Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Orson Scott Card (Ender's Game) Speaks out against the RIAA

redravin40 · 09-24-2003, 09:45 PM

And here is part 2.

MP3s Are Not the Devil - Part 2

How to Teach Your Customers to Hate You

It only gets stupider the more you think about it. The kids they're trying to prosecute and punish are in exactly the demographic that advertisers are most eager to target, not because they have the most money -- far from it, people my age have all the money -- but because they're "brandable." They haven't yet committed themselves to brand loyalty. They're open to all kinds of possibilities. And advertisers want to get to them and imprint their brands so that they'll own these consumers as the get older and start earning money.

So just how smart is it to indelibly imprint on their young minds a link between your corporate brand and outrageous punishments for music sharing?

Let's keep this in perspective. We're not talking about murder here, or child molestation, or even speeding on the highway. No one's life is put at risk. In all likelihood, nobody is really losing any money they would have had anyway. So just what kind of punishment is really deserved?

There is such a thing as defeating your own purpose. Like Queen Mary I of England, who tried to restore Catholic fidelity by burning a couple of hundred Protestants whose sins were as trivial as buying a Bible and having people read it to you. Every burning made it more certain that Catholicism would become loathsome to more and more of the population.

I was especially amused at Utah Senator Orrin Hatch's support for seeding the MP3-sharing sites with computer-destroying viruses.

I mean, this is one of the leading figures on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he actually wanted to punish people without any kind of due process -- and all for an offense against copyright.

Open sharing of music files doesn't actually hurt the creators of music. It helps them. When friends can say, "Have you heard Eva Cassidy's music? Here, I'll send you a couple of songs, you won't believe how good she is," that's called "word of mouth," and what you'll get is more and more people who attend her live performances and buy her CDs.

More sales for musicians that might otherwise never have been heard of.

You should hear singers like Janis Ian go on about how much good file-sharing does for the careers of musicians who aren't the pets of the record companies. The record companies pretend they're protecting the rights of the musicians, but you have to be deeply dumb to believe that. What they mean is that they want to protect the rights of the musicians they have under contract -- even if their "protection" hurts everybody else.

The real gripe for the record companies is not these fictional "lost sales." What's keeping them up at night is the realization that musicians don't need record companies any more.

Musicians can go into a studio, record their own music exactly as they want it, and not as some executive says they have to record it because "that's what the kids want."

Then they can sell CDs at their live performances and set up online, with a bunch of MP3s that people can share around. They also can sell CDs, and without a lot of expensive record company overhead.

Of course, fulfilment and website management can be an expensive pain, so what will emerge is a new kind of recording company -- full-service online stores that make only as many copies of a CD as are ordered, so there's no inventory to maintain. They'll take a much smaller share of the money than the existing companies do, so the CDs can sell for much less -- while the artist still makes more money per sale than the big record companies ever allowed.

Change the Law to Help the Artists

Meanwhile, let's remember that the studios and record companies have recently been manipulating the copyright laws to their own -- not the artists' -- advantage.

When a corporation is listed as the "author" of a copyrighted work, then what does lifetime-plus-twenty or lifetime-plus-fifty really mean? Whose lifetime?

And extending copyright to ludicrous lengths of time is against the public interest. Twenty years after the author's death or the author's hundredth birthday, whichever comes last -- that's a workable standard to provide for the author and his or her immediate heirs. It comes to an end, and the work enters the public domain as it should.

And let's eliminate this nonsense about corporate authorship. If a corporation claims to be the "author" for copyright purposes, then the whole life of the copyright should be twenty years, period. Corporations aren't authors of anything, ever, and they don't deserve the protections actual human beings have. They make most of their money in twenty years, except on a handful of works that enter the public consciousness. But just like trademarks that become ordinary words, like aspirin, it is precisely in these cases that corporately-authored works should enter the public domain quickly.

If you changed the law that way, suddenly "work for hire" contracts would disappear, and the real creators would be treated with more respect by the big companies -- because they'd much rather have a fair contract with an author whose copyright will last many decades than to have outright "authorship" of a twenty-year copyright.

The companies would even have a vested interest in helping creative people live longer. Instead of trying to give them ulcers, heart attacks, strokes, fatal depressions, and reasons to drink.

