The Great Debate

The judge responsible for shutting down the original version of peer-to-peer service Napster proposed an interesting plan this week to reform copyright by establishing public and private organizations that will be in charge of licensing and enforcing the law in this digital age. Judge Miriam Hall Patel had this to say at the Fordham University School of Law in New York City:

"There needs to be a comprehensive revision of the provisions that relate to the administration of copyright licensing, royalties and enforcement. I propose that a joint public/private administrative body made up of representatives of all competing interest, including the public, be established and authorized to, among other powers, issue licenses; negotiate, set and administer royalties; and adopt rules and regulations to carry out these purposes."

She also adds:

"It was not surprising that the notion of free music caught on... Sadly, it is the artists and composers who have been the most neglected in this matter. [In regards to legislation,] our copyright laws have become a patchwork of amendments that are adopted as emergencies arise."

Judge Patel’s recommendations:

• The new body needs to be a mix of public and private entities with all parties represented. It cannot be a purely governmental body because that is not likely to instil confidence in the public.

• All copyrighted music would be part of this system and subject to a compulsory license, with possible opt-out provisions for certain rights holders.

• Congress should abolish all current compulsory licenses and adopt a blanket licensing system. (Such a system may have allowed Napster to continue operating, assuming it could afford to pay labels under the compulsory licensing scheme.)

• The body would administer all royalty payments and would replace all current systems for doing so.

• An independent arm would arbitrate royalty disputes using music databases that allow arbitration to be done with speed and precision lacking in the current system.

• Manufacturers and developers would need approval from this body before introducing an application or device capable of recording, distributing or copying music to consumers. The body would include technology experts to aid in making those decisions quickly - Patel described this as "sort of like the FDA, but much faster."

Judge Miriam Hall Patel was the judge who presided over the famous A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. case which effectively shut down Napster until it was repurchased and turned into a pay-service.

From: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/industry_news/napster_judge_wants_major_copyright_reform.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the interesting comments that followed this article covered… (unless you want to go through around 150 or so comments yourself…)

• I don’t understand the article. Someone reiterate it in English please.

• They can keep shutting down peer-peer programs all they want. New ones will always pop up!

• The war against music pirating will never be won - they need to wave their white flag while they still have a chance.

• Give me good, affordable music. Then I will be less tempted to download just the songs I like. I don’t want to spend $15-30 on CD’s when I know I’m going to end up listening to 3 hit tracks on loop and screw the rest of the album.

• Lars Ulrich is the devil.

• No he’s not. Leave him alone.

• It is the shows and merchandises where most bands make a huge chunk of their profit. Not so much album sales, thanks to all the greedy label executives. Only huge bands like Metallica see significant amounts from album sales. Free downloading actually does more good than harm to most artists as they give them free exposure, and this results in a more solid fan base. If you want to support a band, go see their shows and buy a T-shirt!

• Government intervention is the last thing I want. This isn’t a socialist country where we have to nationalise our intellectual property. Since when has the government done anything efficiently? No government agency is “fast”.

• Reform is futile. The whole system became crap the moment artists began letting douche bags in suits sell their music for them. To try to reform our system would be to re-plaster a house with a condemned structure. PUT OUT YER OWN MUSIC YER FUCKING SELLOUTS!

• Snap out of fairy tale land. The fact that you’re a musician will not make you immune to money problems.

• Small bands need album sales, or else their label will terminate their contract, and then they won't have any money to record music, or tour, or do anything.

• Since when did music become about label companies? The label companies are the root of all problems.

• You can't argue that “music is art, so it should be free.” Did Picasso hand out his portraits on street corners? NO, but he was an artist, so he should've right? Let's all 'stick it to the man' and never pay for music or movies or books ever again. Then we'll see who's laughing, when all the big companies who fund artists' music go bust, and there is no more music, because people can't afford to do things for free! This is a job, a living, not a fucking charity.

• I normally download first, skim through the album and then buy it if I like what I heard. In fact, most of the CD’s I do end up buying I discover by listening to the downloaded music first.