COPYRIGHT CONUNDRUM

June 2003
		Is downloading copyrighted music tantamount to stealing? Lawrence Lessig, an expert on Internet law from Stanford University's Law School, and Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, answer your questions about this heated debate.

Forum Introduction If I can go to my local library and check out and copy a CD for free, why can't I copy a digital CD from an online friend? Given that distributing a large number of Xerox copies of a book without proper authorization is illegal, why would P2P be any different? Please explain how the DMCA will or will not impede further technological innovation and scientific research of new media devices? And, does this law violate my fair use rights as a consumer? Are the RIAA's "cease-and-desist" notices to alleged Internet pirates a violation of my personal property rights? How do musicians benefit from the RIAA's actions against alleged Internet 'pirates'? Would music companies consider developing an online service similar to that of Apple's iTunes or develop their own P2P networks? Does the U.S. Constitution rely on patent and copyright laws as way to advance the arts and sciences, or to protect business interests? Is it illegal to download the MP3 version of a song that I have already purchased? Would outlawing anti-copyright devices in theory extend copyright terms for eternity?   Online NewsHour Special Report: Media Watch Copyrighting in the Digital Age

Two viewer questions on the role of musicians and artists in the digital copyright debate -- A. Eric from Duluth, Minn. asks: I ask this question from the standpoint of a musician. My question is: how much money will the artists receive from the alleged online 'pirates' whom the RIAA is prosecuting and suing for billions in damages? How much of any money gained from lawsuits will go back to the original artists for the violation/theft of their copyrighted works? How are funds gained from settlements and/or lawsuits distributed among the record companies, the RIAA, and the musicians? Thank you for your time. B. Brian Boyko from Allendale, N.J. asks: The RIAA claims that Internet users who download free of charge deprive artists, producers and companies a major portion of their revenue, which, the RIAA claim, is having devastating effects on the industry. However, artists are being cheated out of their revenue -- royalties on sold CDs - by the record companies, not Internet downloaders. Please comment. Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School responds to both questions: The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. It is not the Recording Industry and Artists Association of America. It says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle. Many, including I, doubt that the RIAA's actions actually benefit artists. They clearly benefit the relatively concentrated recording industry, which is fighting like hell to protect itself against new forms of competition. But there are many who believe that these new forms of competition -- if allowed to develop and mature -- would directly benefit artists. Maybe not Madonna -- but it would certainly help the vast majority of artists who can barely scrape by under the existing system. Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds: A. When record companies file infringement suits, we frequently are trying to stop the piracy and deter others from engaging in that same form of piracy. Indeed, more often than not, our litigations are attempting to establish a legal precedent or make clear that we are prepared to sue music thieves if they do not stop. Unfortunately, the vast majority of music thieves that are sued are not well enough off to pay a large judgment that would cover the costs of enforcement and pay the copyright owners and artists for their losses. In those instances in which there have been recoveries, such as the case against MP3.com, each individual record company pays their artists according to the individual contract that they have with the artist. There is no single industry rate or manner of dealing with this. B. The record industry has been hit very hard in the last few years as a result of illegal downloading and piracy. In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent. In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent. In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent. During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone. Your claim that artists are being cheated out of their revenue is more of a popular myth than anything else. The vast majority of musicians are dying to get contracts with record companies. The vast majority of artists who have contracts with the record companies have great relationships with their labels. While there have been a handful (and it has been a very small handful) of cases where artists have accused record companies of not abiding by the terms of their contracts, those disputes, like any contractual dispute, are usually worked out by the parties or by courts. In any event, are you suggesting that a royalty dispute between an artist and a label is justification for stealing from both of them? Would you feel free to shoplift a CD from a record store based on that logic?