It seems my comments on the filing by Heart, Chuck D and other artists in favor of upholding the Grokster decision caused some confusion. I pointed out that many artists filed in favor of overturning Grokster, and along with Todd Beals I puzzled at the motivation of artists to defend an instrument of piracy. Derek Slater and Donna Wentworth appear to believe that means I am opposed to P2P and the opportunities it presents artists. That is not true. Larry Lessig last night spoke at the Library of Congress about how this copyright debate is divided into extreme camps. I'm not suggesting Derek or Donna are extremists, but let me show that I am not either.

To me, P2P is a core part of the Internet and its architecture. It long predates the Groksters and Streamcasts of the world, and is a brilliant content distribution system. I think record labels, studios and other creators of intellectual property would find it a helpful distribution tool. I can also understand why they wouldn't want to contract with companies whose business model is based on the theft of that very content.

In Lessig's filing in Grokster on behalf of Creative Commons, he takes a First Amendment approach to the issue. He says many artists use P2P to distribute their works and grow their fan base. That's true, I've met some of those artists. I think they are dwarfed by pirated content on P2P networks, but I acknowledge those artists exist.

Lessig then claims that if Grokster is overturned, these artists will lose a valuable distribution outlet. That would only be true of P2P were eliminated as a result of an overturn, and I don't think that's likely. The case isn't against P2P, it's against a for-profit venture establishing a business model that relies on piracy to profit. Hard to argue against that description for Grokster and Streamcast's Morpheus.

If secondary liability were extended to these egregiously bad actors, I believe it would clear the field for legitimate P2P services. It would seem to me that any P2P operator that wanted to prove it wasn't a bad actor would openly encourage the artists Lessig speaks of to be on their network. And it could really work. Derek cites the success of Creative Commons. It certainly has grown rapidly since its launch, and as a free-market advocate I welcome it because it provides creative producers more choices for licensing their content. While it does that very well, it doesn't provide easy distribution (nor was it architected to do that). A legitimate P2P site would be perfect for an artist using a Creative Commons license, as their content wouldn't have to compete with millions of pirated files.

In his talk last night Lessig said he's constantly saying he supports IP but those he calls "binheads" -- people who think in black and white -- don't hear him. I am constantly saying that I support P2P, I just don't support criminal activity. Seems to me that sounds a lot like Lessig, but sometimes people don't hear what I'm saying. I won't resort to calling them names.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 3:03 PM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)