If the Recording Industry Association of America and Sen. Orrin
Hatch get their way, the day may soon come when a court clerk can
give your name to the RIAA, and within hours your computer will be
attacked, leaving you with a non-functional hulk.
This scary scenario seems to be the end goal of those who seek
to toughen copyright “enforcement.” Unfortunately, this
path may lead to the RIAA becoming judge, jury and executioner for
an entire category of electronic crime. But, rather than target
individual file-swappers, the RIAA must fundamentally change its
business model. Fifteen-dollar CDs simply cannot be expected to
compete with internet-based file-swapping.
Instead of reform, the RIAA and its friends are pushing for two
new enforcement powers: the authority to collect the names of
suspected file-swappers, and the ability to target and
“destroy” file swapping computers.
Unfortunately, individual people are being targeted for what is
a systemic problem. The RIAA has ordered universities to threaten
students who use residential computer networks for file-sharing. As
if to prove a point, university students at Princeton and other
schools were recently fined $12,000 to $17,000 for file-sharing
activities.
Similarly, Verizon Internet Services recently lost a court
battle to protect the privacy of its customers when the RIAA sought
to investigate alleged peer-to-peer file-sharing of copyrighted
songs. Thus, the first of the new enforcement powers is already
practicable policy.
The second power, the ability to destroy computers, will require
a new federal law. However, Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, supports the destruction of personal computers used for
file-sharing.
“If that’s the only way, then I’m all for
destroying their machines. If you have a few hundred thousand of
those, I think people would realize the seriousness of their
actions,” Hatch said in an Associated Press article.
“There’s no excuse for anyone violating copyright
laws.”
According to the AP, Hatch would consider a law “to enact
an exemption for copyright owners from liability for damaging
computers.” Such an exemption, coupled with the ability of
record companies to collect names, would allow private companies to
invade people’s homes and punish them without the normal
legal process. This idea flies in the face of all that the United
States stands for: privacy, due process and freedom.
Moreover, it is not at all clear that this process would
actually stop file-sharing.
On a practical level, the industry is to blame for its
file-swapping woes. When average, hardworking people turn on MTV
and watch “Cribs,” they see music stars with fabulous,
nouveau riche, $10-million castles (often complete with a moat).
These artists obviously do not seem to need more money, and most
likely, neither do the RIAA lawyers and executives.
Admittedly, the record companies, like any company, have a right
to protect their product. If they stop spending all their time
attacking university students, they might actually have time to
develop workable solutions.
There are many alternatives to electronic and legal attacks
against individual computer users who balk at spending $15-$20 per
CD.
According to CNN, an average $17 CD includes $6.23 of retail
markup, $3.34 of “overhead” and “shipping,”
$1.99 of royalties to the artist, $0.75 of CD printing costs, and
$0.59 of pure profit. So if the studios sold the music direct over
the internet, assuming maybe $0.50 of “overhead,” the
music could cost $9.82 less and still give the artist and company
equal profit. As a reward for good behavior, I suggest letting the
lawyers keep the $0.82.
Studios might also consider the many cryptographical options
available to them. They could begin to sell MP3s specially encoded
to encrypt themselves as soon as they have been downloaded. These
files could “bond” themselves to the original computer,
and be unplayable on other machines. Physical protections could be
built into future computers that “track” copyrighted
material and prevent free swapping.
The bottom line in the case of music swapping is that consumers
are voting with their actions. So long as music is extremely
expensive in retail stores, people will seek alternatives. Hatch
and his fellow legislators should remember that the new generation
of voters grew up with computers and the dreaded MP3s. These voters
do not take kindly to threats of imminent destruction of their
computers, nor do they contentedly accept that politicians are the
bedfellows of major industries.
Lazzaro is the Daily Bruin Viewpoint Editor. E-mail him at
dlazzaro@media.ucla.edu for fun times or to deliver hate-filled
messages.