For a moment I considered writing a long answer to this article, but then I remembered that techdirt had already done that: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/00490015520/latest-entrant-into-economically-clueless-luddite-internet-is-evil-book-category.shtml

@ phulshof
Nearly everything Techdirt says is wrong. They misstate facts, misuse statistics, and misunderstand laws. They, and you, are entitled to your own opinion. But they act as though they are entitled to their own facts.

It's worth pointing out that no one who has actually read the book has pointed out any mistakes in it.

This is really smart, thoughtful stuff by Robert Levine - comparing it to the nonsense at Techdirt is just absurd.

@Robert: I'll readily admit that I haven't read your book (yet), but the point by point rebuttal of yours views does give me a little more faith than just claiming they are wrong. Why don't you write your own rebuttal of their points in stead?

@copywriter: There are plenty of examples of previously unknown artists who've managed to make a name and a pretty good living for themselves using free as part of their business model as well. The main challenge is for each businessman to find what works best for him/her.

@Robert: From what I understand, the investment of music producers are usually nothing more than a loan to the band, which needs to be repaid afterwards. I'm sure Radio Head will be held to their financial obligations. With regards to the market: that's not their responsibility. Do you think Microsoft gives another thought about what their choice in pricing and product does to the market for competitors? They're in the business of making money for themselves; what works for them might not work for someone else.

@Martine: Let's be very clear: I do not condone copyright infringement. We have no difference of opinion on the fact that makers should be free to make their own choices in how to make their money, and that copyright infringement is wrong. Part of what I believe Robert says though is that some artists providing their products for free undermines the willingness for people to pay for other products, and that is something I simply don't agree with. If you can't compete with the businessmodel of your competition, it's you that has a problem: a businessmodel problem. Blaming your misfortune on other people using their freedom to give their own work away for free as part of a different businessmodel is simply bad business.

Can the website owner PLEASE ADD the ability to create PARAGRAPHS in the comments? My previous comment is a complete mess now.

@Robert: I just checked on Amazon, but your book isn't for sale yet? No wonder that people who've read it haven't pointed out any mistakes in it. :) I did add it to my wishlist though; I tend to read a lot of books on this subject, no matter how much the author's views differ from my own.

@phulshof
It is out in the UK (and most other countries) but not yet the US.

If anyone posts serious criticism of the book, I'll rebut it. Techdirt isn't serious.

To cite one example, I said that the Pirate Bay was a money-making operation. Someone "corrected" me by saying that it wasn't . . .because they said it wasn't. Here's the difference between those opinions. My reporting is based on the Pirate Bay's internal emails (some translated from Swedish), as found in the Swedish court file. The other guy's opinion is based on what they said.

Then there's the matter of what's caused the decline in recording sales. I found five serious studies - not dumb RIAA ones, real academic studies - that concluded that file-sharing hurt record sales. Someone who rebutted me pointed to one study that has since been retracted *by the researchers themselves.* It's pretty obvious that's the case - just do a Google search.

I can't spend my life responding to everyone, so I'm trying to engage with serious criticism. That would not include Techdirt.

Also, I want to clarify my position on Radiohead. From a business perspective, what they did was fine - and smart. . . . .
To me, piracy is unfair competition. Choosing to give away your music is completely fair. (Being pressured by piracy into giving your music away is more complicated, but let's leave that aside for a moment.) So you ask if what Radiohead did was legitimate competition. My answer is yes, completely. But I do not respect it . . . . . As a parallel, consider a wealthy artist who gives away his paintings for publicity. That's totally legitimate. But other artists without the same financial resources might believe, justifiably, that it's not very nice. I think the same applies here.

@Robert: I'm a Dutch citizen, so I checked Amazon UK. They list the book as unavailable, and the publishing date as October 25. Since you didn't list the studies, I'll have to hold my judgement until I've seen them, but in all honesty: I don't remember any independent academic studies that concluded that file sharing hurts record sales. I do remember several that concluded that there was no proven connection. With regards to Radiohead: It is not like they're giving away their music because they're rich and philantropic; they've found a better way to make money, and it is not just famous rich bands that have found better business models than just selling records. In fact, I would argue that giving away your music for free as part of a business model would generally work better for relatively unknown bands than for famous bands. I doubt that copyright infringement is a big problem for unknown bands anyway: chances of anyone even sharing your work are practically 0 to begin with. What I do agree with though is that copyright infringement is not acceptable. I do believe however that there are better ways of dealing with it than by taking away (innocent) people's privacy, rights to due process, and their freedom to design hardware and software that interacts with digital media. Under current European (and American) copyright law it's illegal to write an Open Source dvd or blu-ray player due to anti-circumvention laws, while these laws have had no impact on copyright infringement whatsoever.

@Robert: I found the interview question "If online piracy and free content are killing our culture, should authorities intervene to prevent this? And if so, how can they prevent this?" highly questionable, due to its double nature (putting online piracy and free content in one question). I felt your answer was focused towards the online piracy part; what's your opinion towards the free content part?

