Opinion by Bill Fairleigh

File Sharing of many music MP3 files may be violating current copyright law. But how fair is current copyright law - especially the length of a copyright? This question rarely gets asked in the file sharing debates, but the answer will probably determine which side captures the so called "high moral ground".

Many of my friends and colleagues seem to feel that, heavy handed legal action not withstanding, the RIAA is right to chastise those who share music files on P2P appliations, and that, when all is said and done, file swapping with P2P is "stealing" or "piracy". This attitude is not surprising since there is one very important aspect of the file sharing phenomenon that rarely gets mentioned in the news media: the fairness of the existing copyright laws for music and other artistic mediums.

The purpose of copyright law, as with patent law, is to give an artist (or inventor) a virtual monopoly on their creation for a limited time so that they may realize enough profit on their endeavors to make creating and inventing worthwhile. Originally, the term of a copyright in the United States was 28 years. Over the past 55 years, the U.S. Congress (with intensive lobbying from Disney, the MPAA, and others) has extended copyright terms 11 times (copyrights have been extended in other nations as well). With the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998, copyrights owned by corporations last almost a century, and copyrights for individual creators are good for the life of the creator - PLUS 70 years!

Such extraordinary long terms for copyrights are very unreasonable and effectively prevent contemporary music from entering the public domain. This is probably the main reason why commercial music is so expensive; commercial music (unlike, say, medicines) never has to compete with "old" music which is in the public domain. At least one study has shown that such long term copyrights can actually stifle creativity more than it encourages it, and are not in the public interest. Copyrights are necessary, of course, but their terms (and the penalties for copyright violation) need to be reasonable. One can only imagine how much more expensive medical drugs would be if the big pharmaceutical companies took the lead of powerful copyright holders and lobbied in Congress for century long drug patents!

We might as well face it: file sharing copyrighted music on P2P networks is probably violating existing copyright laws. But it is clearly not right for copyright holders to be able to implement what amounts to 'perpetual copyrights' while at the same time expecting to maintain maximum control over all pricing, distribution, and marketing of copyright material. The problem with the RIAA and its affiliates is that they want to have it both ways: perpetual copyrights with maximum control over copyright content.

Is it right to violate a law if it is unreasonable? This is a hard question to answer. The civil rights activists of the 1960s obviously felt that it was. File sharers may not be comparable to civil rights activists, but if the Anit-RIAA contingent wants to lay claim to the so-called "high moral ground" they would be well advised to advertise the fact that while copyright law is necessary for creativity, the current form of the law is unfair and unjust.

I guess Sonny Bono did that because he hadn't had a hit since what 1970?

As an artist my self ,Copy right laws have to be enforced by the copy right holder! And as we all see, it takes money to enforce! The music Industry and labels have plenty of money to enforce the law with right or wrong morals. If the artist were not worried about their customer relationship, I'm sure they would be speaking out a lot more than they have. But when you have the kind of cash they do...just pay someone else to do the dirty work. One day they (the artist) will have to come out in the spotlight!

Actually the Sonny Bono extension was passed after his death. It was introduced by his wife who took over his seat in congress after his death. With huge backing from the Copyright Cartel (MPAA, RIAA) His name got attached to it as a "memorial". Please note here, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act and The DMCA, got passed while we were all watching the Clinton/Lewinsky affair. Few took notice or the real issues, while wer ewere wondering about the blue dress....

this is patently outrageous(couldnt resist, sorry)

I wasn't interested in the Lewinsky affair. I thought that it was crap and stopping him from doing any actual work.

I'd like go back and see the other politicians where supported the DMCA, because I have a personally theory about that as well.

As for the copyrights, laws made before the technology was introduced should at the very least be reviewed again to see if it can still apply, if it needs to be changed in some way, et cetera. I don't think we can fall back on the old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," because it obviously IS broken by today's standards.

I agree with your view on the copyrights Intora. It's like those crazy laws they show on TV and in books every so often, like "It is illegal in (insert stå†e here, I don't remember) to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant" and the like. What is no longer necessary - or no longer makes sense as well - should be reviewed, then edited or scrapped.

Copywrite Law Reform!!!

It is my feeling that if a law is obviously unfair to the majority of people in this nation, that it is not "morally wrong" to break that law, but breaking that specific law should be encouraged in order to put more pressure on the people in Washington DC to get that law changed.

~goingnova

Holy CRAP, you guys!!!

