"Dan Glickman, a former congressman and a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration, took over as CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America last fall.

Although Glickman didn't initiate the association's lawsuits, which have led to the U.S. Supreme Court's pending decision on the legal merits and ramifications of peer-to-peer file sharing, his brief tenure has coincided with the hearing of what is perhaps the most-watched legal action in the tech community.

It's a case that will set the tone for how digital copyright is managed—legally and in the real-world marketplace—for some time to come.

Glickman, who is making a deliberate effort to talk to more tech folks more frequently, sat down with me for an interview in his Washington, D.C., office Tuesday morning.

What do you think the Supreme Court is going to decide in MGM v. Grokster?

I'm not clairvoyant. My guess is, if I were betting, that we—meaning the MGM et al group—will win a victory. I can't tell you how sweeping the victory will be, nor can I tell you whether the issue ultimately, in part, gets remanded back to the district court for further evidentiary discussions.

The betting around Washington is that it is going to be sent back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yeah. I think if it's sent back, it will be sent back with an affirmation of the 9th Circuit. It will be sent back with the recognition that conduct which is geared to encourage people to infringe is wrong and illegal, and if it's sent back, it will be sent back with some different legal context in mind.

Is conduct innovation and invention, or is it encouragement of the innovation and invention?

It's clear the conduct is not innovation or invention because we're all in that game, whether we're in the technology business directly or the content business. The conduct I'm referring to is the conduct which actively encourages people to break the copyright law, and that is what we saw in Grokster, where we have a peer-to-peer service that is established, in our judgment, to encourage people to take music and movies without paying for them.

Grokster is set up in a way that avoids "ownership." That's kind of a trend, and if I were you, I'd be worried. Are you?

Well, obviously, we're worried enough to go to court to try to stop this behavior from occurring.

I've got on my desk—you see, 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'—the fact of the matter is that the law is replete with evidence that [if there's] active or constructive knowledge that the law being broken, you can't escape from that, you can't hide from that. You can't say 'I don't know and I don't care.'

So, the vogue in some tech companies to think, 'Oh well, if it's out there on the network, it's off our servers, we don't have to worry about it,' is not one that you'd cotton to?

It's certainly one we don't cotton to when, in fact, the user is encouraged to in fact infringe. This is, of course, a tricky area. I don't know exactly how far the court is going to go, and I'm not an expert lawyer in this situation.

Almost everyone I've spoken to in the past couple of days has talked about how engaged the justices were, and they were struck by the astuteness of their technical questions, that's both tech people as well as people here in Washington.

I sat in on the hearing, and all but Justice Thomas asked serious questions, all the way from somewhat complicated technology questions to more basic questions about the role of copyright in a modern society.

Let's talk about that. My feeling is that the Grokster case is really the thing everyone is waiting for. That after this, there will be some congressional redress or action. There's a feeling that Congress will somehow update or change copyright law, either to protect companies like your members against the 'wink-wink-nudge-nudge' or on the part of technology users to allow them more freedom and to relieve the threat that they feel is hanging over them.

From the larger perspective, we have to recognize that creative juices are largely fed through some form of compensation. That is that while, yeah, some people do create out of the goodness of their heart, it defies the laws of human nature to think that people are going to come up with new ideas—whether it's movies, music, books, software or other inventions just because it's a sweet and wonderful thing to do. That's that side of the coin.

The other side of the coin is that technology is changing so rapidly and consumers' desires for new products are changing so rapidly that it's harder and harder to fit an old model into this new distribution system that we've got.

On the other hand, I went to the Consumer Electronics Show in January, and I saw all this amazing stuff. [The fact that] all these new things had movies—they're running things that we have created—on there shows that it's a little bit like the old song, 'Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage—you can't have one without the other.' It's going to get trickier and trickier to try and figure out how to compensate artists and creators in this new world."

Having said that, Larry Lessig has put forth his Creative Commons licensing idea. Former MPAA head Jack Valenti didn't quite endorse it but seemed receptive. Have you changed course on that?

My position—at this stage—would be roughly the same as Jack's.

The one thing I am trying to do is—the tech world and the, I hate to use the word 'content,' world, because we're all kind of in this together—these two worlds are worlds that have to work together. What I've noticed in Washington over the past 10 or 15 years is that every issue that's worked on becomes Armageddon here, and I want to try and keep these issues as much as possible from becoming another Armageddon type of thing.

How?

The only thing you can really do is keep talking, keep the lines of communication open. The other night, I was at a dinner for Bill Gates. Microsoft invited me to come. There's all sorts of opportunities where we can work together and talk.

Are you talking to any companies besides Microsoft?

