Reply to EFF over its position on RIAA, file swapping [ip]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

From: "Scott Matthews" <scott () turnstyle com>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: EFF's Brad Templeton's response to Czarina
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:08:01 -0500

Hey Declan,

In response to EFF chair Brad Templeton's response to Czarina's email:
http://politechbot.com/pipermail/politech/2003-October/000138.html

The EFF sends a pretty mixed message, no?

Brad characterizes file-sharing as ripping off artists, and goes on to say
that it is right to condemn people who get all their music without paying.
And yet the EFF continues to tacitly endorse such file-sharing, running an
ad campaign that says "file-sharing is music to our ears."

http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/music-to-our-ears.php

And as you yourself pointed out on CNET, the EFF previously suggested that
the RIAA should be suing such infringers:

http://news.com.com/2010-1071-5067473.html

The more I try to understand what the EFF is shooting for, the more baffled
I get. I've written some more here:

http://www.turnstyle.com/blog

In his email, Brad goes on to fault the RIAA and MPAA when they "pretend
it's about stealing from the artists" but the EFF is likewise wrong when
they pretend that copyright only protects an oligopic entertainment
industry -- the same copyright laws also protect independent musicians,
filmmakers, programmers, and so on. I'm one of them.

He also talks about tangential copyright issues such as the DMCA's
"anti-circumvention" provisions and the "broadcast flag" -- but these are
SEPARATE issues. OK: fight to repeal the DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions, and stop the broadcast flag. But don't be fooled when the EFF
uses those issues as a justification for file-sharing.

The EFF often says something like: "we just want to find a way to get the
artists paid." And sure, that sounds great, but so does most vaporware.

Their seemingly preferred alternative "compulsory licensing" is so filled
with holes that I'm surprised it's still seriously considered as a way to
legitimize file-sharing: http://www.eff.org/share/legal.php

As Aaron Swartz points out http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/001016 when it
comes to compulsory licensing, there's a tradeoff between privacy, accuracy,
and security. I also explore some free speech issues here:
http://www.turnstyle.com/blog

It's time for the EFF to address these compulsory licensing concerns
directly, without resorting more anti-RIAA rhetoric. If they cannot address
these concerns, then it's time for the EFF to come up with a viable
alternative. And given the absence of any viable alternative, it's time for
the EFF to stop cheering on file-sharing.

speak soon,
Scott Matthews
http://www.turnstyle.com/andromeda
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)