How to Stop the File-Sharing

Truth to tell, I don't have much patience with the websites and systems that allow indiscriminate sharing of MP3s among strangers. I'd like to see them shut down. But they can't be, not without changing international agreements, because how can the U.S. government stop a file-sharing scheme that works on a server in Singapore? And Orrin Hatch's killer-virus scheme would be a form of international terrorism.

The same thing that keeps us from blocking the scourge of internet porn also keeps us from being able to take any practical measures to block MP3-sharing websites. And frankly, I think the porn sites cause far more harm to Americans than MP3-sharing. If the government goes after teenagers sharing songs but does nothing about family-wrecking, soul-numbing porn, then something is deeply, deeply wrong.

Do you know how to stop file-sharing on anything other than a friend-to-friend, word-of-mouth basis?

Instead of turning the file-sharers into martyred heroes, the way the short-sighted executives want to do, just educate people that it's OK to let people hear a sample, but don't give away whole albums of work you didn't create. This is not a hard concept; people would get it.

Scorn works far better than lawsuits and punitive damages at changing society. I already react that way when somebody says, "Let me copy the CD for you." I affix them with a steely glare and say, "Do you own the copyright for that?" They usually say something face-saving, and I let them, because I'm not a puritan about it. But they not only never offer to copy songs for me, most of them also get more nervous to offer it to other people.

That will stamp out the "sharing" of whole CDs pretty quickly, if it catches on.

The same technique is the only effective one against the social spread of hard drugs. Most people only try self-destructive drugs because they think their peers will think they're cool for doing it. If their peers treated it with the same scorn they now offer those who, say, attend Sunday school, how many people would use drugs?

Do you think the use of cocaine would have become so widespread if it hadn't been treated as "cool" by the very studio and record company executives who are now in favor of rigid copyright law enforcement?

Fair is fair. I think any company that ever had an employee provide illegal drugs for musicians, or for anyone else at a company function, should be declared to have no standing to bring suit against anybody for copyright law infringement. The drugs they knowingly passed around (and, I would guess, still continue to pass around, if more discreetly) have killed far more people than Napster ever would have. There ought to be a hypocrisy penalty.

Strip away all the pretension, and what you really have is this: Rapacious companies that have become bloated on windfall profits and ruthless exploitation of other people's talents are now terrified that the gravy train will go away.

Because in the brave new world of online distribution of cheap CDs, do you know who the only losers would be? Big-salary executives and owners of big record companies.

The movie studio executives are safer -- it takes big money to make big movies, and nobody can distribute on the net the experience of going into a theater to see a first-run movie.

Clean Up Your Own Act First

Americans are generally good people. If you explain to them why a rule is necessary, they'll generally go along with it.

But you have to get rid of the hypocrisy first. File-sharing is not the end of the world, and the existence of music and movies are not being threatened, any more than they were with the advent of radio, television, and VCRs.

And let's just laugh at the self-righteousness of the "injured" studios and record companies. We can't take them seriously until they've tried the obvious market responses:

Drop those CD prices to a reasonable level -- even if it means firing some of those big-salary execs and cutting out some of the percs. (It won't take the record companies long to figure out how to take a percentage of concert performances to make up for lost income, anyway -- or are they already doing it?)

Start treating the artists better, and let copyright be awarded to the creators, not the backers. When the audience sees that copyright law is protecting the musicians from the corporate exploiters, then they'll be more likely to obey the copyright law. The emotional connection is between musician and audience.

Which is why the companies should stop threatening us and our children with ludicrous prosecution, or with software designed to sabotage our right to make backup copies and transfer files from one player to another for our legitimate personal use.

The more visible you make yourselves, all you executives, the more everybody will hate you. Disappear from the public eye and revise your business model to fit the current technology.

Meanwhile, any copy-protection scheme you come up with that would make it harder for me to copy songs onto the player I use when I'm running, and I'll simply stop buying any music from your company. I already have a lot of music. I can listen to it for years before I need to buy another CD, if you've made it so I can't use it in the lawful ways that I want to.

Then let's get back to the real world, instead of wasting any more time on the petty and mostly self-inflicted problems of rich but badly-managed corporations.

