Cannot resist quoting the Recording Artists Coalition’s press release in response to the musical artists brief supporting respondents:
“In a surprising move today, a very small number of recording artists have publicly aligned themselves with those filing Supreme Court briefs in favor of Grokster and other unauthorized peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing services. While the Recording Artists’ Coalition (RAC) supports the right of any recording artist to freely express his/her opinion in public, it is unfortunate when artists are seduced into believing that unauthorized P2P systems benefit our society and artists’ careers.
….We look forward to the upcoming debate, and are confident that once exposed to the facts, these artists will realize they have been used in an unseemly way to promote the interests of those who care the least about the well being of artists and our culture.” (emphasis, mine)
Return to the flock, lest your soul be lost forever.
Patrick Ross offers some similar sentiments in a post misleadingly entitled “Artists Support Piracy.” Ross is “baffled” that artists would file with respondents and implies that the only desperate artists or those who hate the recording industry would do so – any right-thinking artist would know better. After all, large artist organizations filed for petitioners, so these artists filing for respondents are just a negligible fringe.
Todd Beals’ comment is a little less strong, but also considers the brief “surprising.” He asks the rhetorical questions: “While it’s true that the technology allows disintermediation and provides a direct new channel, does the inexpensive but efficient ability to reach a global audience for the artist really balance out the culpability of the P2P services? Exposure is always a good thing for an artist of any size, but at what price or opportunity cost does it then become palatable?”
The answer is that yes, these artists do see P2P as beneficial – that’s the entire point of the brief. The brief notes that even NARAS concedes that many artists feel this way. The artists filing this brief do not presume to speak for all artists; however, just as the artists supporting petitioners want to decide how their works are used, the artists supporting respondents want to decide how to distribute their works and thus the freedom to continue using this distribution channel. As Professor Lessig points out in the Creative Commons brief, “[T]here can be no doubt that extending secondary liability in this case is a choice to burden one set of interests over another.” This should not be overlooked.
Many people point out that even if Grokster were forced to filter, artists would be able to authorize their works to be traded for free. However, even setting aside the problems with a filtering solution, this response misses a key point. Wary of ruinous statutory damages, tech creators will avoid creating new distribution technologies if they cannot be sure that infringing uses are sufficiently blocked. What “sufficiently” means, as well as determination of what exactly constitutes an infringing use, will be subject to costly, fact-intensive litigation. In turn, technology creators will be chilled, and artists like those filing this brief will not be able to take advantage of possible advances in distribution channels – channels that, like P2P, many artists see as helping them succeed outside the traditional music industry.
What surprises me is that Beals/Ross/et al. are at all surprised that artists think P2P is beneficial and want to protect P2P and future innovation in distribution channels. Really, is this at all novel? That some portion of artists view P2P as beneficial is such conventional knowledge that even McPaper had an article noting it. Not only do artists see P2P as a way to gain exposure, but they also want to sell music through P2P – have you heard of WeedShare? And have you noticed the musicians using Creative Commons licenses?
It is one thing to naively think no artists consider P2P and Sony beneficial. It is quite another to consider their interests illegitimate and to act as if the artists do not know what is in their best interests, as the RAC clearly does and Ross seems to do – it is remarkably condescending.
Filed by Derek Slater at 2:47 pm under General news
1 Comment