[multi]

Wishing Didn’t Make It So
Jack Spratts

Cultural historians will look back upon the 20th century as an era when a privileged few could for a brief period make huge sums for doing nothing at all. Some of these people were called “Recording Artists” and they made their phenomenal livings by getting paid over and over again for work that had been done in the past, sometimes even decades earlier. By some strange and short-lived technological accident the costs of making copies and distributing them had reached a point where it was cheap enough for corporations to engage in but not so cheap that individuals could do so. It was perfect for capitalism; large companies could dispense near perfect recordings while their customers could only consume.

Copying of course had been a part of the culture for tens of thousands of years - but it had been so hard to do for most of that time it was reserved for an extremely select few. It might take a person an entire life to produce a handful of replicas. Scribes worked by painstaking hand carving each letter or note until after months or years of effort a piece was complete and ready for the approval of a patron; like a Pharaoh, a King or a Pope. Such reproductions, along with the rarified knowledge they contained, existed for the exclusive benefit of the powerful, the rich and the rulers. Common people were left with little else than common knowledge and common art. They passed it along freely to one another, but they had no real access to information and it showed in their miserable living conditions and stunted lives. Still what they had they made the most of, making use of it for survival and amusements.

With Guttenberg and movable type then Edison and vibrating styli it all changed. For the first time not just ideas or written music could be copied but an actual living recital captured and made over and over again. It didn’t take entrepreneurs long to find markets for the new mediums.

So things stood for the better part of a hundred years with technology improving the product but not the equation. No matter how good the recordings became or how easy they were to make, large companies enjoyed an edge over the people they served. This was never more true then when it came to delivering the products to the home. The media giants had become international distributing banks that financed recordings and delivered the copies, while the actual performance was left up to the artists and the “bank’s” chosen agent in charge of production. The pipe became everything; the art a commodity.

Until the arrival of the computer and the Internet.

With the development of both and the addition of small programs that let users see and share the contents inside the machines suddenly anyone anywhere could do the previously impossible; create digital art and instantly get it to any point on the planet for a fraction of the cost of a first class stamp.

At this the balance of power between artist, media company and audience changed forever. After all, if you could make your own music, or at least get your favorite music directly from the artist or another listener and get it easier than you could from a traditional media-owned source, what good were the companies? What purpose did they serve?

That question and its answer were crucial to the survival of the record companies and were very much at the forefront of discussions in the executive suites. The execs knew the answer and they hated it because they were in danger of serving no purpose at all. To change and to change fast they had to act immediately - but time passed and nothing happened. The pressure built. Finally in their haste and fear they made a fatal mistake. They choose to fight a social and technological movement not with a better idea but with the law. Trusting that their friends in Congress would back them up and the courts would rule their way, they put all that they had into attorneys and lobbyists. Hoping, wishing really, that high priced talent and old school connections could do what hand wringing and foot stomping so far had failed to accomplish - make the people stop sharing songs among themselves.

It almost made sense. At first. From their point of view they seemed to be winning. For instance an oddly rancorous judge shut down the first big file sharing system and a Congressional ally proposed a law so draconically undemocratic it actually would’ve allowed companies carte blanche access to the inside of every computer in the world. Anyone alleged to be sharing files the company thought they shouldn’t would have their files destroyed – and possibly even their computers - without the normal checks and balances like due process or warrants - rights even accused murderers have. More bills were proposed, jail sentences threatened and still the sharing continued, until the sharing itself became bigger than the companies, and totally out of their control.

An entirely new way of doing business rose up in front of them and they didn’t fight back with a system of their own. All they did was lay on more lawyers, get more subpoenas, submit more writs, start more suits, and watch more of their efforts fail. What victories they did achieve were words having no discernable impact on the situation. If what was happening was indeed a revolution any historian could have told them that winning one wasn’t achievable with edicts and fiat. Action was needed, but action was absent.

By the end of last week even that ill-advised strategy had stopped producing results, insignificant as they were. As if to say to the companies, “Move along”, a federal judge in California, in the belly of the media beast, acknowledged for principal what millions were practicing: Peer-to-Peer programs are legal. Legal to make, legal to own…and legal to use. The non-infringing uses offset the possible infringing ones. Like VCRs that make copies, cassette recorders that make copies, or Xerox machines that, well, make copies, the total benefits in all these things out weigh the potential harm.

Astonishment reigned in Hollywood. Like an edgy drunk cut-off and hit with cold water, Black Friday jolted the industry. It shouldn’t have, they should’ve seen this coming. Well groomed spokespeople came forth professing shock and outrage and even a few meisters tried pushing a positive spin, like the RIAA’s soon to be gone chief lobbyist Hilary Rosen who stated, “We are pleased with the court's affirmation that individual users are accountable.” Uh huh. Whether she said it with a straight face I can't say, I’d only seen the line in print.

The ruling, the Thing That Counts, is simple and short but it’s impact will be felt for generations.


Therefore, for the reasons stated, the Court HEREBY GRANTS the following Motions:

1) Defendant Grokster, Ltd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment;

2) Defendant StreamCast Networks, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Contributory Infringement; and

3) Defendant StreamCast Networks, Inc.’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Re: Vicarious Infringement.


As one can plainly see nothing in that ruling is in any way good for a dinosaurian media oligarchy entering the age of mammalian cooperation. But it’s the best possible news for anyone at all concerned about a balance of power between one’s culture and those who would try to co-opt it.

Peer-to-Peers are legal. We’ve always known this, now the establishment knows this too.

Let’s share.







Enjoy,

Jack.

man,I truly am in awe of your fantastic style
thats is all so well written ...
seriously inspirational stuff...