Chron: Internet pirates are treading on `We the People'

Internet pirates are treading on `We the People'
By ANDREW BURT

I don't know many Americans who tolerate anyone treading on our Constitution.

Yet those individuals the recording industry recently sued for wanton copyright violations on the Internet, if found guilty, did exactly that. Every time someone downloads a commercial book, song, film or software program that they ought to pay for, they're not just committing a crime, they're spitting on our Constitution and devaluing the American way of life.

The Constitution is the blueprint that defines who and what we are as a country. Electing presidents, collecting taxes, raising armies, establishing courts -- the Constitution covers the Big Stuff.

Neither murder nor massive corporate fraud merited a direct mention in the Constitution. Even free speech had to wait for the amendments. The Constitution is a lean document. Yet amid creating money and declaring war, there's this in Article I: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This clause, part of a list of powers specifically granted to Congress, is the foundation of copyright law in the United States, the right of authors and artists to control who makes copies of their work. That means each case of copyright crime is a kick in the old "We the People."

In my multiple roles as professor, Internet pioneer and chairman of the Electronic Piracy Committee of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, I find myself speaking with many Internet pirates. Most are ordinary people who consider themselves good citizens. They simply don't understand copyrights and how they benefit society, let alone that the Founding Fathers believed the concept so important that they embodied it in the very fabric of our society.

This kind of ignorance is everywhere: The guy next door who thinks Napster-like software is cool for getting free music. Idiots posting books altered to fit their philosophy. Self-styled anarchists uploading entire libraries. Indeed, even some authors, artists and publishers are ignorant of the social purpose behind copyrights.

But if authors are from Mars and readers are from Venus, then copyright is a purely Earth-bound idea, rooted in the competitive checks and balances that make the Constitution great. The Founding Fathers hated restrictions on the public, yet felt this particular need was so strong that they took the unique step of explaining why it was important ("To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts").

The Founders established copyright law exclusively for the social good. It's built on a direct trade-off that carefully balances two equally important claims. One, there's the need of creators to maintain sufficient control -- and, hence, earn enough income -- so they'll be motivated to continue producing quality work. Two, there's the public's right to enjoy ready access to that work so they can be enriched by it.

Our elected representatives periodically update copyright laws to reflect new technologies, and nobody says they're perfect at it. In fact, anyone who wants to can work within the system to change it.

The copyright owner's limited right to control is, and should be, constantly weighed in delicate balance against the public's limited rights of "fair use" and to do as they wish with what they paid for. Note both sides are limited; that's the key.

The problem is that when someone downloads an entire copyrighted book, song or other creative work that they didn't pay for -- and then uses it in a manner that's painfully obvious they should pay for -- they're not just stealing money from the creator. They're also saying there's nothing wrong with ignoring the whole idea underlying copyright. They're saying it's perfectly fine to subvert the Constitution, and they're encouraging others to thumb their noses at the very framework that makes America great.

Internet pirates offer numerous rationalizations -- from thinking they're Robin Hood fighting the Evil Corporate Greed monsters to comparing themselves to libraries to asserting that "information wants to be free." I've rebutted them all online: None holds water.

Democracy is hard work and demands responsibilities and education of all citizens. Don't let anyone tread on your Constitution just because they're too lazy to spend a few bucks.

 

I agree with this guy that copyrights and intellectual property are an important issue. Further, I know that downloading another person's work without compensation is wrong and that the creator of the work deserves to be paid for their work. It IS important that scientists and artists be able to use their work for their benefit. I believe fully in the clause in the Constitution that gives exclusive rights "for limited Times to Authors and Inventors." Unfortunately, I also believe that the laws on this topic have become unrepresentative of the desires of the founders and I also think that some copyright holders are taking this fight way too far.

Copyright law has changed dramatically since the phrase in the Constitution set aside those rights for authors and inventors. We have gone from a few years (7 I believe) to a nearly unlimited amount of time (90 years after the death of the author or artist for copyrighted works) that promises to increase again the next time Mickey Mouse is about to go into the public domain. I would argue that there was a reason not only for this phrase to be in the Constitution for creators, but that the provision clearly stated "limited Times." I believe that the framers saw the need for works to go to the public domain to further knowledge and science even more by providing a bigger body of work to pull information from.

I also believe that the copyright holders, though legally justified, are shooting themselves in the foot with a rocket propelled grenade over services like the now defunct Napster along with Kazaa and Morpheus. In case you didn't know, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has recentlyu started filing lawsuits against individuals who share copyrighted material on the Internet. The RIAA cites a 7% decrease in CD sales as evidence that Peer to Peer (P2P) services are harming their businesses, despite the fact that there was somewhere between a 5 and 10% drop in the number of CDs released, and that this happened parallel to the economic downturn. I have over 600 CDs and nearly 200 DVDs, but my spending on these items has dropped along with my pay (because of the economy), and also because of the heavy handed tactics of the RIAA and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

I admit that I HAVE downloaded copyrighted materials a few times and would like to throw out the circumstances to see what y'all think of my downloading. I downloaded Star Wars: Episode 2 and Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers the day before each of them released in theaters. The day after I downloaded and watched Star Wars, I went to see it in the theater (and saw it twice more in the theater) and have since purchased it on DVD. I saw Lord of the Rings 2 days after downloading and watching it and plan to buy the DVD as soon as it releases. In addition, I downloaded a couple of tracks off of the new Wierd Al Yankovich CD several days before I bought the CD due to money issues.