Copyright © 2003 by Orson Scott Card.

09-24-2003, 09:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
redravin40 Loser Location: With Jadzia	And here is part 2. MP3s Are Not the Devil - Part 2 How to Teach Your Customers to Hate You It only gets stupider the more you think about it. The kids they're trying to prosecute and punish are in exactly the demographic that advertisers are most eager to target, not because they have the most money -- far from it, people my age have all the money -- but because they're "brandable." They haven't yet committed themselves to brand loyalty. They're open to all kinds of possibilities. And advertisers want to get to them and imprint their brands so that they'll own these consumers as the get older and start earning money. So just how smart is it to indelibly imprint on their young minds a link between your corporate brand and outrageous punishments for music sharing? Let's keep this in perspective. We're not talking about murder here, or child molestation, or even speeding on the highway. No one's life is put at risk. In all likelihood, nobody is really losing any money they would have had anyway. So just what kind of punishment is really deserved? There is such a thing as defeating your own purpose. Like Queen Mary I of England, who tried to restore Catholic fidelity by burning a couple of hundred Protestants whose sins were as trivial as buying a Bible and having people read it to you. Every burning made it more certain that Catholicism would become loathsome to more and more of the population. I was especially amused at Utah Senator Orrin Hatch's support for seeding the MP3-sharing sites with computer-destroying viruses. I mean, this is one of the leading figures on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and he actually wanted to punish people without any kind of due process -- and all for an offense against copyright. Open sharing of music files doesn't actually hurt the creators of music. It helps them. When friends can say, "Have you heard Eva Cassidy's music? Here, I'll send you a couple of songs, you won't believe how good she is," that's called "word of mouth," and what you'll get is more and more people who attend her live performances and buy her CDs. More sales for musicians that might otherwise never have been heard of. You should hear singers like Janis Ian go on about how much good file-sharing does for the careers of musicians who aren't the pets of the record companies. The record companies pretend they're protecting the rights of the musicians, but you have to be deeply dumb to believe that. What they mean is that they want to protect the rights of the musicians they have under contract -- even if their "protection" hurts everybody else. The real gripe for the record companies is not these fictional "lost sales." What's keeping them up at night is the realization that musicians don't need record companies any more. Musicians can go into a studio, record their own music exactly as they want it, and not as some executive says they have to record it because "that's what the kids want." Then they can sell CDs at their live performances and set up online, with a bunch of MP3s that people can share around. They also can sell CDs, and without a lot of expensive record company overhead. Of course, fulfilment and website management can be an expensive pain, so what will emerge is a new kind of recording company -- full-service online stores that make only as many copies of a CD as are ordered, so there's no inventory to maintain. They'll take a much smaller share of the money than the existing companies do, so the CDs can sell for much less -- while the artist still makes more money per sale than the big record companies ever allowed. Change the Law to Help the Artists Meanwhile, let's remember that the studios and record companies have recently been manipulating the copyright laws to their own -- not the artists' -- advantage. When a corporation is listed as the "author" of a copyrighted work, then what does lifetime-plus-twenty or lifetime-plus-fifty really mean? Whose lifetime? And extending copyright to ludicrous lengths of time is against the public interest. Twenty years after the author's death or the author's hundredth birthday, whichever comes last -- that's a workable standard to provide for the author and his or her immediate heirs. It comes to an end, and the work enters the public domain as it should. And let's eliminate this nonsense about corporate authorship. If a corporation claims to be the "author" for copyright purposes, then the whole life of the copyright should be twenty years, period. Corporations aren't authors of anything, ever, and they don't deserve the protections actual human beings have. They make most of their money in twenty years, except on a handful of works that enter the public consciousness. But just like trademarks that become ordinary words, like aspirin, it is precisely in these cases that corporately-authored works should enter the public domain quickly. If you changed the law that way, suddenly "work for hire" contracts would disappear, and the real creators would be treated with more respect by the big companies -- because they'd much rather have a fair contract with an author whose copyright will last many decades than to have outright "authorship" of a twenty-year copyright. The companies would even have a vested interest in helping creative people live longer. Instead of trying to give them ulcers, heart