FC: Seagram CEO says "no right to anonymity" on the Internet

[Declan McCullagh <declan () wired com>]

The Seagram Company owns Universal Studios and Universal Music group. 
Seagram is a member of the RIAA, which has sued Napster.

Excerpt from the Seagram CEO's remarks:
> We need to create a standard that balances one's right to privacy with
> the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters illegal activity... 
> [Otherwise we] countenance anarchy. To do so would undermine the very 
> basis of our civilized society. In the appropriation of intellectual 
> property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella [are] the ringleaders, the 
> exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of 
> someone else's property.

Also see:

Anti-Napster fight takes aim at online anonymity
May 31, 2000
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1983353.html?tag=st.ne.1430735..ni

-Declan


http://www.seagram.com/news/current-press/scl052600b.html

Remarks As Prepared For Delivery by
Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
Real Conference 2000
San Jose, California
May 26, 2000

   Thank you and good morning. I'm very happy to be here and to witness
   first hand the mission upon which Rob, his colleagues at Real and
   Real's partners have embarked. That mission is vitally important to
   better serve a world hungry for information and entertainment.

   In partnering with Universal, a company dedicated to delivering
   entertainment to consumers everywhere, including via the Internet, we
   have together committed to creating a top-quality consumer experience
   in which the content delivered is completely secure.

   That work will be the bedrock on which huge creative and industrial
   efforts will be based.

   In the next few minutes, I'd like to focus on some critical issues
   that I believe to be central to the continued operation and expansion
   of the Internet. New technologies are creating tremendous
   opportunities for businesses and consumers.

   But, like many innovations throughout history, today's digital
   technologies are, at the same time, spawning serious and fundamental
   challenges.

   While I'll touch on the opportunities that lie ahead for all of us -
   and they are without question immense - I want to sound a different
   note at this conference by addressing the challenges. Specifically,
   combating the dangerous and misguided notion that property is not
   property if it's on the Web, and the piracy that that notion
   perpetuates.

   In addition, I want to discuss the very real difference between
   privacy and anonymity. In the blurred vision of speed and innovation,
   those two quite separate values have become indistinct, and that lack
   of distinction is currently having - and will continue to have - a
   deleterious effect on our culture, our society and the long-term
   growth of the Internet.

   Clearly, in this New World of technology built upon technology,
   opportunities abound.

   If the past is prologue, then the advent of new technologies has much
   to offer both the creators of entertainment and those who enjoy and
   consume it.

   And the repercussions of this current technological revolution will
   dwarf the changes that were brought about by previous advances. We now
   live in an era in which a few clicks of your mouse will make it
   possible for you to summon every book ever written in any language,
   every movie ever made, every television show ever produced, and every
   piece of music ever recorded.

   Music is on the leading edge of this revolution, and because of that,
   it has become the first product to illuminate the central - and I
   believe the most critical - challenge for this technological
   revolution: The protection of "intellectual property rights."

   For all of us, "property" rights are well understood and universally
   accepted. You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they belong
   to you. They are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you, too.
   And "intellectual property" is property, period.

   But there are those who believe that because technology can access
   property and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours is no
   longer yours -because technology has made it simple and easy for
   someone else to take it from you.

   If intellectual property is not protected - across the board, in every
   case, with no exceptions and no sophistry about a changing world -
   what will happen? Intellectual property will suffer the fate of the
   buffalo.

   For the great ferment of works and ideas, including your own, if taken
   at will and without restraint, have no chance of surviving any better
   than did the buffalo.

   And why is this important? Because you, like we in the entertainment
   business, are thoroughly dependent on patents and copyright. You need
   them no less than we do, to protect your processes, your conceptions,
   your software code, your procedures, your designs, your ideas.

   My central belief that the protection of intellectual property rights
   is vital to the prosperity of the Internet, and my assertion that "you
   need them no less than we do," illuminate my purpose in making this
   address: The Internet does not exist, and cannot prosper in a world
   that is separate from our civilized society and the fundamental laws
   upon which it is based.

   So am I warring against the culture of the Internet, threatening to
   depopulate Silicon Valley as I move a Roman legion or two of Wall
   Street lawyers to litigate in Bellevue and San Jose? I have moved
   those lawyers - or some of them - but I have done so, and will
   continue to do so - not to attack the Internet and its culture but for
   its benefit and to protect it. For its benefit.

   What would the Internet be without "content?" It would be a valueless
   collection of silent machines with gray screens. It would be the
   electronic equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements, nice
   colors, no life. It would be nothing.

   The main challenge for you in continuing the growth of the Internet at
   this time is not taxation; it is not government regulation; it is not
   in any way technical. It is, rather, to manage, preserve and protect
   the sun around which all these planets make their stately circles.

