Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Invests in Legitimizing Free Music
Rollie Hawk writes "Want some free music? Silly question, I know. But how about legally? That's exactly what RealNetworks is offering.
You may remember RealNetworks from about ten years ago when it was one of the leaders in audio streaming technology. After a decade of steaming becoming more widespread in both audience and medium, RealNetworks' RealPlayer has become an embarrassment to even try installing.
This, however, didn't stop them from jumping into the post-Napster song-swapping vacuum with their Rhapsody program. I can't comment on how good Rhapsody is since I've never met anyone who used it. That probably says enough right there.
In an attempt to rev-up their subscription-based music service, they are now resorting to giving away 25 songs each month. According to RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser, "by having a free service that is legal, it flattens the issue of 'Why use an illegal service?'"
Perhaps that logic would hold more weight if the universe of music contained only 25 songs."
Congress has propelled copyright into the networked age with the DMCA. But while authors and musicians enjoy increased protection, inventors are suffering from a disconnect between patent law and the new networked reality. It's time for Congress to offer inventors the same protection--a Digital Millenium Patent Act. The DMPA would protect inventors from mass infringement and patent defamation, hazards which have emerged in the digital era.
Intellectual property is a proven legal concept that has served us well. Indeed, it is one of the largest generators of wealth in today's economy. Congress recognized that the emergence of the Internet posed new challenges for copyright holders, and responded with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which adapts copyright law for the networked era. The DMCA primarily addressed two problems:
1. The internet makes it so easy to infringe copyright that infringements are numerous, and pursuing each infringement in the courts would be ruinously expensive for the rights owner.
2. Pirates used the internet to distribute circumvention tools, which dishonest consumers could use to strip away technical protections from protected works, and then copy those works. While it is hard to create these digital lock picks, it is easy to download and use them, with the result that rights owners are forced into an arms race with pirates. Existing law banned the illegal copying of the works, but did not ban the digital lock picks, which were the more logical choke point.
The DMCA addressed the first problem by allowing the rights owner to send a letter to the infringer or the infringer's ISP demanding takedown of the infringing material. This solution has worked extremely well; blatant copyright infringement by posting a protected work on the Web has largely vanished. And expensive and time-consuming lawsuits were not required.
The ban on digital lock picks has not been vigorously enforced, but there are encouraging signs. When a Russian hacker tried to sell a program for stealing content from Adobe's PDFs, he was quickly nabbed by the FBI. The message was loud and clear: our society will not tolerate those who arm the pirates.
Planning a DMPA
It is now time for Congress to address the issue of patent infringement in the digital age. The rate of new patents is skyrocketing. But patent infringement is rampant, and it is terribly hard for inventors to obtain recourse. The average patent lawsuit costs $500,000 per side. That is far out of reach for most inventors, and very few patent attorneys will work on contingency.
Inventors are also facing the same problem that copyright owners faced: the infringements can be too numerous to fight through the legal system. Even if you have $500,000 would you spend it on suing an infringer who has made $10,000 by stealing your idea? What if there are 100 more just like him?
We need a DMPA - a Digital Millennium Patent Act. The most important provision of the act would allow a patent holder to send a letter demanding that a party cease distributing a certain infringing software work. The letter could be sent to the infringer, his ISP, or a retail store that is selling boxed copies of the infringing work. The recipient would be obligated to immediately cease distributing the infringing work. Then, if the owner of the infringing work furnishes a sworn affidavit stating that the work does not infringe, the work could be reinstated and the burden would be upon the patent holder to pursue remedies thought the courts.
Infringers who run the program
But the DMPA should go further than the DMCA. Copyright law forbids unauthorized copying, but patent law forbids practicing the invention without authorization. Those who download or buy an infringing program and then run the program are infringers. Therefore, upon receiving a DMPA takedown notice, a party should be obligated to furnish a list of recipients who have received the infringing work. Typically, this would be a list of IP addre