File-sharing at Cato Unbound

by on June 10, 2008 · 13 comments

Every month, the Cato Institute has an online symposium on an important public policy issue. This month, the focus is on copyright law, and they’re kicking things off with a fascinating piece by copyright activist Rasmus Fleischer arguing that technological progress will make it impossible for the state to prevent people from sharing copyrighted works:

Record industry lobbyists smell the danger, and now they are urging governments to criminalize [stream ripping]. On their orders the so-called PERFORM Act (”Platform Equality and Remedies for Rights Holders in Music Act”) was introduced in the U.S. Senate last year. [4] The proposed law would force every Internet radio station to encrypt the transmission of file information, such as the name of the song. Yet anything visible on the screen can still be easily obtained by special software, encryption notwithstanding, and such restrictions would therefore be ridiculously easy to circumvent. Thus the PERFORM Act includes a follow-up clause banning the distribution of this class of software.

People with some programming skills, however, won’t need to do much more than combining a few readily available and otherwise perfectly legal code libraries to compile their own streamripping tool, one that would circumvent the PERFORM Act. For regulations like these to be effective, it is necessary also to censor the sharing of skills that potentially can be useful for coding illegal software. The circle of prohibition grows still larger: Acoustic fingerprinting technologies, which have nothing copyright-infringing to them, but which can be used for the same feared identification of individual tracks, must probably also be restricted.

This domino effect captures the essence of copyright maximalism: Every broken regulation brings a cry for at least one new regulation even more sweepingly worded than the last. Copyright law in the 21st century tends to be less concerned about concrete cases of infringement, and more about criminalizing entire technologies because of their potential uses. This development undermines the freedom of choice that Creative Commons licenses are meant to realize. It will also have seriously chilling effects on innovation, as the legal status of new technologies will always be uncertain under ever more invasive rules.

Tomorrow I’ll be offering my reaction to Rasmus’s essay. I don’t want to steal my own thunder, but in a nutshell, my take is that Rasmus is basically right to predict that copyright will grow increasingly difficult to enforce as technology continues to reduce the cost of storing and transmitting information. However, I think it’s a mistake to view this as the end of copyright. Even if the war on file sharing is hopeless, copyright can and should adapt to continue serving its essential function, which is not to stop all copying, but rather to reward the creation of creative works. Watch the site tomorrow to see my suggestions for how copyright law can adapt to the stresses placed on it by digital technologies.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home Ben R.

    Great article and I look forward to seeing your response.

    The only solution I can envision- beyond the utter destruction of copyright or of a dystopian privacy-free state – is one a compulsory license tacked on to general internet bills, the rewards of which are assigned to content holders based on download statistics.

    It is already talked about by both sides of the issue and is somewhat similar to the compromise that occurred with radio. In this case, music labels, studios, and publishers are relegated to marketing, advertising (chiefly product placement and short sponsored ads before the primary content) and initial loans for start up shows/movies/bands/books.

    While quantifying the whole thing is more complicated than the Nielsen system, that is a problem less difficult to solve than restricting software tools or compensating artists without any copyright at all.

  • http://www.blogger.com/home Ben R.

    Great article and I look forward to seeing your response.

    The only solution I can envision- beyond the utter destruction of copyright or of a dystopian privacy-free state – is one a compulsory license tacked on to general internet bills, the rewards of which are assigned to content holders based on download statistics.

    It is already talked about by both sides of the issue and is somewhat similar to the compromise that occurred with radio. In this case, music labels, studios, and publishers are relegated to marketing, advertising (chiefly product placement and short sponsored ads before the primary content) and initial loans for start up shows/movies/bands/books.

    While quantifying the whole thing is more complicated than the Nielsen system, that is a problem less difficult to solve than restricting software tools or compensating artists without any copyright at all.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    If copyright law would just treat copyrighted works similar to physical property, things would be a lot easier. All the law really needs to do is enforce artificial scarcity. To that end, if local and state police could arrest someone for theft for engaging in certain types of copyright infringement, that would be a powerful deterrent.

  • http://www.codemonkeyramblings.com MikeT

    If copyright law would just treat copyrighted works similar to physical property, things would be a lot easier. All the law really needs to do is enforce artificial scarcity. To that end, if local and state police could arrest someone for theft for engaging in certain types of copyright infringement, that would be a powerful deterrent.

  • Pingback: wRDwgC1HqM wRDwgC1HqM

  • Pingback: foods that burn fat

  • Pingback: Betsy South Beach discount coupons

  • Pingback: book of ra 2

  • Pingback: barclays premier league

  • Pingback: Jurk

  • Pingback: click to watch anime

  • Pingback: payday loans

  • Pingback: Maid Services

Previous post:

Next post: