

RIAA CEO Hopes SOPA Protests Were a 'One-Time Thing' - MRonney
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=466&doc_id=239958

======
beloch
The SOPA/PIPA debacle revealed a few interesting things.

1\. The public can be roused to fight bills like this... at least once. What
about the next ten times these bills, or parts of them, are reintroduced under
different names or tacked onto other bills? Sherman is probably right when he
says that lobbyists will win in the long term.

2\. Hollywood's economic importance is literally dwarfed by that of internet
companies like Google. Even ignoring the rights of citizens, the mere cost of
implementing SOPA/PIPA would cause far more harm to the U.S. economy than it
could possibly prevent. SOPA/PIPA was like shooting your horse in the head in
order to thwart horse-thiefs you only _think_ you saw.

3\. Why does Hollywood get preferential treatment? A long history of lobbying.
When Hollywood was threatened with federal content regulation laws in the 20's
they responded by adopting a self-imposed production code (half-heartedly at
first) and also by lobbying. Although the code is long dead, Hollywood has
never slackened their lobbying efforts.

4\. Hollywood has been getting a free ride. While Hollywood was once happy
just to avoid falling under federal regulation, now they seek (and have
gained) regulatory capture. Copyright life seems to be forever tied to the age
of Mickey Mouse. Laws like DMCA have forced taxpayers to pay for protection of
Hollywood content. Tax laws are written so that wildly successful movies that
earn far more than they cost can be losses on paper, while the profits are
siphoned off through tax loopholes without a penny going to the government
except as campaign donations. If Apple was run by Hollywood, they'd be
reporting a loss every quarter and laughing all the way to the Cayman islands.

The big conclusion:

Net companies are bigger than Hollywood and have a lot more capital to spend
lobbying. SOPA/PIPA was a declaration of war by Hollywood on internet
companies. The MPAA tried to have legislature passed that would shore up their
own interests at the expense of Google, Yahoo, etc. while doing more harm to
the U.S. economy than good. Even if the grass roots movement that stopped
PIPA/SOPA was a one time thing, it likely will not be necessary the next time.
Big Net money is rolling into Washington as we speak.

------
beedogs
He's obviously new on the job.

We've been doing this since 1998. He'll get sick of it and quit like the rest
of them before him.

~~~
smsm42
I wouldn't be so sure. This particular guy may be gone to retire on his
private island or whatever, but the industry still will be there. And so far
they are winning and the rest of the internet is losing. Right now they
already acquired capability to take any site off the internet merely by
sending a message to the services provider, and take any content off a popular
site like YouTube by using an interface specially built for them, often
without any human intervention or consideration for real rights. They are
completely exempt from any due process and from the concept of "innocent until
proven guilty". When it comes to copyright, it's shoot first, sort out later,
and they're holding the biggest guns ever. So the industry confidence that
internet users will get tired and with relentless pressure the industry will
succeed to take more and more rights from them is completely founded. This is
what happened repeatedly up until now, and winning one instance doesn't change
it. There will be more laws like SOPA, and if past experience predicts
anything there is a very big chance that they will succeed in sneaking it in
one way or another. At least that's exactly what happened till now and we
don't have an effective solution for that - so far they had only a handful of
failures, and they found new ways of doing the same. For example, they failed
with SOPA that was to give them DNS control - but they effectively control big
parts of DNS already, see recent HN stories about Godaddy and Verisign domain
takedowns. And they won't stop until they will have same as SOPA and more.

------
iwwr
This is shaping into a battle cry of the IP rent seekers:

"[We fight against] foreign criminals selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals to
Americans?"

second only to "think of the children" and "Save American Jobs Law".

~~~
djcapelis
Where "counterfeit" usually means totally legit pharmaceuticals overseas that
someone in the US didn't make money off of (or enough money off of).

~~~
raganwald
Up here in the Socialist Republic of Canada, the counterfeit drug criminals
are so entrenched in power that when you fill a prescription, the pharmacist
is required _by law_ to offer you the counterfeit drug alongside the brand-
name drug, usually at about 25% of the brand name drug’s price.

Worse, the spin-masters in power have taken control of the conversation,
everyone in Canada calls them “generic” drugs, as if molecules and atoms were
identical to each other and there’s no difference besides the logo stamped on
the pill and the label glued on the bottle.

And we’re prisoners of the system, trapped in the endless nightmare of free
health care.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Is the generic model enough to fund actual R&D for new medicine? Eg, if
generic were legalized everywhere, including the US, and it undercut
pharmaceuticals so much that they went out of business, would new drug
development cease?

Not that I'm a fan of intellectual property, but I do recognize that there are
a few areas where the upfront investment to produce the product is so massive,
and copying the final product so easy, that it might make sense to guarantee
the profits for a period of time.

Does the pro-generic side have any data or counterpoint to that?