Yes. We as an organization are talking to all the companies.

Including TiVo?

Yes. As a matter of fact, at the Consumer Electronics Show, I met with the TiVo people. There's no reason not to meet with them.

I don't think a lot of people understand the television aspect of the motion picture business [Most TV shows are produced by the studios].

It's like the old Pogo thing: We have met the enemy and it is us, so to speak. Who would have thought that 'them' would become 'us'? Television—and it's not just television, it's all sorts of delivery systems to the individual—are all now part of our world, and they weren't years and years ago.

That's an interesting point. When you talk about MPAA, you're talking about people who are used to selling large packages of content to people. We're moving into a one-to-one world, and TiVo allows me to record a program, not necessarily watch a channel.

The concept of time shifting generally, that's obviously an enormous change, particularly for the television and broadcast part of this business. Modern technology, digital technology will allow the consumer to do an awful lot of things that are inconsistent with the historic mode of how broadcast television was created. It's just an enormous challenge for people in this business. That's why so many of them have gone into multiple businesses.

What kind of time frame do you see for Grokster?

The decision will come out sometime near the end of June [the Supreme Court adjourns at the end of June and issues its opinions before that date]. And then we'll see. No body knows exactly what the decision is. Obviously, we're getting ready to anticipate that, both offensively and defensively, as I'm sure some in the tech community are doing as well.

We're waiting to see what it is and then to see what, if any, remedies are needed or desirable, either in the legislative context—more than likely there will be a strong look at that—but I think the marketplace will be the main place where a lot of this stuff is decided.

From http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1812933,00.asp
Article is by Chris Nolan
From

"I've got on my desk, you see: 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'" — Glickman

Good words, followed by good action, is what we need...
beginning with you and Cary, too, sir.

"The one thing I am trying to do is—the tech world and the, I hate to use the word 'content,' world, because we're all kind of in this together—these two worlds are worlds that have to work together." — Glickman

Yeah, right. (As if your MPAA and your monopolistic brother the RIAA have such a good track record of working together for the public's interests in such issues of right-to-use, or for a level playing field for independent artists, or for a just treatment of artists who find their rights compromised away with oppressive contracts, uh-huh.)

Is that a picture of Glickman? He looks like Jeffery Tambor in Life Stinks (Tambor looks a bit older now in Arrested Development)

yep..that's old Danny Boy Glickman

"...Grokster is set up in a way that avoids "ownership."..."

Grokster is only guilty of setting up to be in conformance with the law on the aspect of centralized/decentralized servers. No changes would have been necessary had not Napster been sued out of existance. You can not ask for compliance with the law on one hand and complain about that compliance when they do meet it.

"I met with the TiVo people. There's no reason not to meet with them. "

Meeting folks isn't saying a lot. I can go meet my worse enemy at supper without anything being said out of hand. That doesn't mean we agree nor that we have solved anything; it only means we got full.

The p2p issue could be solved at anytime. However the RIAA will not negotiate in good faith so that can't happen. It is a "manufactured crisis" and it is being used to try and setup some reasoning to change the laws.

"My guess is, if I were betting, that we—meaning the MGM et al group—will win a victory."

Well, call me up, Dan. I've got a second mortgage that I need to get rid of and I'd bet my house that you don't.

"I've got on my desk, you see: 'Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil'"

That's what you see. He sees monkey butts.

"The p2p issue could be solved at anytime. However the RIAA will not negotiate in good faith so that can't happen. It is a "manufactured crisis" and it is being used to try and setup some reasoning to change the laws."

Well put.

Confident predictions. But really, this could go either way. Even the Betamax case was a very close vote.

If the MPAA wins, then p2p development will be driven offshore, so they wont even accomplish their main objective. They will just open the possibility of hundreds of trivial lawsuits they can then use to crush any innovation which threatens their immediate profits.

Which is, of course, their real objective: To ensure that if a technology as disruptive as p2p is ever invented again, they can stop it before it gains a handhold.

"it's harder and harder to fit an old model into this new distribution system that we've got."

Square peg meets shiny new round hole.

That last line was well put gdZ.

"It's harder and harder to fit an old model into this new distribution system that we've got."

It's also getting harder and harder for you and the rest of the copyright cartel to maintain a semblance of credibility among knowledgeable people.

(But, then, since they've often managed to get Congress to be their bully-on-demand, maybe they don't have to give a crap what people think...or even about what's ultimately fair. Laws, like contracts, can displace fairness; and that's essential for powerful organizations whose primary motivations are control and greed.)

It has nothing to do with 'the goodness of their heart.' Art is a compulsion. Invention is a compulsion. The real ones would do it anyway.

Carla -- that is so true.