too. It’s the previous section that puts it into perspective:

Amends Federal copyright law to define “financial gain” to include the receipt of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.

They’re extending the definition of “financial gain” in the copyright law. Then they’re setting penalties for breaking the copyright law by “reproducing or distributing” under the new definition of “financial gain”.

I think they worded it that way to cover making songs available on a server for no apparent “financial gain”.

Assistent Attourney General Andrew Fois, who helped craft the bill says,

The House-passed bill accomplishes several important goals, including:

• Permitting the Department to prosecute large-scale illegal reproduction or distribution of copyrighted works where the infringers act without a discernible profit motive, while making clear that small-scale non-commercial copying (copyrighted works with a total retail value of less than $1,000) is not prosecutable under federal law;
• Clarifying that `willful’ infringement must consist of evidence of more that the mere intentional reproduction or distribution of copyrighted products

Sen. Hatch and a few others also weigh in. So you’re not alone in being nervous about the wording, but the intent of the law clearly allows us to keep using Tivo.

The Fed gets its power to regulate copyrights (explicitly) in the Constitution. So, by design, they are there to interfere.

Libertarian principles or morality does not really apply. As long as they abide by the one broad restriction and do not run afoul of other provisions (say, life in prison for infringement) they can pretty much do what they want. Copyright can be for a day or 100 years, and what is infringement is fairly wide open.

*****GREG YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD DIRECTLY!

That is exactly the sorry state of what is going on. And on the same token it creates a wall that sees to it there will be no chance of another Grateful Dead or Dylan unless it proves highly marketable will some dizzy focus group. Play by the contract rules or it will become a matter for the courts (and risk being dropped by that label).

Another aspect slightly off the topic is the question of radio stations being able to play the lists they want. With BMI royalties that means that everytime a song is played money has to go to the artist and others associated with it. So you have companies like Clearchannel who pay for playlists and radiostations go through them to get what they want. But such companies usually buy what is focus group popular nationally or what appears on MTV(I assume that stands for monopoly)

Here’s the 600 pound gorilla, How did Elvis get his start? How did the Beatles get their start? There are countless bands that arrived at fame through unsanctioned airplay their music was ahead of it’s time and some latenight dj took note of it and played it.

And when John Kerry, floats over that topic of unliscensed intellectual property (CD’s/DVD’s/China)the glibness is frightening. I can imagine a puttering bunch of grey-eared old men trying to hammer a round peg into a triangular hole banging out a bureaucratic policy that does more to harm artistic integrity than it salvages. A coverall and glib policy can be spliced in alot of directions and work to the advantage of the wrong hands stifling and pigeon-holing art.

Not all musicians favor such a stringent approach to enforcing musical copyrights. Thom York of Radiohead especially has been critical of what he sees as attempts by the record companies to maintain their gatekeeper status and their power and control over what music young people can hear. Part of the argument is that with file-sharing sites, a new and emerging band can quickly get its demo copies out to the public and generate public demand for their music, prior to any interaction by a recording studio, such that when a deal is signed, the musicians have the leverage, not the corporations.

Criminalizing *all* file-sharing, regardless of demo status, is what the recording companies want, because it allows them to dictate the terms of music contracts. They have tricked their stable of currently-popular musicians into thinking it’s all about protecting their (the musicians’) rights, when quite the reverse is true.