The head of Nettwerk, a music company, criticizes the RIAA for its recent round of 750 "John Doe" lawsuits against illicit file sharers. ("John Doe" means they don't know the identity of the defendants, as a result of the decision in Verizon v. RIAA, and must file the suit before they can get the ISP to reveal that information.)

Nettwerk is helping at least one individual file sharer defend such a suit, and takes the view that:

Litigation is destructive, it must stop .... as per Nettwerk copyrights, we have never sued anybody and all our music is open source to encourage fans to share it with others and help us promote our Artists. As per those Artists we manage on other labels (Majors), we take issue with those labels claiming that litigating our fans is in our interest, as it clearly is not.

I confess to being a bit unclear on their concept. The Nettwerk website sells downloads for $0.99 per track. Is it endorsing the idea that one fan should download and then spread the track to the world? If not, what is the alternative to litigation? Is Nettwerk endorsing self-help spoofing, or filtering, or DRM, or what?

Obviously, the RIAA would prefer to sue no one. But it seems strange to say "litigation is bad" without proposing an alternative.

In addition, why shouldn't the RIAA take a moral stand that illicit downloading is wrong because it represents an effort by the downloader to free ride on other consumers who pay their share to support artists? Music is now available over the Internet (viz, the Nettwerk website), so why don't illicit sharers deserve to be sued. Why defend a practice that is basically sociopathic in that it depends on most people continuing to play by the rules so that those who want to free ride can continue to do so?

These suits are not brought against people who share a few songs with friends and family. They are brought only against people who make hundreds of tracks promiscuously available to every passing stranger.

P.S. (11:30 a.m.): And as Patrick is certain to say when I see him in the corridor, the practice is also sociopathic in its casual disregard of the artist, who is treated as a mere object to be taken advantage of, not as a person with legitimate needs to be compensated for her work. How can you call yourself a "fan" if you are not willing to provide any reciprocity in exchange for the pleasure the artist brings you? That is not a fan; that's a parasite.

posted by James DeLong @ 10:37 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

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