I know that downloading, especially the large scale downloading that some (mostly teenagers) do is wrong, but I also believe that the RIAA is trying to save a floundering business model. History shows that organizations that do not take advantage of technological change will be put out of business by it. I write music (anyone have a band that would like to help me lay down some tracks?) and if I had any of it recorded, I would embrace the P2P networks for publicity and distribution in much the same way that radio is used now. Apple has proven that there is a strong audience who will download music that they pay for, much as I will as soon as the software works on a PC. IMO, the RIAA and MPAA need to see and embrace technology so that they don't get bowled over by it.

 

That is another thing. The phrase in the Constitution clearly limits ownership to the Author or Inventor. Now, if the author or inventor is a corporation, this doesn't bother me, but if a corporation acquires the work, the copyright law extends the time the copyright is valid and the only reason for it is the lobbying $$$ given to congressman by organizations like the RIAA, MPAA, and Walt Disney (the corp, not the man).

90 years for a copyright is absolutely outrageous.

 

The movies that I downloaded were movies that I was going to go see no matter what my opinion was of the download. I like to catch the little things you miss the first time you see a movie and was particularly interested in those two movies. In addition, I KNEW (because of my wife and my taste) that these were movies I was going to purchase eventually on DVD (in addition to seeing them at the theater) and that the MPAA was going to get theirs anyway.

Camraderie??? What the heck are you talking about??? I would see the argument about support if there were ANY financial considerations, but if there HAD been, I never would have downloaded the movies. I am trying to draw a distinction between different types of downloaders, something the RIAA and MPAA want to stay away from.

I agree, and I believe that the Apple store allows you to download music that can be burned up to 10 times. I don't know many details yet as the software doesn't work for PCs yet.

In other words, I download from P2P networks because it has been the only way to download. As soon as I can get music from iTunes, I will not have a reason to dowmload from P2P. This is one of the biggest issues I have had with the record industry. They could have had my money for a few tunes off of the Wierd Al CD IN ADDITION to the money for the CD itself, but they don't want to put out a viable product.

 

Great point, and it goes straight to bobreck's argument. I have only downloaded things that I fully intended to purchase as soon as it was available. I have given the artist their due by purchasing their work and when I know that will be the case, I do not feel any remorse in acquiring the product when it becomes available. If the record companies respected their customers and simply put out a viable electronic product, I would have no reason to download from P2P.

 

In the case of a product I intend to pay for several different times, yes.

If it had been available as a paid mp3 download, I would have purchased those songs from the record company IN ADDITION to purchasing the CD. I did not have $15 to spend at the time, but I would have been happy to purchase those 2 songs for a buck each if the record company had made it available to me.

This is the problem that I have with the position of the record companies. They say that if I do this or that, that I am breaking current laws, laws that they bought and paid for with the billions that we (the consumers) have given them. All I expect is to be treated like a customer rather than an enemy. I have $9000 worth of CDs and $4000 woth of movies. I am not exactly a scrub who downloads everything under the sun just because I have a terabyte of disk space. Despite all that, the record companies (and you) will simply label me a criminal for enjoying the media I purchase in the manner that works for me.

 

You are naive.

You have the same problem as the record companies. You can't see past the so called laws long enough to see the human cost they are going to have to pay when they start suing their customers. Now, I am not in danger of being sued because I do not share files that are copyrighted, but their heavy handed tactics are going to make me vote with my pocketbook the next time I am on the bubble about whether to buy their product.

I have started a Netflix account so that I can preview DVDs before I buy them (instead of just spending that $20 to actually buy a DVD every month). I have stopped buying CDs until iTunes is open for PC users because I don't want to pay $15 for a CD with 1 song I like, I am going to just pay a dollar for that song.

The effect that these tactics will have is wide and far reaching and costs YOU, the consumer, far more in legal fees than piracy has ever cost the industry. During the heyday of Napster, the RIAA reported GAINS in sales, it is only with the downturn in the economy and the viciousness of their attacks that they have seen declining sales that can easily be explained by the decline in the number of CDs produced every year.

It is hard to respect a law that is bought and paid for by lobbyists who don't give a rat's a55 about the customer.

BTW, they tried to get VCRs and are trying to get Tivo banned too.

 

It is, however, their job to put out a product that I am willing to buy. I don't download anything that I don't already own or intend to buy.

I know they could care less, that is the point. They care so little about the consumer that they will actually sue some of them. They will lose far more than they will gain in the long run and we will be forced to pay higher prices because of their legal fees.

The majority of pirates wouldn't be buying the music anyway, they would be taping it from a friend's CD, taping it off the radio, or one of the other "free" ways to get music that we have ALWAYS had. Even if we didn't have P2P, these days it is easy enough just to burn a copy of a disc.

There will always be a small percentage who find a way around paying for media. The corporations should not restrict how I want to use their product because of a few bad apples.

 

At worst, I think you could describe my attitude as "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." As I have stated, I download only what I am expecting to pay for anyway.

Do y'all really see NO difference between my downloading or rimrockers vs. JPM?

Do you agree with the recent trend of the government passing laws to prop up certain industries or companies to the detriment of the consumer?