@phulshof,
The book is available there -
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Ride-Internet-Destroying-Business/dp/1847921485/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318801464&sr=8-1
. . . . .It is ALSO out Oct 25 in the U.S., but I believe the version available in the Netherlands is the UK version. (The cover is different, but it's the same book.) . . . . .
As far as rights, I think it's a question of _balancing_ rights. I have the right to control my content - that's a moral right in Continental Europe, an economic right in the U.S., and a human right as per the International Declaration of Human Rights. So the question is how can this be balanced with other rights. Privacy is a strong right, especially in Europe - that's a serious issue. The idea that this interferes with due process is more complex, since I think that only applies in criminal cases. (I'm not a lawyer.) To me, the best way to solve that is to make it east for people to challenge a system. (But I would rather punish the distributor, anyway.) As far as a right to design hardware and software, that's a very weak right. I understand why it's desirable; it's just not a strong right. I'm also not sure that's had no impact on infringement. When it comes to music, you're right. When it comes to video games, I think it's really helped. In the US, at least, when this aspect of the DMCA was challenged, the court found it an "extravagent claim" - they didn't take it very seriously. . . .
As to your second question, I do NOT think authorities should intervene to prevent free content. In some cases, free content can be a great business model - radio, TV, Radiohead. I think people who work for free should - and, eventually, will - face pressure from their peers, but that's another issue. But I think that reducing piracy would make some businesses realize they have more freedom to charge. There are all these different kinds of free that it can be hard to discuss. Free is just another price; if it works for your business, that's great - do it. But I think there's substantial evidence that it's hard to build a business that way without free riding on the work of others.

@Robert: You're correct; I had the wrong link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Ride-Parasites-Destroying-Business/dp/0385533764. I've put the book on my wishlist; I'll get it with the next order I'll place at Amazon. :) As to copyright infringement (I refuse to abuse terminology by calling it piracy; copyright infringement is a serious crime that carries serious penalties, so I will call it by its proper name): I agree that it is unfair competition, but I do not believe that the solution can be found in technology. As Cory Doctorow once explained (http://changethis.com/manifesto/download/4.DRM): TPMs (he did get the terminology confused) are incapable of stopping copyright infringement. There's not a single work on the market today that was not infringed upon thanks to TPMs. Certainly, having a fully closed system like games consoles slows it down by a few months, but every current console system has been cracked as well. Blu-ray, which had a full consortium of large companies work in its TPM system was cracked within months. By its very definition, TPMs cannot prevent copyright infringement, as Cory explains quite clearly in his presentation. What they do do however is piss of real customers. I've already had one game fail on me due to a bad TPM, and as an Open Source programmer I'm unable to write any program that interacts with TPM protected media. There are no legal Open Source dvd-players, blu-ray players, iTunes players, etc. in Europe or the USA. I cannot use the lawful exceptions to copyright law, basically MY rights, if a TPM protects the work. We used to have a carefully balanced copyright law, and with one small change (anti-circumvention laws), we've basically given the industry the license to write their own copyright law. All they have to do is create a TPM/DRM combination that gives them a right, and thanks to anti-circumvention it has become law. Not that an infringer is bothered by it. If someone downloads a ripped copy of a blu-ray disk, there's no TPM involved. There's no DRM preventing them from skipping those annoying commercials, and FBI warnings. There's no DRM preventing them from playing a movie or game from the US (region coding). There's no DRM preventing them from putting it on their home file server so they don't have to drag their disks all through the house. TPM/DRM only punishes the real and honest customers. If the entertainment industry doesn't respect the rights of their customers, why are they surprised if people don't respect their copyrights either? What is needed here IMHO is a fresh look at copyright; see how it can be changed so the artists get paid for their work without innocent people having to give up their freedoms. I have my ideas to that regard, but I'd love to hear your views.

I don't agree with Cory. I think that DRM CAN slow or discourage infringement. The goal isn't to eliminate it - just slow it. In the case of video games, I think it did . . . .as a legal argument, your points about have not worked anywhere. Those laws have held up. The right to modify hardware or software is not a strong right. The exception to copyright that deal with free speech are considered very important but no court has found a real free speech issue with drm. Now as a consumer, I don't like it. It's annoying. But I can choose not to but media with it . . . .also, whether or not you agree with me, Cory makes a lot of mistakes. He's entitled to his own view, but he's an activist, not a reporter

@Robert: General disagreement with Cory is not a reason to dismiss this particular presentation; it was presented in front of a Microsoft programmer's audience. They would have made mincemeat out of him if it wasn't technologically sound. Did you read it? It shows the pure technical reasons as to why TPM cannot work, by definition, and so far time has proven him right. You also stated: "Those laws have held up.". Which laws do you mean by that? If you mean anti-circumvention laws, you're right, but that's exactly my point, isn't it? Several otherwise completely legal hardware and software designs were declared illegal by the US courts based on anti-circumvention laws alone, and this goes double for Open Source were anyone can read the code. As to not buying media with TPMs: where were you planning on doing that if every major movie studio and e-book producer uses it? Just not buy any form of media anymore? That doesn't sound like a very promising future to me. I'd almost consider supporting the Green parties in the EP who want to declare TPM/DRM illegal.

