US Commerce Secretary Sides With RIAA: Warns ISPs To Become Entertainment Industry Cops
from the sad dept
It's no secret that US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke is quite confused over intellectual property issues. There has yet to be a case where he's actually questioned a highly biased or debunked industry study on the issue, and he seems to enjoy celebrating with the entertainment industry, even as the government has debunked the studies he relies on. But it's really sad that he doesn't even seem to consider the other side at all. His latest move is to side with the RIAA and effectively warn ISPs that they need to become copyright cops for the entertainment industry establishment.As you go through the text of his speech at Belmont College in Nashville (where I once spoke as well), it's really quite stunning how either uninformed Locke is or how purposely misleading he is. Neither speaks well for him:
Congressman Jim Cooper has made intellectual property protection a top priority of his as a co-sponsor of the pending Performance Rights Act. He is an outstanding senior member of congress who is committed to ensuring that the voices of Nashville are heard in Washington.Except that the Performance Rights Act is not really about "intellectual property," at all. It's about the RIAA trying to squeeze more cash out of radio stations, despite the fact that in an open market, they know damn well that they get so much value out of radio that they constantly feel the need to pay radio stations under the table for the promotion. In other words, the Performance Rights tax is really an attempt to get radio stations to pay the record labels for the right to promote the music the RIAA wants to promote. It's a huge wealth transfer, and Locke should be ashamed of supporting such a policy that does little to actually help musicians, but plenty to help the middlemen.
Governor Bredesen has been at the forefront of protecting individual property as well in Tennessee. In November 2008, he signed into law a Campus Piracy Bill that requires public and private colleges and universities in the state to ensure that computers connected to their campus network are not being used for illegal file-sharing.Only problem? An analysis of this law showed that it would actually cost Tennessee taxpayers over $10 million with absolutely no evidence that it would help musicians at all. Gary Locke is apparently all in favor of faith-based legislating on copyright law. That's scary.
Worldwide and certainly in the United States, consumers are spending less on recorded music in all formats. Recorded music revenues are down by almost half over the last decade.Note that Locke conveniently ignores the fact that if you look beyond recorded music, overall spending on music and music related products has gone way up and (more importantly), much more of that money goes directly to artists, rather than to the middlemen. After talking about the Nashville floods -- which were indeed quite devastating -- Locke seems to compare them to file sharing:
But there are other problems that we have within our power to solve. And one of them is the rampant piracy of music, and of intellectual property, that are the lifeblood of this region's economy.Is it worth reminding people that Biden once was famous for his plagiarism of a law review article while he was in law school? Or is that just a cheap shot. Biden begged off that "mistake" by saying it wasn't "malevolent," so it should be forgiven. And yet, oddly, he doesn't seem to take that same stance towards people sharing the music they love.
And I think it's important to lay down a marker about how the Obama administration views this issue. As Vice President Biden has said on more than one occasion, "Piracy is flat, unadulterated theft," and it should be dealt with accordingly.
This isn't just an issue of right and wrong. This is a fundamental issue of America's economic competitiveness.Which is why you would think that Locke would actually be interested in all of the research showing that there's greater economic benefit with weaker copyright laws. Wouldn't you? Odd that he is not.
As the president has said before, America's "single greatest asset is the innovation and ingenuity and creativity of the American people. It is central to our prosperity and it will only become more so in this century."Indeed. But no one should confuse copyright law with innovation, ingenuity and creativity. The two are not the same and, the research has shown, not even correlated.
Our founding fathers understood this as well as anyone, which is why they put in place a set of rules and laws to reward and protect the ideas and inventions of the artists, engineers and scientists who create them.With clear limitations and statements of concern that such laws might be abused. Locke ignores that copyright law today looks nothing like it did when the founding fathers put it in the Constitution -- and that the concerns they raised have been totally ignored.
But this copyright and patent framework needs to evolve to meet the evolving challenges of the 21st century.Hey, one thing we agree on... though I'm guessing that his form of "change" looks nothing like what it should actually be.
