Senator Norm Coleman
I have found it exceedingly difficult to deal with guaranteeing the future of music given the technology moves quickly
and the law moves slowly. This effort to get law, technology and ethics in sync is extremely difficult.
The answer is not going to come from Washington. I appreciate what is going on here cause we need the action at
the ground level, from which we can make adjustments. They said Disco would never die, and it did.
There are three monving parts
The technology is changing. The consumer is changing. The entertainment industry is changing. and
each wants the law to help them achieve their goals.
The local record store is an historic throwback. Brick and mortar has become click and order. Recent
declines in music sales remind me of falls in sales of iron ore. Consumers are going to drive this economy even
if they only have learner's permits. Can we hang on to old business models. If so, how long. In my
view, suing your customers is not good business.
The DMCA may have altered the course of Copyright law.
P2P is here to stay. You cannot blame them for the spread of technology - are you going to shut down the
internet. I am concerned about their ability to get into your home, via your computer. My records are on my
computer. The principal purpose appears to be the illegal transfer of copyright materials. We cannot ignore
this while highlighting some beneficial uses. But the music industry is going to have to work with the p2p
providers.
HR4077 - with criminal penalties for the reckless disregard for copyright. We should be wary of the power of
government at this level. It is proposed to use the FBI to ferret out downloading activity. If there is
another terrorist attack, and we were to have to ask the FBI how are you allocating resources - in the midst of issues
of national security, should the resources of the FBI used for controlling illegal downloading. I think
not.
S2237 - The so-called pirate act. Shifts the litigation of piracy to a civil act. I recognize the desire
to change behavior. On the other hand, using the power of government here I have a similar concern. There
has to be a better way than using the resources of the government to solve this issue.
The government may require that P2P service inform people that transferring copywritten files is illegal. If the
paradigm is changing with technology, then we should change the paradigm of solutions.
Here in Washington, water is free- but it may have lead in it. People will pay for something that is free if
they know it is safe, or is easy to use, or it has value.
Hardware and Software companies need to be a part of the solution. You cannot stop all illegal use even if the
federal government is suing hundreds of people. Not when the technology is changing everyday. If you create
models that are safe, affordable and easy to use, we can keep moving forward.
The automobile did not like the technologically advanced method for building cars. from 1903 -1911 there was a
legal battle over whether it was legal for Henry Ford to use technology within the auto market. I don't know if
this is true, since I got the information on the internet.
Getting congress to sue will only slow the inevitable changes.
Step 1 Cut out who did what to whom. Law is a great surgeon with fat fingers.
Step 2 Find common ground
The industry needs to find new business models. The consumers need to compensate artists.
The movie industry has a big dog in this hunt. When they move forward, the dynamic may change in this
market. By acting in ways the music never did.
Dialogue vs Discussion.
Don't expect the answer to come from government. Don't come knocking until you are done talking.
Future of Music - Senator Norm Coleman
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. My thoughts while reading this were almost exactly the same as Tim's before me. The government won't fix this. While it might be too bad that the record companies have lost alot of influence, technology has advanced to the point where many musicians will not need thousands of dollars to record an album. It'll be harder for the record companies to justify spending lots of money on cookie-cutter acts like Britney, but I'm not sure there will be alot of people out there complaining about that.
Posted at 6:14AM on Dec 19th 2005 by John McCollum
1. I don't expect the answer to come from the government, but I do expect the framework to come from the government. Asking our purposely lethargic government to manage technical innovation is like having snails herd sheep. :D
One also needs to remember that technology can work both ways. With file sharing, consumers built their own distribution system, converted their own CDs to MP3, and shared them with their own bandwiidth and their own internet connection. In other words, consumers did the leg work that was normally done (albeit in a physical format) by the industry.
Just as MP3 has enabled consumers to cut out the rest of the music industry, it can also liberate artists from the industry if they learn to do their own legwork. Smaller, cheaper, faster recording processes are resulting in artists recording and releasing music the same day. If they can build a distribution system that fairly pays them for their costs and labor, they two can cut out the industry and reap the rewards. Imagine buying music for 15 cents a song instead of 99. The artist makes twice as much money (possibly more since I doubt royalties get fairly distributed under the current system anyhow), consumers save money, and the only one who is out is the group that worked to alienate themselves from the technology in the first place.
Posted at 6:14AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Tim Smith