attacks, strokes, fatal depressions, and reasons to drink. How to Stop the File-Sharing Truth to tell, I don't have much patience with the websites and systems that allow indiscriminate sharing of MP3s among strangers. I'd like to see them shut down. But they can't be, not without changing international agreements, because how can the U.S. government stop a file-sharing scheme that works on a server in Singapore? And Orrin Hatch's killer-virus scheme would be a form of international terrorism. The same thing that keeps us from blocking the scourge of internet porn also keeps us from being able to take any practical measures to block MP3-sharing websites. And frankly, I think the porn sites cause far more harm to Americans than MP3-sharing. If the government goes after teenagers sharing songs but does nothing about family-wrecking, soul-numbing porn, then something is deeply, deeply wrong. Do you know how to stop file-sharing on anything other than a friend-to-friend, word-of-mouth basis? Instead of turning the file-sharers into martyred heroes, the way the short-sighted executives want to do, just educate people that it's OK to let people hear a sample, but don't give away whole albums of work you didn't create. This is not a hard concept; people would get it. Scorn works far better than lawsuits and punitive damages at changing society. I already react that way when somebody says, "Let me copy the CD for you." I affix them with a steely glare and say, "Do you own the copyright for that?" They usually say something face-saving, and I let them, because I'm not a puritan about it. But they not only never offer to copy songs for me, most of them also get more nervous to offer it to other people. That will stamp out the "sharing" of whole CDs pretty quickly, if it catches on. The same technique is the only effective one against the social spread of hard drugs. Most people only try self-destructive drugs because they think their peers will think they're cool for doing it. If their peers treated it with the same scorn they now offer those who, say, attend Sunday school, how many people would use drugs? Do you think the use of cocaine would have become so widespread if it hadn't been treated as "cool" by the very studio and record company executives who are now in favor of rigid copyright law enforcement? Fair is fair. I think any company that ever had an employee provide illegal drugs for musicians, or for anyone else at a company function, should be declared to have no standing to bring suit against anybody for copyright law infringement. The drugs they knowingly passed around (and, I would guess, still continue to pass around, if more discreetly) have killed far more people than Napster ever would have. There ought to be a hypocrisy penalty. Strip away all the pretension, and what you really have is this: Rapacious companies that have become bloated on windfall profits and ruthless exploitation of other people's talents are now terrified that the gravy train will go away. Because in the brave new world of online distribution of cheap CDs, do you know who the only losers would be? Big-salary executives and owners of big record companies. The movie studio executives are safer -- it takes big money to make big movies, and nobody can distribute on the net the experience of going into a theater to see a first-run movie. Clean Up Your Own Act First Americans are generally good people. If you explain to them why a rule is necessary, they'll generally go along with it. But you have to get rid of the hypocrisy first. File-sharing is not the end of the world, and the existence of music and movies are not being threatened, any more than they were with the advent of radio, television, and VCRs. And let's just laugh at the self-righteousness of the "injured" studios and record companies. We can't take them seriously until they've tried the obvious market responses: Drop those CD prices to a reasonable level -- even if it means firing some of those big-salary execs and cutting out some of the percs. (It won't take the record companies long to figure out how to take a percentage of concert performances to make up for lost income, anyway -- or are they already doing it?) Start treating the artists better, and let copyright be awarded to the creators, not the backers. When the audience sees that copyright law is protecting the musicians from the corporate exploiters, then they'll be more likely to obey the copyright law. The emotional connection is between musician and audience. Which is why the companies should stop threatening us and our children with ludicrous prosecution, or with software designed to sabotage our right to make backup copies and transfer files from one player to another for our legitimate personal use. The more visible you make yourselves, all you executives, the more everybody will hate you. Disappear from the public eye and revise your business model to fit the current technology. Meanwhile, any copy-protection scheme you come up with that would make it harder for me to copy songs onto the player I use when I'm running, and I'll simply stop buying any music from your company. I already have a lot of music. I can listen to it for years before I need to buy another CD, if you've made it so I can't use it in the lawful ways that I want to. Then let's get back to the real world, instead of wasting any more time on the petty and mostly self-inflicted problems of rich but badly-managed corporations. Copyright © 2003 by Orson Scott Card.