Napster judge’s ‘bold plan’ to reform copyright
p2pnet news view | P2P:- Judge Miriam Hall Patel presided over the case which killed off the original Napster. And how she has a, “bold plan” to reform copyright via a new outfit, “with authority over the licensing and enforcement of copyright,” reports Eliot Van Buskirk in Wired’s Listening Post.
“I propose that a joint public/private administrative body made up of representatives of all competing interest, including the public, be established and authorized to, among other powers, issue licenses; negotiate, set and administer royalties; and adopt rules and regulations to carry out these purposes,” she set during a speech at her Fordham Law alma mater.
“While Utopian in nature — and with no discernible constituency beyond Patel,” says the story, “the proposal is hardly on anyone’s docket right now. But anyone looking for a diplomatic way forward that would protect rights holders without punishing their customers could do much worse that heed the advice of this particular jurist.”
It goes on »»»
Patel has had seven years to think about what’s wrong with the music business and the digital landscape she helped create with her landmark Napster decision, in which she ruled that the peer-to-peer service ”knowingly encourage[ed] and assist[ed]” the exchange of copyrighted music to the economic detriment of the record industry, a finding which ultimately spelled its doom as a free and free-wheeling service.
Part of the problem just won’t go away, like the ease with which any recording can be digitized and shared with an infinite number of others — like Patel’s speech, which I bootlegged and saved as an MP3.
Patel’s recommendations »»»
- The new body needs to be a mix of public and private entities with all parties represented. It cannot be a purely governmental body because that is not likely to instill confidence in the public.
- All copyrighted music would be part of this system and subject to a compulsory license, with possible opt-out provisions for certain rights holders.
- Congress should abolish all current compulsory licenses and adopt a blanket licensing system. (Such a system may have allowed Napster to continue operating, assuming it could afford to pay labels under the compulsory licensing scheme.)
- The body would administer all royalty payments and would replace all current systems for doing so.
- An independent arm would arbitrate royalty disputes using music databases that allow arbitration to be done with speed and precision lacking in the current system.
- Manufacturers and developers would need approval from this body before introducing an application or device capable of recording, distributing or copying music to consumers. The body would include technology experts to aid in making those decisions quickly — Patel described this as “sort of like the FDA, but much faster.”
“That last item could be cause for concern,” Van Buskirk says, adding:
“Developers and manufacturers won’t cotton to an administrative body deliberating over their feature sets. On the other hand, it sure beats getting sued by the RIAA, as XM Radio found out last year when it tried to sell a portable satellite radio receiver with a song-saving feature.”
[With all due modesty, I kinda like my idea, too >> "Record label and movie studio investors should organize a Shareholders Alliance, appoint someone to run it ... and instruct him or her to disband the RIAA and MPAA and fire the senior company executives. Their collective credibility is far too sullied to be of any further practical use, and they've already amply demonstrated they have no clue about how to run businesses in the digital 21st century. The Alliance should then name a very small group to brainstorm how p2p can be made to work for them. This group could perhaps include people such as [Jim] Griffin, the EFF’s Fred von Lohmann, [companies involved in the commercialisation of P2P file sharing applications], MUTE’s Jason Rohrer, and ex-RIAA boss Hilary Rosen. Once this group has come up with recommendations, some of the people who were fired could be re-hired to implement them. – Jon]
[The pic is a clip from Eliot's original photo.]
Wired – Napster Judge Calls for Major Copyright Reform, November 12, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“» Manufacturers and developers would need approval from this body before introducing an application or device capable of recording, distributing or copying music to consumers. The body would include technology experts to aid in making those decisions quickly — Patel described this as “sort of like the FDA, but much faster.””
This is “digital hardware imprimatur”.
November 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’ve got one, every internet account will pay a flat fee of say $6.00 a month, the money will go to pay for content, Lets say $3 for video, $2 for Music and $ 1 for Canadian content.
November 13th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
We have a better and bolder plan that call for flushing the recording industry parasites out first. All of them!
This is our plan and we are not waiting for anyone or anything to execute. This plan is in progress right now.
Then we can talk about this with those left who are not terrorists.
Does this Patel lady knows that in the US we never negotiate with terrorists?
November 13th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Be careful for what you wish for with the flat fees. You’ve added $6 bucks a month already to your bill. Since Canada is listed seperate, then every country will want theirs as well. Then there is the software industry that will feel left out of the free pie, the movie industry, the television industry, and the next thing you know, your internet bill has suddenly gotten $100 more expensive.
Lets not even talk about those that don’t download and what a clamor that will be over paying for someone else to do so.
November 13th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
I want to be on that Allance
Quote:
The Alliance should then name a very small group to brainstorm how p2p can be made to work for them…
November 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
This is further proof that this supposedly-impartial “judge” was always highly sympathetic to the recording industry’s interests, who – both then and now – sees her primary duty as protecting the profits of the recording industry.
This proposed plan is far outside the scope of a judge presiding over the Napster lawsuit, whose judgement (mandating a complete absence of infringement) was not just technically impossible for a user-interactive network, it was so Draconian that it would have been impossible for any company such as Youtube to avoid shutting down to stay in compliance.
What about protecting science, technology, and innovation from crippling lawsuits and other abuses by the music industry? Patel appears to be either ignorant of this or just doesn’t care that these sue-crazy record labels will do everything they can to stifle any new emerging technology. Digital Audio Tape was tied up in lawsuits for so many years, it became an outdated technology by the time it was all over, and never even made it to the market. The first portable MP3 player, the Diamond Rio, was sued into the ground. Any new technology can expect a similar fate.
What about protecting ordinary citizens from crippling lawsuits by the music industry? Unlike Judge Michael Davis, who questioned the RIAA’s scorched-earth tactics when he vacated his own ruling, the recording industry’s abuses apparently sit just fine with this judge.
Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has always been a tool of the recording industry. The RIAA chould consider making her their next president in recognition of her record of loyal service.
November 14th, 2008 at 1:31 am
“fat self-righteous pretentious bitch” comes to mind.
November 14th, 2008 at 7:17 am
This smacks of totalitarianism. If such a plan is ever implemented, is there any doubt that the record industry would somehow end up in full control?
November 16th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
The ideas of Judge Patel and similar one, no matter how well intentioned and devised they are are essentially unworkable.
Let us consider: There is only one copyright law (copyright Act 17, in the USA) and the scmooks who wrote were and changed it were too lazy to analyze the need and actual workable options to promote the creation o music, movies, poems, photography, paintings, etc. All they have done is react to the lobbies from the music and the movie industries, while not recognizing that music, poetry, movies, etc. cannot fit into one law.
It is absurd that with one law you can promote the creation o poetry and architectural designs. This no more possible than making a factory to produce airplanes and guitars in the same production line. Only odd balls (politician / lawmakers fit the description very well) would attempt it as they have.
To the point: Many new copyright laws are required. Each laws should have licensing and payment programs that primarily benefit the people (consumers) and then the creators.
Recently a secretary level government official requested from my firm a public performance license for using a poem whose copyright we own. The license was asked without really knowing if the poem was in the public domain. The purpose was to read the poem during the inauguration if a new large sports stadium. While we issued the license, I asked the government official, why can we not have a system so that to read a poem in a public place or a school, no permission is required? Of couese, I know the answer…. the current copyright laws do not allow it – as a way to kill culture and poetry, all because there is no poetry copyright law.