Recently, I've had a chance to read letters from award-winning writers and artists whose livelihoods have been destroyed by music piracy. One letter that stuck out for me was a guy who said the songwriting royalties he had depended on to "be a golden parachute to fund his retirement had turned out to be a lead balloon."Well, there's your problem. Copyright was never supposed to be about welfare or a pension. Copyright has always been about providing the incentive to create in order to more freely share works with the world and -- eventually -- to increase the public domain. That Locke appears to think that copyright is supposed to be a musician's pension and welfare program is especially troubling. It suggests he doesn't even know what copyright law is.
To take just one area that I know is important to this group, in our government-wide strategy, we endorsed and affirmatively encouraged the private sector -- including content owners and Internet service providers -- to work collaboratively to combat intellectual property infringement online.And there it is. Dear ISPs: become copyright cops. Even though the RIAA admits that it's impossible for them to combat such infringement, we feel that you should magically know how to do so, even though you have no way to know what is infringing and what is not.
Especially to combat repeat infringement.
None of this is surprising, of course, but it's too bad that no one calls Locke out when he makes such statements.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, gary locke, music industry, recording industry
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is copyright to blame for that or is that the fault of the record labels who hardly ever pay artists what they are owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both, however without the power and control copyright affords the holder, they wouldnt be as able to get away with it as in the same manner as they do now. Copyright allows ownership which allows them to take greater advantage of the artist. Also, bad contracts and creative (fraudulent) accounting help a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is copyright infringement to blame for that or is that the fault of the record labels who hardly ever pay artists what they are owed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course, blaming filesharing for a decrease in CD revenues is just asinine. You might as well blame Phillips for the decline in revenue from 8-tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Gonna Happen
So who would call him out on it? The same mainstream media whose business models are based on copyright? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow.
Lots and lots of lobbyist money and a few "backroom deals", if you get my drift.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But then again he obviously didn't learn not to do it - because (as your link says) he did it again when he copied Neil Kinnock's speech,
What did Locke say about "repeat infringement"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny a quick look at the billboard 100 found that quite a few of tracks featured or were by a non American artist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
That the most recent examples involve individuals with demonstrably more experience in these matters that yourself only demonstrates the absurdity of your rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
We are getting sick of your name calling and Ad-Hominem attacks.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
Ad hominem implies, falsely, that I was suggesting those individuals were stupid. I am not. I said they were uninformed, accurately pointing out that their words make clear they are not properly informed on the subject.
Uninformed is not, by itself, an insult. It is not directed at them as people. It is not a character assertion. It's a statement of their knowledge on the matter on which they are opining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
You will note that in both cases I showed where and how they were uninformed. If it's true, what's wrong with making that point?
Why do you find it necessary to debase those with differing views?
It's not debasing them. If they make a statement that shows them to be uninformed, what is wrong with pointing that out? Was I really supposed to say "well, gee, they're wrong, but lets applaud them?" Sorry, this isn't kindergarten where everyone gets a ribbon. If you say something that is, in fact, uninformed, I am going to say so.
You have a big platform with which to advance policy debates with this site, so it's unfortunate that at times you seem more interested in name-calling.
Name calling is saying they're an "idiot" or a "moron" or a "dickish troll." I did none of that. Uninformed is a factual statement on the situation. Both of these gentlemen were uninformed. Note that in both cases, I also suggested where they might go to learn more information.
That the most recent examples involve individuals with demonstrably more experience in these matters
That, of course, depends on how you define "these matters." Neither of these individuals appears to be familiar with the most basic research and evidence on the impact of patents and copyright. So I would argue that you are incorrect in your claim that they have more experience "in these matters." If they did, they wouldn't be so uninformed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
There is a difference between saying "he is uninformed" and "he apparently is uninformed", one pass the impression of certainty and the other express a possibility and that is probably what your detractors are zeroing in on. You are attesting with absolute certainty that they are mistaken and uninformed and those positions are wrong, without apparently considering the possibility that you could be wrong.
In fact some may see this as you behaving like the same people you are pointing to just on the other side of the same coin, never mind that your thoughts, as to why they were uninformed are posted along.
