People should know that Janis is also unfortunately misinformed about both the law and current litigation when she suggests that RIAA recently went to court to seek new powers to sue users. The power to sue for copyright infringement already exists. It, in fact, has been in the copyright law for many, many years. The record companies have recently gone to court because we asked Verizon to conform to a subpoena and give us the names of the identified infringers on their network so that warning them is an option instead of having to sue them. Verizon’s response was - no, you must sue everyone with "John Doe" lawsuits after which Verizon would comply and hand over identity information because at that point it would not involve their company. They are not in court to protect their consumers from us as Janis suggests. They are in court to get themselves out of the way and to force us to sue their users directly. If she is so opposed to the idea of lawsuits, she should oppose Verizon in this case, not us.
RIAA's enforcement efforts have never been against downloaders. They are against uploaders. There is a difference. The notion that Janis defends individuals offering up hundreds or thousands of copyrighted works to others by suggesting that they are "learning" more about music when they do it is just absurd. Especially because in the same breath she says that copyright protection is "vital" and she is "against indiscriminate downloading." It is difficult to believe that an individual anonymously offering a thousand music files over the Internet to millions of downloaders is somehow not engaged in an "indiscriminate" act. Sharing music files with millions of people you don't know is some personal, close-knit experience? You can't have it both ways.
Not surprisingly, CD shipments to retailers dropped 7 percent for the first half of 2002. This comes on top of a 5 percent decline last year. Given the prolific amount of "file sharing," the record industry should be experiencing an unprecedented economic boom under Janis' logic that this helps sell records. It is not.
Article comments
1 - Mark Saleski
Hilary Rosen and her organization are so full of it . The continued use of twisted logic is nauseating. I'm not sure what's worse, the fact that they get this stuff so wrong...or the fact that the major media outlets swallow it whole.
2 - Kenan Hebert
Carefully read Ian's screed, and then carefully notice how many of Ian's concerns Rosen adresses. Answer: zero. She evades, twists words, wheedles, and apparently tries to use psychology on Ian herself, as if making her feel bad would be satisfaction enough.
I'd like to grab Hillary Rosen by the fat under her chin and shake her to death.
3 - Mike Arvin
I just have to respond to one comment by Hilary Rosen. She blames all of the drop in CD sales on file sharing. I can tell you why my purchases have dropped off. There isn't anything available that I'd like to buy.
I think that covers most of the sales drop.....
4 - Jane
Poooor Hillary and RIAA...so hard done by. The RIAA has had what, three or more years to fix this problem by offering their product over the net? And have they? Why no...the industry has persisted in believing that we'd love to shell out 19.95 USD for one or two decent cuts.
Tough.
5 - cephusj
Nice words Hilary. Long essay. Unfortunately its pointless. Regardless of your values or the beautiful explanation of the how's and why's of peer to peer, consumers see you and those in your industry as greedy monopolists. People love music and dont consider sharing music stealing. Its just like taping a song off the radio and giving a friend the tape only the quality is better. You lost this battle honey. You have absolutely no idea how advanced and elaborate sharing schemes have become. Maybe its time for a career change. In this economy - you wont be alone ...