   That sun is not an operating system or even the
   greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts Internet itself: It is the content,
   without which the Internet would die in a day.

   The main challenge for my colleagues and me is really the same - for
   your interests and ours are not separate, they are closely,
   inextricably linked.

   And so I will, as the leader of one of the world's foremost content
   companies, fight to preserve the creativity and the genius of creators
   everywhere, including the ones in this room.

   Right now, Universal is engaging in five areas in order to defend and
   promote the works of the great talents with whom we are privileged to
   be associated.

   First, we are focused on creating and launching a consumer-preferred
   and legal system for consumers to access the media they desire -
   beginning with music.

   We will launch a secure downloading format later this summer that will
   be the start of making our content widely available in digital form.

   We want downloadable music to be easy to find, and its delivery to be
   fast, convenient, dependable and secure. That's why we've partnered
   with Real, Magex and InterTrust Technologies.

   And the multi-media product we will launch will be more than just
   music.

   We are providing artists with a broader canvas on which to express
   themselves, and we are creating a far richer experience for the
   consumer. For example, consumers will have access to album art,
   lyrics, production notes and photos of the artists, links to other
   sites and, eventually, music videos. We'll also offer the chance for
   them to chat on line with artists.

   And because of the security our product will offer, consumers' privacy
   will also benefit because their files and their systems won't be
   corrupted.

   In addition to this product and system we've developed, earlier this
   month, Universal Music and Sony Music announced a joint venture to
   develop subscription-based services that will include music and video
   offerings across every possible platform.

   We are very aware of the intense and the vast demand that exists on
   the part of music lovers to find the music they want, when they want
   it, where they want it, all the time. And we are responding by
   delivering competitive - and legal - systems for them to do so.

   Second, we know that going into a record store and removing a CD is
   wrong. It is stealing. It is thievery.

   We will re-emphasize this truth and articulate this message in an
   educational effort, with our industry allies, targeted to the great
   majority of people who want to do the right thing - yet, may not fully
   comprehend that accessing copyrighted material without proper payment
   or permission in the digital world, is as wrong as it is in the
   physical world.

   Each new technological advance inevitably requires new behaviors. When
   tape recorders came along, we grappled with the distinctions to be
   made between taping things for your own enjoyment and selling the
   tapes. When photocopiers came along, we had to deal with how much of
   something could be copied and under what circumstances without
   constituting theft.

   Now the Internet has created a newer version of the same issues. Once
   again, we need to thrash out how intellectual property can and should
   be protected in the context of new, digital technologies.

   The Internet world is a brave new world. But make no mistake, it could
   only have been created and it will only survive, in the context of our
   civilized world, which has taken humanity centuries to construct.

   This technological revolution will reshape it - perhaps even more
   dramatically than the Industrial Revolution reshaped its world. But
   the principles of law, of justice and of civilization will not be
   overturned. If the Internet requires these basic principles to be
   sacrificed so that it may prosper, it will wither and die like the
   Hantavirus, which expires as it devours the very life that would
   sustain it.

   Universal's third initiative is the use of technology. Just as
   technology gives, so can it take away. As technology enables crime, so
   can it be used to protect us from crime and criminals.

   We have available to us growing arsenals of technological weapons that
   will be brought to bear on inappropriate access to material on the
   Internet.

   Whether it is better and more robust methods of security, or tools to
   track down those who ignore right from wrong, technology will offer
   the owners of property at least as much comfort as it may currently
   offer to hackers and spies, pirates and pedophiles.

   Technology exists that can trace every Internet download and tag every
   file. These tools make it possible to identify those who are using the
   Internet to improperly and illegally acquire music and other
   copyrighted information. While adhering to the principle of respect
   for individual privacy, we fully intend to exploit technology to
   protect the property which rightfully belongs to its owners.

   The fourth route we have already pursued is to utilize existing laws
   to bring to justice those who demonstrate contempt for law and
   copyright, and seek to profit from that which is not lawfully theirs.

   Here, we have already seen some major successes:
     * In late April, a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
       New York ruled that myMP3.com was liable for copyright
       infringement.
     * In mid-May, the U.S. District Court in Northern California ruled
       against Napster. The court denied Napster's claim that it was a
       mere conduit, and the court determined that Napster had not taken
       adequate steps to keep repeat infringers, who use pirated
       material, from using the site.
     * Another recent victory confirming the application of copyright law
       to cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination of DVD anti-copy
       codes.
     * A fourth case involving the retransmission of television signals
       over the Internet resulted in a clear-cut victory for copyright
       holders. The judge in this case enjoined iCraveTV from
       re-transmitting broadcast signals via the Web from Canada.

   These four court rulings illustrate the legal process that is defining
   the boundaries of right and wrong as intellectual property rights are
   applied to a new technological era.