I did a phone survey from CBS News/New York Times the other day, and the NY Times JUST called me back!!! Amy something or other (I forget her last name, but she's been doing a LOT of coverage of the file-sharing issue) called. And I just did a pretty good phone interview with her. I'm a celebrity, dudes! *snickers*

When the U.S. government notices that the copyright law says that it is designed to protect the "authors and creators" and decides to start worrying about the authors and creators who are systematically financially raped at the hands of the publishers (RIAA members), then this will all stop.

To my knowledge, not one author or creator has filed a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement over peer-to-peer. Why? Because they do not own the rights to their work.

As a result, the author has received all the remuneration they're going to get. Once the work is in the hands of the theiving publishers, the copyright law should no longer apply.

It is the publishers that the copyright law was designed to protect authors FROM. The copyright laws and the U.S. Copyright Office do not serve the purpose for which they were designed.

The authors are not protected. Having successfully killed our nation's culture, who will protect the children the vultures now see as prey?

Good point, George.

We need to put some heat on the musicians, and get all of them to respond to some of this. They may not own the copyrights, but they are the ones who created the music. As long as they continue to feed the beast, this will go on forever.

That's why I think a boycott is so important. The artists may not get much money, but they sure know when their music isn't selling; I'm sure they have someone doing market analysis for them.

If I was an RIAA artist, I'd want to know why people aren't buying or listening to my music. Unless they've been living under a rock these days, it shouldn't be any secret to them why the numbers are falling.

Sooner or later, all of the artists are going to have to address the issue of 12 yr old fans being sued for wanting to listen to their music.

I think the RIAA has the under-the-rock perspective handled. But that's just a personal opinion.

Props Z-man!
~code

I agree with this article 100%. The reason they keep lengthening copyrights is because the big media giants don't want to have their new junk compete with their old stuff in the public domain.

Sonny Bono got the bill passed because it was a good way for members of congress to kiss up to big business (and get more political contributions) without any cost. It's up to us to show that there is a reason why copyrights should be much shorter and that we do care about this.

It's always about the money, isn't it?

And thanks, Code.

AAYY-MEN!!,gd! What good is a copyright if you cannot keep the rights to your own creation?? The law is certainly broken, and civil disobedience is indeed rampant. There are a lot of P2P folks out there who are willing to go to court.. of course, the Riaa members will not persue them.. I think they fear the outcome!! Every right we currently enjoy in this country- USA - is because existing laws were broken.. from Boston Tea Party to labor union fights, to Birmingham, Alabama, to current swapping. So what? Rights of the ordinary citizen is always worth the fight. WHEN we get Riaa suit monkey offa our backs.. we should put energy into the fixing of the copyright laws. As I always say, folks, it is ALL political.. and we can change it.. by registering and voting.

BOYCOTT. EDUCATE. REGISTER. VOTE.
ARE YOU REGISTERED AND READY?

I, too, am an artist.. but I don't expect to make millions offa any song I write.. That is a flawed economic model.. and possible only if monopolies control everything.. I don't ever expect to monitor every single use of my creation, nor do I expect that I will be able to transfer the "ownership" of my creation to anyone else. In fact, as long as I am credited, I would be perfectl happy if anyone saw fit to perform it!

I'm glad Sonny Bono died, he's a piece of crap... oh no, look out for that treeeeee.. SPLAT!!!

Few artists own their own copyrights which is a problem too. Michael jackson owns the rights to most Beatle songs (he outbid McCartney to McCartney's own music--an outrage in itself that shouldn't be allowed to happen)and thats why they are in all the commercials now. Heck, John Fogerty got sued by Fantasy records for plargerizing
his OWN SONG and Fantasy WON!!!! These things show that laws need to change and I would like to see it happen before I die!

If the RIAA is experiencing reduced sale, it just might be due to the fact that the crap that puts out now is just NOT as good as it was 20-30 years ago (stuff like Donna Summer) that is still very popular (especially in dance clubs). Eminem is just not that good. The problem has absolutely nothing to do with the internet. The problem is in the quality of what passes my music these days.

Just like what is happening in Hollywood right now with movies, rehashing old themes that are so wore out. Hollywood just can't do anything like it used to. The guys that made "the matrix" are not really part of what is commonly refered to as "Hollywood".

The point......put out something worth paying for and people will buy it, put out something that is margenal and people will download it for free just because it isn't worth buying.

Eminem, I guaranty will not be listened to 20 years from now like the BeeGees are right now.