Mercurial

Ben Hammersley points to the recent Supreme Court decision declaring grokster liable for the file swapping, torture in Abu Ghraib and all ills in the world.
Ben notes that US law may not apply elsewhere in the world, leaving other countries free to apply this technology in whichever way they conceive it is best.

However it is applicable to note that, in the past, countries such as the UK (and perhaps the USA, I don't know) have arrogated upon themselves the right to police and enact laws that might seem unjust in other parts of the world. One example that comes to mind is the old UK Admiralty law that allows the UK to render judgment al over the world on matters maritime (or something to that effect).

So, this is possible, and it has been applied before.

What Ben writes, though, is intrinsically correct: there are a whole lot of other countries out there that might understand that the benefit of having a new technology far outpaces the costly and draconian provisions designed to maintain an obsolete business model and an extremely inefficient industry afloat.

Case in point: we are paying US$20 per CD so Britney can choke herself on cocaine (not that Britney, the other one) and to sustain Dylan's rehab clinic costs. Really, what kind of industry thrives on the self-destructing habits of their stars? What is more, why should I, consumer, pay for that?

Up until very recently the entertainment industry has banked in precious few things: the oligopolic nature of the market, in which a very few companies control the content, the distribution channels.
But this happens because the state of communication on times past allowed only a very few select acts to make it to the fore, and the prohibitive costs of recording, pressing and then pushing through the radio and TV those selected acts meant that, in effect, the barriers to entry were, for all practical purposes, insurmountable: only a company willing to spend millions on a new singer will actually see money coming back to them.

What breaks that model? Well, we have more stars now, ie, less celebrities, and more quacks that display less talent than a band of monkeys. The recording houses have a dizzying array of low quality acts, and keep on publishing even more. Low standards for all, and therefore, discontent disillusioned consumers.

And we got broadband and an amazing way to share, look for, and publish the information that we like. Suddenly, the music industry model became a conversation, an old school market with participating agents and haggling and bargaining.

See, there is no point in trying to push Britney at $20 per CD, while allowing Liz Wright to languish unheard in a corner of the store. We, the audience, will inevitably gravitate towards quality.

Other thing, to which Cory Doctorow was pointing regarding his book and sources of income, is that if distribution of the work is not paid, the artist has to go out there and contact with the public, making the concert the point of confluence of spectators and artist, money coming from the experience of sharing that show with a bunch of other people. We regain the amphitheater, the pack of humans cheering at the artist. It is who we are.

In conclusion, to pretend that a single ruling may obliterate the technological and social pressures that have shaped sharing of content is naïve, harmful and dangerous.
It is naïve, because that is going to proceed no matter what, from corners of the world where simply it is to expensive to send Special Forces or "contractors" and mercenaries.
It is harmful, because it places American technology under the shackles of a few entertainment houses, the same ones that were unable to take advantage of the internet phenomenon, the same ones that eschew technology and place easy profits instead of their consumer. If the Supreme Court limits technological innovation in the USA, rest assured, somebody in Africa, Asia or Latin America is going to come up with the answer for a demand that will only grow.
It is dangerous because, in their zeal to protect the rights to Mickey Mouse, the Court is allowing companies to intrude, invade and trounce upon the rights of citizens - the Court effectively renouncing their role, and becoming facilitators for more invasions of privacy.

And in ten years, we will be seeing the grokster of the time in the stock exchange making a killing. Only that it won't be and American company.