Posts Tagged ‘File Sharing’

Composer Busts Teen for Sheet Music Sharing: Moral Victory or Total Waste of Time?

I’m late to this party, but the Internet has been abuzz about a blog post by the musical theater composer Jason Robert Brown in which he relates the frustrating experience of trying to convince people to stop trading his sheet music on a sheet music trading site (if you didn’t know such sites existed, now you do). He received positive responses from many traders, but resistance from others, in particular a teenager named Eleanor. A selection from their email exchange follows.


…you’re offering several of my songs and scores for “trade” on this website. I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t do that, since it affects my livelihood considerably when people can get free copies of my work from strangers and I don’t get anything in return. I’m glad you like my songs and I hope you’ll keep playing and singing them, but please don’t “trade” them on the Internet, especially with people you don’t know.


…Why are you doing this? I just searched you on this site and all of the stuff that people have of yours up there say that it’s “Not for Trade Per Composer’s Request.” Did you think about the aspiring actors and actresses who really need some good sheet music? … a lot of people who would love to have [Brown's] sheet music can’t afford it. Thus the term “starving artist.” Performers really need quick and easy ways to attain good sheet music and you’re stopping a lot of people from getting what they need. It matters a great deal to them that they can get it for free. Why does it matter so much to you that they don’t?

Eleanor also states that she can’t buy his music because she doesn’t have a credit card and can’t use her parents’ card, and says that she should be able to download Brown’s sheet music for free because she might expose other people to it, winning Brown new fans and securing greater royalties for Brown down the road. Brown says that the same result would be achieved by the legal purchase of his music.

After being asked by Eleanor why he is not “supporting the theater community” and why he is “doing this,” Brown explains his motivation:

…I think it’s annoying and obnoxious that people think they’re entitled to get the sheet music to my songs for free, and I’d like to make those people (you, for example) conscious of the immorality, illegality, and unfairness of their behavior…. You assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it’s therefore mitigated. That’s nonsense. I’m glad people want to sing my songs, and I’m glad that when other people hear them, they enjoy them – that doesn’t mean I surrender my right to get paid for providing the sheet music.


I’m not saying that you’re not somewhat right in the way you’re thinking, but you’re also defiantly wrong. Would it be wrong for me to make a copy of some sheet music and give it to a close friend of mine for an audition? Of course not. In fact, it would be considered nasty of me to refuse. But to trade sheet music online is bad? This website is not even technically illegal. Since the music is never actually uploaded onto the site and is sent via email from one user to another, I’m breaking no law by participating in it. You think I don’t look this stuff up?

…I never said that it was an amazing thing happening and I never said that it doesn’t start with what I’m sure seems to you as a bad thing. I “assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it’s therefore mitigated”? Well, I have just explained that it is not illegal, so we will leave that alone. Yes. I assume that because something that good comes from something so insignificantly negative, it’s therefore mitigated.

Brown concludes with a lengthy explanation of his position and his understanding of copyright law:

[J]ust because technology makes doing a bad thing easier doesn’t mean it’s suddenly not a bad thing…. The way I get paid is that people buy the work that I do, and I get a percentage of that money – other percentages go to the publishers, the bookstores, the theaters, the actors, the typesetters, the copyists, the musicians, the designers, the operators, even the libraries since the government takes a piece and that’s how it funds everything you rely on in your everyday life. You think you’re entitled to deny all of those people their rightful share of the work they do. I don’t understand why you think that.

…[I]t is your responsibility as a citizen, as a member of the theatrical community, and as a considerate human being to pay attention to the laws, ethics and customs that make it possible for you to do the thing you love…

I’m sorry if you still think I’m a jerk, but what I’m talking about here is not “insignificant.” The entire record business is in free-fall because people no longer feel the moral responsibility to buy music…. All of us who write music for the theater are very much concerned that the sheet music business will eventually go the same way as the record business. I’m doing my little part to keep that from happening.

Brown then posted the exchange on his blog and received over a hundred comments, many calling him an out-of-date, doomed dinosaur and many others expressing the “everything should be available for free downloading always” viewpoint common on tech media sites. A blog called Digital Society then used Brown’s post as a jumping-off point to attack many common pro-copying arguments from a rightsholder perspective.

Although I haven’t included many of them here, most of Brown’s arguments are moral ones. He thinks it’s morally wrong to engage in file-sharing because it’s tantamount to stealing. He also makes a few practical business arguments, including that file-sharing will hurt the financial interests of the musical theater community. He also offers a few legal arguments, explaining his understanding of fair use and directing Eleanor to Wikipedia to read up on copyright law.

The problem with Brown’s arguments is that they’re all easily refuted with some popular counterargument. Eleanor’s moral and business counterarguments are utilitarian: copying harms the composer but benefits others in the community, and exposure stemming from illegal copying will result in greater sales somewhere down the line. Her legal argument is simply that her conduct is not technically illegal. Of course, she might be wrong, but she has no incentive to find out, so she feels happy about her response. The availability of these common counterarguments allows her to remain secure in her belief that what she’s doing isn’t wrong.