~~~
jedberg
Back in the day before "big pharma", medical advances came out of
Universities, many of them publicly funded. I think if the big pharma were cut
off at the knees funding-wise, we'd see a resurgence in academic research.

Which I personally think is far better, because typically (not always of
course) academics will share and collaborate, instead of being in walled
gardens.

~~~
SkyMarshal
Ah, thanks, didn't know that. I suspect that would be far better for another
reason as well - less funding and brain power spent on Viagra and 'quality of
life' drugs, and more on cancer, AIDS, and other major but perhaps less
profitable epidemics.

------
Sindisil
Good luck with that.

Even some of the normals around me are start are starting to get how broken
SOPA/PIPA were and how wrongheaded the "content provders" actions have been.

Not many, unfortunately, but still ...

------
tomkin
OK. I watched the whole interview and, I have to say, Sherman seems to
understand technology better than I had figured. He even appears tolerable,
approachable and maybe even someone who would listen to reason. Is it a front?
We have every reason to think it is.

Personally, I never would have thought I'd hear the RIAA talk about millions
of songs for $10/month. Question of course is, did the RIAA kill the
subscription model and then announce it's failure? Still, $10/month is pocket
change in exchange for never having to hunt for music.

There is an invisible sheath of social truth. The elephant in the room. We've
all pirated music, software or movies at some point. None of us openly admit
it, and if asked we all say "Ya, the artist should be compensated". Then we
pirate more music and movies, proclaiming, "They're the thieves! They give
artists X% of the profits!". True. But I still don't see an argument for
pirating music - or at least, pirating music but pretending you think it is
wrong.

I don't think anyone wants to pirate music. What people want is convenience.
If the incentive for route X is greater than route Y, route X is destined to
be the popular route by default. $10/month vs. searching the pirate bay every
time I hear a new song I like? $10/month wins.

The RIAA is generally evil, don't get me wrong. But I imagined a complete jack
ass at the helm, and I am surprised to see something different.

~~~
marknutter
I openly admit it. When I hear a song I like I immediately download the
artist's entire discography. And then when they come to town, I go to their
shows.

~~~
res0nat0r
You should add: and then I also go to itunes or Amazon and buy their entire
catalog legally.

~~~
Radix
The point's been made that artists make so little from downloads and streaming
that it literally isn't worth it for you to purchase from iTunes or Amazon
downloads compared to, say, buying one out of five albums on CD or vinyl. And
maybe also purchasing merchandise directly from the artists website.

~~~
res0nat0r
Either way, you should at least purchase the music via legal means.

~~~
slowpoke
Why? Give me a good reason. This is exactly what tomkin, the top-level
commenter, meant (or at least my understanding of it). It's just "politically
correct" to say/do that, but rarely does anyone ever ask why. So let me do
just that.

Because it's "illegal" to acquire it by other means?

The law is not a moral authority by any means. At least it shouldn't be.
_Ideally_ , things are against the law because they are considered to be
morally wrong. The other way 'round (something is morally wrong because it is
against the law) is a similar fallacy as confusing correlation with causation.
It just doesn't follow.

There's a quite nice saying in Germany, frequently attributed to Berthold
Brecht, that roughly translates to "When injustice becomes law, resistance
becomes obligation.". That's essentially the current situation - injustice is
law. Piracy is but one of many forms of resistance.

To calm our conscience?

I don't think downloading music is wrong. In fact, I don't think sharing
anything can be considered wrong in any way, and I must actually commend the
content industry for managing to twist and pervert the public's perception of
morality to such a degree. It's the most natural action a human being can
undertake. And digital data isn't scarce - there's absolutely no reason _not_
to share it. It's the refusal to share (and the active battle against it) that
should be considered highly unethical.

To support the artist?

