Copyright Scholar and Law Professor Jessica Litman has posted a new work in progress dealing with the question of file-sharing and compulsory license (Sharing and Stealing). It is an interesting paper, and one that I am thinking about and hope to write a few more comments on. However, I did want to point out a sentence that has been quoted on Legal Theory Blog and Copyfight:
The fact that more than sixty million consumers are currently exchanging music over peer-to-peer networks in the U.S. gives them a stake in the building consensus and both a moral and a political claim to a seat at the copyright bargaining table.
I don't believe that the fact that you file-share gives you any more moral or political claim to a seat at the copyright bargaining table. Copyright is about issues of culture and free speech. I think that is a sufficient basis for a strong moral and political claim for every citizen to have a seat at the copyright bargaining table. Prof. Litman certainly didn't mean that only file-sharers have a right to be at the bargaining table, but the impression given is that file-sharers somehow have privileged status.
Sixty million people can't be wrong is the oft-heard phrase. Yes, they can. A stronger moral claim to be part of the bargaining process can be made by those who boycott the artists whose representatives attack innovation and fair uses, rather than those who merely desire "free music."
I think the idea is that this is an issue affecting ordinary (voting) people, as opposed to a few geeks on the margins. That doesn't necessarily make it right - but it does make it hard to dismiss, in terms of being more than the province of a few weird techs who don't matter.
Posted by Seth Finkelstein on December 1, 2003 03:02 PM | Permalink to CommentI'd say the fact that there are 60 million people file sharing does give them a stake, but that that the moral claim to a place a the table rests in the Constitution. The political claim *may* extend from the number of file sharers, if they can convince politicians they are organized enough to make use of those numbers. But that claim also rests more firmly in the Constitution.
Posted by Frederick Emrich on December 4, 2003 05:24 PM | Permalink to CommentI'm suspecting that file sharing is being thought of as a potential merchandising medium rather than an advertising medium. Big mistake if this is so.
Posted by Philtr on December 6, 2003 10:20 AM | Permalink to Comment
I don't see any claims for a privileged position on the part of file sharers. What I do see, however, is the suggestion that, since 60 million or so people partake in the activity, that it is not *automatically* morally wrong, and that the publishers do not somehow enter the debate with the moral high ground. The position is - and this is how I wuld advance it - is that the file sharers' moral standing is at least as well grounded as any of their opponents, a position I defined and argued for in my essay Copyright, Ethics and Theft.
Posted by Stephen Downes on December 1, 2003 01:23 PM | Permalink to Comment