Senator Seeks Restrictions to Music Laws, Fines

Justen writes "Following this article from last month, Senator Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.) has announced that he will seek to limit federal penalties for copyright downloads and seek to restrict the subpoena power essentially granted to the industry through the DMCA. The RIAA responded by calling the current situation an 'epidemic.'" Sadly, there's no quantitative values for proposed reduced measures yet, but given the speed at which government moves it's reassuring to know the issue is this far along already.

Comments

The pieces are moving.....

[TheWart]

As Gandalf said, "The pieces are moving...", and there is nothing that can stop them.

It will be interesting to see where all of thsi goes...the RIAA making music sharers into Robin Hoods', one senator (Hatch) saying that mp3 sharing is eqaul to shoplifting, and this guy saying he wants to limit the DMCA.

Interesting times ahead....

A good thing

[rokka]

It's nice to see that there is at least one person left who belives that the fines should reflect the crimes commited and not reflect how much the riiia wants to scare people.

Not always slow.

[LinuxInDallas]

The gov't isn't ALWAYS slow. Look at how quickly they passed legislation for the do-not-call list. If 50 million people sent letters/emails to their congressmen and told them to overturn the DMCA it would be history!

Re: Only makes sense

[gidds]

But with the internet, everyone can be a publisher.

Exactly! I know it's been said before, but this is the heart of the problem. Everyone can be a publisher. It's the reason why the internet is such a disruptive technology, such a force for change.

It's also a situation, as you say, that existing precepts, principles, and prejudices simply weren't designed for.

And it's a situation which challenges the power and the very existence of the large publishing organisations (whether in print, film, music, or whatever). No wonder they're doing all they can to prevent it:

• using the might of existing laws in totally inappropriate ways,
• promoting DRM schemes which will prevent individuals and smaller companies from being able to publish works themselves, and
• subtly spreading the idea that only large corporations can be legitimate publishers, effectively dividing the world into 'corporates' and 'consumers', and keeping the latter in their place.

Of course, some of these actions have additional effects, e.g. DRM controlling access to the works which do get published. But I suspect that in the long term, it's this preventing-Joe-Public-from-being-a-publisher aspect which will prove to be the important one.

Technology is breaking down the exclusivity of so many means of creation and publishing - the desktop publishing revolution brought some of the power of the great publishing houses to the individual, and similar advances have brought some of the power of the recording studios, radio networks, photographic workshops, post offices, movie studios, sheet music publishers, news networks, &c. Not all the power, of course - there's no substitute for artistic talent and creativity in any sphere, and these advances tend to promote the spread of mediocre more than outstanding work.

It's sad to see the hatred and bitterness with which these advances are being treated by existing publishers, because I don't think they're as threatened as they think. People will still want good music, good books, good movies, &c, and there will still be money to be made providing them. It might not be with the exact same business model, or in the same form, but I'm sure sooner or later something will get sorted out. In the end, it's only the publishers of mediocre, worthless material who need fear. Which perhaps explains the current situation rather well...