There're better ways that don't involve dead and obsolete business models
(distribution of information, which is virtually cost-free today), such as
going to see a show, or maybe buying their merchandise. I know some people who
frown on donations because they argue that would make artists beggars, but I
prefer to liken donations to tip money. Crowd-funding is slowly becoming more
accepted and might face wide-spread adoption in a few years. I like this
approach because it's essentially a service based model - the artist gets paid
once to create something, and it can be freely used by everyone when it's
complete - there's no monopoly rent on something that's not inherently scarce.

And finally, accept the fact that not everyone is able to live off their art,
and that's fine too. No one is entitled to succeed in a given job, and no one
is entitled to protection of their business model if something comes along
that makes it obsolete.

~~~
res0nat0r
Piracy isn't a moral resistance 'code'. It is just a way to get things for
free with a (very small) chance of any repercussions. If some new magic
technology was invented overnight, and the risk of being sued went up to 99%
every time you tried to download something in violation of copyright I think
this 'moral code' would disappear quite quickly. This is a cover up for 'I
want free shit, and I am not going to get in trouble, so I do it'.

How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to
download for free and get their permission to copy their art first? They
created their work for your entertainment, it should be their decision to say
weather you can have it for free, or for a price.

~~~
slowpoke
_> Piracy isn't a moral resistance 'code'._

Why? Because you say so? I don't think so.

 _> It is just a way to get things for free with a (very small) chance of any
repercussions. If some new magic technology was invented overnight, and the
risk of being sued went up to 99% every time you tried to download something
in violation of copyright I think this 'moral code' would disappear quite
quickly. This is a cover up for 'I want free shit, and I am not going to get
in trouble, so I do it'._

What I'm saying is that these repercussions are completely unjustified and
morally wrong. Appeals to (imaginary, and quite frankly, _impossible_ ) force
don't change that. You're essentially saying the same as "If being gay was
against the law and we had the power to crack down on gay people, that would
make being gay wrong".

 _> How about going to each and every artist you believe you should be able to
download for free and get their permission to copy their art first?_

I must present you with a counter-question instead: based on what moral
authority should an artist (or anyone else) be allowed to _forbid_ me to copy
art?

Let me say it again: there's nothing more inherently good and natural than
sharing. If you are opposed to sharing (of a truly non-scarce resource, at
that), then it's you who's arguing against one of, if not _the_ most
universally accepted ethical practice of humanity.

Take note that nobody can be forced to share. The opposite, however, holds
true as well: you can't force people to stop sharing. Or to put it in another,
polemic way: if you don't want people to share your art, lock it up in your
basement and never show it to anyone.

 _> They created their work for your entertainment, it should be their
decision to say weather you can have it for free, or for a price._

I don't see why. Sure, they can charge people for distribution done by
themselves if they so chose. That doesn't mean they have any authority to tell
people who acquired a copy to further share said copy, with or without
compensation.

~~~
res0nat0r
You believe it is your right to get someone elses hard earned work for free,
just because it is only a few clicks away and without consequence, and also
ignore their wishes if they ask to be compensated?

Logical conclusion: We can consider whatever you do 9-5 to pay the bills also
as your 'art'. I as your boss now decree that you are entitled to $0
compensation this month.

You are extremely happy now yes, because 'art wants to be free'?

~~~
Dylan16807
Don't be ridiculous. There is an employer/employee contract about getting paid
what you were _promised_. Has nothing to do with _what_ you did. They could
have had you do absolutely nothing but sit in a chair and wait for a week
because there was no job to do and you _still get paid_.

But if you shovel a walkway the adjacent store gets to use it without paying a
dime.

~~~
res0nat0r
The artist is promised a cut of a sale of an album when it is _purchased_ ,
since it is being _copied_ (which is still _illegal_ if I'm not mistaken) and
not _purchased_ he isn't getting paid either. Hence he should be getting
_paid_ for his work.

It seems the sentiment has become one of: since music and movies are easy
enough to copy online without me getting in trouble, and for free, the price
of art should also drop to zero as a whole. This doesn't look like something
anyone in the music or movie industry would think is a good thing would it?

~~~
Dylan16807
But nobody at all promised to purchase the album. That's the difference. An
employer agreed upfront to purchase your work. I could promise you a cut of
just about any action, and you wouldn't ipso facto be morally owed people
performing that action.