   All of us who believe in the right to own property, and therefore in
   the sanctity of copyright, will be fiercely aggressive in this area.
   We will fight for our rights and those of our artists, whose work,
   whose creations, whose property are being stolen and exploited. We
   will take our fight to every territory, in every court in every venue,
   wherever our fundamental rights are being assaulted and attacked.

   Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict the anonymity
   behind which people hide to commit crimes. Anonymity must not be
   equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right to privacy. We have
   no such right to anonymity.

   Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of "spam" mailing
   lists; privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have access to your
   social security number or your mother's maiden name. On line, privacy
   is assuring that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your own
   business and may not be exploited by others.

   Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to get away with
   stealing, or hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the
   Internet - and presuming the right that nobody should know who you
   are. There is no such right. This is nothing more than the digital
   equivalent of putting on a ski mask when you rob a bank.

   Anonymity, disguised as privacy, is still anonymity, and it must not
   be used to strip others of their rights, including their right to
   privacy or their property rights. We need to create a standard that
   balances one's right to privacy with the need to restrict anonymity,
   which shelters illegal activity.

   We cannot suggest that the ready and appropriate distinctions we make
   between privacy and anonymity in the physical world are irrelevant in
   the digital world. To do so would be to countenance anarchy. To do so
   would undermine the very basis of our civilized society.

   In the appropriation of intellectual property, myMP3.com, Napster, and
   Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of 100 million European
   children even its name) are, in my opinion, the ringleaders, the
   exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful
   appropriation of someone else's property.

   What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure, in my view, they
   do with forethought for profit, justifying with weak and untenable
   rationale their theft of the labor and genius of others.

   They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous appeal to
   utopianism: Everything on the Internet should be free.

   Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which is free is free
   only because someone else has paid for it. What of the extraordinary
   gifts of software and whole operating systems of which we sometimes
   read?

   They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders. Some of the donors
   may regret their generosity when later they are confronted with their
   children's college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they have
   given, and they have given freely.

   There is a difference, however, between giving and taking. Had those
   donors been compelled to do what they have done, it would be a tale
   not of generosity but of coercion, not of liberality but of servitude.
   Those whose intellectual property is simply appropriated on the
   Internet or anywhere else, are forced to labor without choice or
   recompense, for the benefit of whoever might wish to take a piece of
   their hide.

   If this is a principle of the New World, it is suspiciously like the
   Old World principle called slavery.

   It is against this that we have initiated legal action. It is not, and
   will not be, because we wish to suppress ingenious methods by which
   our products may be delivered, but because we wish to maintain
   rightful control and receive fair compensation.

   The massive power of the Internet can permanently wipe out and shut
   down in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend for his living
   on the sale of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can devastate a
   musician who sells a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans
   in some small and little known community.

   And these would only be the first casualties. The rest would follow as
   the very basis of the New Economy was undermined.

   Undermined - by whom?

   Well, not by most people, who have stated in overwhelming majorities
   time and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay a fair price
   for what they receive, but by a very small segment who would profit by
   cultivating and taking advantage of each person's least admirable
   qualities.

   And while it is often true that ambiguity exists at the core of a
   controversy, here, however, is perhaps the clearest exception to date
   to that general rule of ambiguity, for the dangers are obvious, the
   issues familiar, the principles long established and for good reason.

   To those who would abandon or subvert those principles, I say we are
   right with the Constitution, in which protection for intellectual
   property is founded; right with the common law; right with precedent
   and right with what is fair and just.

   But being fair, or being just, in a battle for survival is often not
   enough.

   World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only because we were
   right, but also because we had more men and women, more weaponry and
   more money, and that money in turn would train more men and women and
   build more weaponry.

   But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our civilized society
   to survive and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the Soviet
   Union, cracked, crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to
   perpetuate a society that was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.

   And if the Internet should require an unjust and unfair paradigm in
   order to perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble and
   collapse, and it won't take five decades of Cold War politics for it
   happen.

   That is why it is in your interest to join our fight to protect and
   defend the property rights of creators everywhere. And that is why we
   are bringing our fight to the court of justice and to the court of
   public opinion.

   We will fight our battle in the marketplace as well, by bringing our
   products to consumers with innovative, legal, consumer-preferred
   solutions. And we will work with the research laboratories of
   technology companies throughout the world, so that we may better
   protect our property and promote our purpose.

   Let this be our notice then to all those who hold fairness in
   contempt, who devalue and demean the labor and genius of others, that
   because we have considered our actions well and because we are
   followers without reticence of a clear and just principle, we will not
   retreat.

   For in the end, this is not only a fight about the protection of music
   or movies, software code or video games. Nor is it a fight about
   technology's promise or its limitations. This is, at its core, quite
   simply about right and wrong.

   Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.

                                   # # #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------