The Lawminatrix

The beleaguered music industry has precious few loyal allies left on whom it can rely to provide free PR for new artists via blogs and other new media outlets. Unfortunately, Google pulled the plug on several of the most popular music blogs last week after an automated infringement detection system flagged them as copyright criminals and the labels issued takedown notices under the DMCA. The problem is that many of these bloggers had permission to post the MP3s at issue, and/or had taken these files down already, leaving only a broken link. The bot couldn’t tell the difference.

So, here’s the thing. Copyright protects owners against the distribution of music without their permission. Of course, it would be preferable if they didn’t also come down on those to whom they have granted permission, even through an automated intermediary. By the by, not too many of these bloggers make a profit, so although their posting of music might be infringement, they’re not earning money off of it, and in some instances may have a case for “fair use” if they’re simply posting a small sample in order to comment on the artist, music style, etc. However, the music industry apparently has a short memory as far as the great service done them by these bloggers. It seems the record companies would rather net a large number of “pirates,” even though they inadvertently trap a number of law-abiding bloggers as well.

Those in the know have been monitoring with interest the buzz on proposed “three-strikes” policies that would enable ISPs to cut off Internet access to those accused of online copyright infringement three times. Notice I said “accused.” That is because the policies to date have included no proof requirement. Excuse me? How is it remotely productive to punish people without proof, some of whom will actually be innocent? In one instance, a woman with an unsecured wireless network in her home nearly lost her Internet access after kids at a nearby school used her network to download and torrent. Careless on her part, of course, but hardly the kind of culpable malfeasance that would justify pulling her plug (and killing her business — run out of a home office — that relied on Internet as well).

1) There’s no substitute for actually clicking a link to see if the allegedly infringing content is in fact online to be taken down in the first place.

2) Whether or not Internet access is a Constitutional right in the U.S., it’s an indispensable part of everyday life. Music industry execs would do well to remember that encouraging ISPs to kick people offline will not force consumers into the nearest Wal-Mart to purchase CDs, but will instead incite a riot.

3) Music bloggers are doing the industry a favor. Seriously. Think about it.

admin Copyright DMCA, infringement, music, three-strikes

In the aftermath of their convictions for copyright infringement, the “masterminds” behind Pirate Bay in Sweden want to draw the public’s attention to recent research indicating that those who engage in illegal P2P file sharing often go on to purchase the music legally.

Anyone detect an odor? I’d say it’s getting pretty ripe. People may sample a particular artist’s work before committing to purchasing large volumes, but once they’ve got a track, they’re not going to buy that particular track (obviously).

More importantly, whatever people may do after illegally downloading files does not bear on whether Pirate Bay is vicariously liable for copyright infringement by virtue of their business model. As others have pointed out, search engines direct users to all relevant content, legal or illegal, but Pirate Bay funneled them directly to the “juicy” stuff - copyrighted files available for download.

To look on the bright side, the Pirate Bay defendants will have a year in close proximity to people who are intimately familiar with the criminal mindset, so follow-up research should prove convenient.

admin Copyright convictions, infringement, music, Pirate Bay

Okay, perhaps that title is a bit sensational, but I’m Irish. What can I say? My mom never got over the whole potato famine thing. To be a bit more newsy: in 2008, the recording industry sued Irish ISP Eircom in an effort to stop users’ file sharing (new approach, questionable legitimacy). Ultimately, Eircom and Big Music settled, with the former agreeing to implement a “three-strikes” policy in which subscribers would lose Internet access after three (alleged) file-sharing incidents.

By most accounts, the suit itself was improper, and the three-strikes policy could well violate the civil rights of those affected, but the recording industry got its way, and now seeks to muscle other Irish ISPs into becoming its elite cybersquad of copyright enforcement agents. Perhaps its the jurist in me, but it seems there ought to be some due process before depriving people of their Internet access, which has become as indispensable to people as that first cup of coffee. Under the Eircom settlement, three accusations of file sharing will be enough to justify cutting off the alleged infringer’s Internet access.

Were this to become ISP industry standard in Ireland, the country could wind up in the virtual “Dark Ages,” with a huge number of innocent people (and some guilty, of course), forced to unplug and talk face-to-face with other people again. Seriously, though, the precedent is a bad one, and I hope one of the ISPs at least has the *ahem* wherewithal to finance litigation that will put an end to this overreaching.

admin Copyright filesharing, ISP, music

Is anyone else tired of hearing about how Coldplay stole Viva la Vida from Satriani? Or Creaky Boards? Or even Cat Stevens? (Check out 3:17 on that Cat Stevens vid.)

As the allegations started to mount, I got curious enough to review the tracks online and see if they were, in fact, substantially similar. No dice, in my opinion, although I would expect Coldplay to settle out of court to avoid the risk of going to trial.

There are just so many notes, and only so many ways to arrange them. Do we really want to lock down every possible combination, even though the feel of the resulting composition is completely different? In the Internet era, “access” to most anything can be assumed, but doesn’t that effectively kill the “independent creation” defense?

True, Coldplay could (theoretically) have heard the Creaky Boards song or, more likely, the Satriani riff. Does that mean they did listen to it and copy it, consciously or subconsciously? Doubtful, given that the resemblance seems only superficial. Not to mention that the band has made efforts in the past to license material (from synth band Kraftwerk), which would indicate they’re law-abiding folk, at least in this regard.

Still, there’s plenty of money to go around, and I’m guessing some of it will go Satriani’s way, although we may never hear how much.

admin Copyright coldplay, infringement, music, satriani