What matters is not what an industry thinks, but what is best for society. I
personally think a couple decades of copyright is a good thing but it does not
equate to employment.

~~~
res0nat0r
I don't really equate the fact that music has become easy to copy that the
expectation is you shouldn't have to pay for it anymore if you don't feel like
it, and that is best for society.

------
orbitingpluto
Mmmm. Self-serving vitriol. I would really like to be able to see step-by-step
these 'advocates' thinking processes and sidesteps over any (if any remaining)
moral qualms.

As long as it's easier to pirate than get stuff through legitimate channels,
people will pirate. And people will always fight having to jump through hoops
and being treated like they are criminals all the time.

My current pirating usually has to do with books that I've signed out using
Overdrive and are then unable to read! Instead of fighting with Overdrive and
reinstalling it, hunting down passwords, or finding out I can't read it on
device X, I usually have a pirated copy within 2 minutes. Then when I'm done I
return the Overdrive book. (That's the one function that seems to work on the
damn thing.)

------
ethank
The RIAA has one of the biggest misnomer names in the lobbying business. They
serve the interests of record labels and the plutocracy who maintains control
and legislation of that control.

Not artists.

The sooner they cease to be an issue the better.

~~~
cynoclast
Just standard propaganda. Pro-Life, PATRIOT Act, "enhanced interrogation"...

------
njharman
From larger history perspective, I hope the RIAA and rest of the information
distribution cartel is a one time thing.

Knowing history I have little hope that will be the case.

------
efsavage
If SOPA were limited to indicted suspects who sold counterfeit, dangerous,
prescription-required drugs, I'd support it wholeheartedly.

~~~
burke
The sad thing is that even at that angle, their real motivation is to shut
down foreign pharmacies selling generic drugs (often made on the same
production line as their branded equivalent) directly to Americans without the
price-gouge they're able to inflict with their market dominance.

------
malachismith
And I hope that someone gives me a free Ferrari that runs on water.

------
maeon3
Cary Sherman, the RIAA CEO, has a degree from Harvard in law. Sherman's
compensation package from the RIAA was $3.2 million. In 2010, Sherman helped
the RIAA secure a $105 million settlement from LimeWire for copyright
infringement. The guy is a self described lobbyist and he has the guts to
challenge google and wikipedia of demagogy? (a strategy for gaining political
power by appealing to the prejudices, emotions, fears, vanities and
expectations of the public).

He's probably smart enough to realize the typical "you're a hipocrite"
backlash, I wonder what his goal in this piece is? If we are going to win the
internet censorship, internet ownership, and intellectual property legal
battles we have to find a way to make it financially unwise to launch
campaigns to sustain business models that can't tolerate freedom to transmit
any data we want with uncensored internet connections.

~~~
JoeCortopassi
I think it's important to realize that we (the general public) are not the
intended audience for statements like this. The RIAA/MPAA are lobbyist
Organizations that are failing to pass legislature. They are legal teams that
are losing steam in the court room. Their "customers"/investors are the
various studios that have banded together to find means to sustain a dying
business model.

Make no mistake, these are the death throes of the RIAA/MPAA

These statements lack the confidence of secure financial backing. These
statements are basically saying, "We are doing what you asked of us, it's not
our fault it isn't working", and the studios aren't amused.

~~~
coreyrecvlohe
Spot on. There's no other reason for a NYT op-ed other than to send the
message that: "Hey we're doing what you paid us to do; what do you want from
us?!"

------
shareme
Here is an idea..since RIAA and MPAA like closed deals so much lets every 6
months stage the same protest to remind them that its still somewhat WRONG!

~~~
emeraldd
This sounds like a job for CRON.

------
funkah
I think they probably were. Copyright holders can just keep trying to pass the
same law, people will get tired of resisting, and it'll happen. In light of
that, the complaint that they were unable to get out their side of the story
strikes me as canny and disingenuous. They'll get what they want.

If Wikipedia and other sites tried to do the blackout thing again, my bet is
it would garner quite a backlash from users. People can care, but only so much
and only for so long.

------
maeon3
Lets give Hollywood censorship rights at the dns level on one condition. The
government absorb mpaa, riaa and hollywood as an unholy appendage of all the
other slow moving buracratic nightmare agencies sucking tax dollars from the
people.

