Has the war on terror been replaced by the war on downloading? Yesterday the British record industry, along with Interpol and Dutch authorities, raided the owner of OiNK, a bit-torrent file-sharing site with almost 200,000 members, many in the United States.
The news led to rampant speculation about what, if anything, OiNK members have to fear in terms of litigation and/or prosecution for copyright infringement.
In the vast majority of cases, it looks like the answer is “not much.” The secondary target of the raid was uploaders who “leaked” new CDs prior to their release date, and users who paid OiNK via pledge for speedier downloading times.
Some copyright attorneys feel OiNK users who did either of those two things should definitely be nervous.
Others feel an investigation of American users is unlikely unless the U.S. Attorney’s office chooses to get involved, because British and Dutch authorities are unlikely to turn over OiNK’s server logs (which would contain user information) to a private American company such as the Record Industry Association of America. (The RIAA has instigated most of the legal action against American downloaders.)
One would think attorney general nominee Michael Mukasey would have more important things on his mind than grandstanding on behalf of the record industry. But yesterday’s raid will almost certainly have the effect of discouraging downloading – a clear victory for the industry.
Showing posts with label downloading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label downloading. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
RIAA, Radiohead offer contrasting approaches to copyright law
A couple of recent developments indicated how copyright law – especially as it relates to recorded music – might evolve in coming years, and how artists might react to it.
Last week, a Brainerd woman was ordered by a federal jury in Duluth to pay the Record Industry Association of America more than $220,000 for violating copyright law by sharing 24 songs with peer-to-peer download services.
And today, the English band Radiohead, which has sold tens of millions of albums worldwide, made its new album available via its online store. Not much novelty there, except for the price: The album is available for download for any price the purchaser wishes to pay.
As of this morning, there was no word on how many “copies” had been sold, but a look at blogs and news articles about the release showed that people are tending to pay between $5 and $10 for it, with very few taking advantage of the honor system by leaving only pennies.
“Ten years ago, the major labels could actually tell retailers what price points to set within their own stores,” media professor Adam Sinnreich said in an MPR news story about the Radiohead idea. “Then the Department of Justice said that wasn't right, and you saw retailers begin to offer more flexible pricing in stores. This is a further extension of that process.”
In light of the Radiohead phenomenon, the events in Duluth seem as though they happened in a different universe. By reacting to random downloaders with litigation instead of embracing the technology that allows it the way Radiohead has, the record industry is only feeding its public image as an antiquated business model driven by greed and desperation.
Already, the Duluth decision is making copyright attorneys and other experts wonder out loud if applying the law can continue to stem the tide of downloading, and whether some copyright laws are outgrowing their effectiveness. Use of peer-to-peer software is growing by double-digit percentages each year, so the genie is long out of the bottle – and suing random downloaders in hopes of small settlements isn’t going to put it back. Maybe it will soon be time to adopt Radiohead's "tip jar" technique on a wider basis.
Last week, a Brainerd woman was ordered by a federal jury in Duluth to pay the Record Industry Association of America more than $220,000 for violating copyright law by sharing 24 songs with peer-to-peer download services.
And today, the English band Radiohead, which has sold tens of millions of albums worldwide, made its new album available via its online store. Not much novelty there, except for the price: The album is available for download for any price the purchaser wishes to pay.
As of this morning, there was no word on how many “copies” had been sold, but a look at blogs and news articles about the release showed that people are tending to pay between $5 and $10 for it, with very few taking advantage of the honor system by leaving only pennies.
“Ten years ago, the major labels could actually tell retailers what price points to set within their own stores,” media professor Adam Sinnreich said in an MPR news story about the Radiohead idea. “Then the Department of Justice said that wasn't right, and you saw retailers begin to offer more flexible pricing in stores. This is a further extension of that process.”
In light of the Radiohead phenomenon, the events in Duluth seem as though they happened in a different universe. By reacting to random downloaders with litigation instead of embracing the technology that allows it the way Radiohead has, the record industry is only feeding its public image as an antiquated business model driven by greed and desperation.
Already, the Duluth decision is making copyright attorneys and other experts wonder out loud if applying the law can continue to stem the tide of downloading, and whether some copyright laws are outgrowing their effectiveness. Use of peer-to-peer software is growing by double-digit percentages each year, so the genie is long out of the bottle – and suing random downloaders in hopes of small settlements isn’t going to put it back. Maybe it will soon be time to adopt Radiohead's "tip jar" technique on a wider basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