But probably the problem is emotional investment, both sides have invested in their opinions a great deal and are in no way inclined to let go, at least I'm not, so I'm assuming others may feel the same way, and I would just ignore those folks till the day I'm proven unequivocally wrong, that is probably what your detractor are doing too, but some are not here because of that they are here to spread misinformation because you are a threat to their way of thinking and doesn't matter what you say or do, they will try to find small holes in the logic and thinking and blow it out of proportion, to make you look bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your are uninformed too, so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
To funny ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anyone who disagrees with you is "uninformed"?
Nope. That's positively civil given the context. I think that he is giving Steve in particular a wide degree of lattitude and far too much "benefit of the doubt". Woz should really know better and have some understanding of both the trivial nature of many of these patents as well as the destructive impact they could have on the industry.
He should be able to "re-invent" many of these himself.
Perhaps he's bought into the propaganda of what patents are supposed to be and in that respect is "uninformed". Or rather he's "misinformed" and "misguided".
Steve should really know better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets go all the way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lets go all the way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm really curious if the people at all the music companies really believe this BS about "theft" or if it is simply lip service as it involves their income. I have many many friends in the business and few of them seem to get it. "It's the way we have always done things" is a standard answer.
I am also blown away at the fairly frequent editorial pieces in the local papers and business rags that seem to be channeling directly from Locke's brain. The current push is how the radio stations are stealing from hard working musicians and writers because they (radio) oppose the RIAA performance plan being pushed. Talk about destroying the industry that has promoted your business for decades...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When I spoke there last year, I was really impressed with the students who came and responded quite well to my talk. There are definitely leaders in the next generation who get what's going on and are ready to embrace it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Newspapers see radio as a competing communication medium. They see anything that can be a detriment to a competing medium (making them pay more) as something that will help reduce their ability to compete and hence will help the newspaper industry.
and if you don't believe me, ask yourself, do you think that newspapers will have this same attitude if the newspaper company and the broadcasting company were the same company (or if they both had the same parent or grandparent company)? Of course not. There is a clear conflict of interest here, newspapers don't like the competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Benefit to the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Benefit to the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Benefit to the bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is right is not about right and wrong, is about the capacity to compete which is being destroyed by IP laws that reward the lazy and incompetent at the expense of the really capable of surviving in a hostile and unforgiven environment, and the worst part it inhibit renewal in the market, new companies can't enter the market because is locked up, people who could have succeed will not get a chance to do so, and that is the end for creativity on any region that adopts that kind of behavior.
Innovation, ingenuity and creativity needs a certain environment to happen that environment is being sterilized by IP laws that reward the incompetent and protect them not giving any reason for people to be innovative or be creative, that is why the American manufacturer's got a beating from Asia and that is why soon innovation, ingenuity and creativity will be in other parts of the world.
That said I just think that guy is talking out of his ass to please a crowd, not to make any useful statement or policy, in the U.S. "affirmatively encouraged" is code to deal with it yourselves because we don't want to get hurt in the middle of your fight boys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time for obama dictatorship to go
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@14
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
my theory
when the world realizes the trillions of dollars we owe we will then be able to say ... well ... you infringe on all this IP that we developed with that debt, so ... we arent paying you until you pay us. kinda sorta ... obviously not that straightforward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps you should, Mike. Challenge him to a public debate, and if he loses or refuses, then he should have to publicly rescind his warning to ISPs and issue sanctions and fines against the RIAA and publicly expose their true tactics and motives to the whole country and shut them down. Otherwise you'll get the EFF or whichever relevant consumer advocacy organization to investigate him and get him removed from office. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
S Locke
TheSec@doc.gov
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So basically this is all about giving songwriters a second retirement option. In this day and age when most people struggle to get even a primary retirement option you have money grubbers like this trying to convince the government to create a welfare/pension system just for them. I don't see any other industry trying to do this. What makes those in the music industry so special.
To take just one area that I know is important to this group, in our government-wide strategy, we endorsed and affirmatively encouraged the private sector -- including content owners and Internet service providers -- to work collaboratively to combat intellectual property infringement online.
In other words they have "invested" a lot of money in the government to protect their interests and now is the time for return on their investments to come in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
music piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]