Brown overlooks several arguments that might have carried greater weight. He doesn’t argue that it violates the norms of the musical theater community to copy music and that her reputation will be damaged by engaging in such conduct. And he doesn’t argue that the penalties for violating copyright law are severe or explain to her why her conduct is illegal.

Brown also seems to think that copyright has a moral component which comports with his general sense that copying is stealing. In fact, the stated purpose of copyright in the United States is a practical one: “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.” Copyright is a means to an end. It has a specific stated purpose: adding to our country’s store of knowledge.

Worst of all, though, while Brown goes back and forth with a teenager about the philosophical implications of her Internet behavior, he is staring a lost business opportunity in the face. She specifically says that she is a fan of his but that she can’t purchase his sheet music from an online retailer because she doesn’t have a credit card. He responds, effectively, “tough luck,” because he wants to educate her that what she’s doing is morally wrong. Of course, while educating this hapless teen, he could also have been:

Brown’s mistakes support my general impression that creators who think practically, not philosophically, about digital copying do the best job of adapting to the digital environment of the 21st century. Brown expends a great deal of effort mulling over the moral, philosophical, and economic issues associated with unauthorized digital copying. Meanwhile, some competitor of Brown’s is treating it like a business problem… and fixing it. Given the choice, which do you think would be a better use of Brown’s time:

I hate to be crass about someone’s art, but Brown’s not really talking about art. He’s talking about the mechanics of selling copies of his art on the Internet. Brown, and artists like him, ought to spend a little less time on Wikipedia or and a little more time surfing CDBaby, Lulu or Etsy.


The State of Three Strikes

It’s spring training season, and that’s as far as I really feel like taking this metaphor at the moment.  Recently, a number of nations have considered implementing a “three strikes and you’re out” rule for illegal downloaders, wherein ISPs would disconnect the infringing user after they were caught pirating copyrighted material a third time.  France introduced the law in September 2009 and while it has yet to go into effect, early studies question its potency. New Zeland put a similar system in place, but had to retinker the law and soften the blow, completely removing the disconnect provision after significant protest. Dynamo agent Ari Emmanuel, inspiration for the Ari Gold character on HBO’s “Entourage” and little brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel, has been using his juice to push the President for a simliar system in the United States.

The Obama Administration has remained relatively tight-lipped about its plans for their overall plans, but has insisted that they plan to aggressively protect the nation’s intellectual property.  One of the weapons in their arsenal is the soon-to-be-released Anti-Counterfeiting  Trade Agreement (“ACTA”).    The drafters of the agreement are notoriously silent, but have recently come under fire due to leaked rumors that there will be a “three strikes” provision in the trade agreement.  In response, the European Union has demanded that the US release a draft version of the ACTA in order to show that it does not, in fact, contain the provision.  The EU has taken a hardline stance that it will refuse to accept any sort of provision.  There’s a lot of he-said she-said going on here, and this will be tricky to implement across multiple nations.  With sentiment growing that internet access may be a basic human right, along with a vastly varying stance on piracy by country, agreement to a full disconnect for users seems somewhat unlikely.  Look for the ACTA to address this issue but in a somewhat lighter manner once the bill is released.


Oink Walks, Thomas Catches a Break

Big news from file sharing suits on both sides of the pond.  Last week, Alan Ellis, admin of defunct bittorrent tracker, was acquitted of the criminal charge of conspiracy to defraud the music industry.  The case brought to light that Ellis raked in more than $300,000 in donations from users of the site, and the recording industry has pledged to reclaim that revenue in a civil suit.

Meanwhile, US District Court Judge Michael Davis drastically reduced the damage award granted to the recording industry against guilty infringer Jammie Thomas-Rassett.  In dropping Thomas’s penalty from $1.92 million to $54,000, Davis indicated that the initial penalty was “so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court,” noting that he himself may have reduced it even further if not for the jury verdict.  The labels have until this friday to accept the damage award or move for a new trial.  From a public relations standpoint, it would be prudent for the labels to accept the damage award and move on, though it would somewhat compromise their now-defunct litigation strategy.  Plenty more to come on this in the weeks ahead.


2010 Starts With a Bang for File Sharing

Not even two weeks into the new year, the war on file sharing is already heating up.  Over the holidays, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that the site admin of popular torrent tracker isoHunt was guilty of copyright infringement and not entitled to DMCA safe harbor protection. (PDF link to decision here).  This case is one of the first to apply the precedent established in MGM v. Grokster to BitTorrent trackers.  Unsurprisingly, the court held that the technology is irrelevant, and like Napster and Grokster and a slew of others before it, isoHunt’s taxonomical data induced and aided its users in committing copyright infringement.  Eric Goldman nails the analysis over on his blog.

Over on the other side of the pond, the trial against Alan Ellis, the owner of music torrent tracker Oink, began on friday.  Ellis is on trial for the somewhat bizarre charge of “conspiracy to defraud the music industry.”

Read the rest of this entry »