Cory's points are technically sound, but he gets his facts wrong - often - and he doesn't understand the law. He's a professional hysteric, not a serious thinker. . . .When you say TPM cannot work, Cory means that it cannot be hack-proof. I agree, but that's not the goal, The goal is to significantly reduce piracy. . . . .As far as laws holding up, I mean that courts have held that artists' rights to get paid for their work are more important than than programmers' rights to use open source software _if it requires hacking certain platforms_. (Otherwise, no issue.) . . . With media and TPMs, it's the same issue. No one is saying don't buy movies! They're just saying, you can't watch it on a hacked system . . .There are two sides to this argument, which makes discussion complex - normative and legal. Legally, this is solid - it has been challenged and it has stood up. The Green idea to make TPM illegal may violate European law; I don't know enough to say, but I think it's hard to declare something like that illegal since it doesn't violate a fundamental right (speech as opposed to speech on a certain platform). The other side is normative - ie, in the real world. I think that TPMs aren't necessarily a great solution but they are *A* solution. My logic is this: To have an economy, you need a market, to have a market, you need some kind of property rights, to have those, you need some kind of enforcement. So the question is, what kind? There are a few kinds - cutting off some sites; pressuring some sites to behave legally; putting penalties on users, etc. They all have advantages and disadvantages and I would like to choose enforcement that puts penalties where they belong (ie, not on users) and disrupts technology as little as possible. For more, you have to read the book. But Cory and Lessig and others hate ALL enforcement - anything done to enforce the rights of artists, they automatically hate. And yet they say they want artists to get paid. That's absurd. It doesn't make any sense. If I have a right in law - and I do, whether or not you agree - I need _some_ mechanism to enforce it. If you hate ALL enforcement mechanisms, what are you really saying? I think you're really saying that either you don't care (Cory) or that the organizations you work for have taken so much money from Google that you're basically a lobbyist (Lessig). . . .You raise some very good points. I do NOT dismiss the other side at all - this is complex stuff. I dismiss Cory and Lessig because they don't want to make the tough choices. The idea that we will not enforce artists' rights on the Internet is every bit as absurd as the idea that we will shut down the Internet. Both are silly. We need to make tough choices. I'd like to start thinking about them. Maybe I have the wrong answers, but I'd like to think I'm asking the right questions. I think you are too, which is fantastic! But Cory and Lessig are just yelling.

@phulshof - Also, if you like talking about these issues, you should check out my blog - http://freeridethebook.wordpress.com . . .So far I've attracted mostly people who agree with me or insult me. I really value debate about this, so I'd encourage you to check it out and comment there as well. I NOT trying to shill the blog - I just want to get some people who can disagree with me without telling me to die in a fire. :)

@phulshof @RobertLevine, we are working on adding a 'while line' function to the comments.

@Martine: That would be very nice indeed. :)

@Robert: I'm not sure I agree with your qualification of Cory and Larry (well, I'm quite sure I don't agree), but I guess that's not important to the discussion either. I'll certainly check out your blog; I may enjoy a heated debate, but I'm not generally prone to insulting people, and certainly wouldn't threaten them. :) I think there are two main questions here: 1. Can TPMs (significantly) reduce copyright infringement? 2. Can copyright be enforced online without seriously impacting fundamental human rights?

With regards to question 1, the answer I fear is no when it comes to most forms of media. Basically anything that can be played on a general purpose computer cannot be protected by TPMs, because I don't need to know how to break a TPM in order to infringe on the work. I just need to know where to get the file without the TPM after someone else has removed it. Game consoles are a special matter, because even cracked games can only be played on a cracked system; they won't work on a general purpose PC. For music, video, e-books, etc. this simply won't help, as can be seen by the huge amount of copyright infringement going on in the world. TPMs cannot even make a dent in copyright infringement, because TPMs all suffer from the same basic flaw that Cory identified: the attacker is provided the message, the cypher and the key.

Question 2 is also very tricky. I believe it's quite possible to stop certain current acts of infringement, though I'm more a proponent of making users responsible for their actions rather than blaming platform providers for being unable to police a platform abused by its users. Question is if you can change user behaviour; it might be easier to legalize the whole thing in return for a levy system, like they've done for e.g. television rights. In the end however you cannot stop infringement without putting an end to private communication, and as soon as you start adding encryption in the communication paths, all bets are off when it comes to policing the internet, because almost any form of private communication can be used to exchange files. DPI cannot distinguish between an encrypted Linux distribution ISO (completely legal to share), and an encrypted dvd ISO (illegal to share without permission). If it cannot be stopped by technological means, we should perhaps consider making sure artists get paid in different ways, and legalize the (general) practice of the public. I think the constant expansion of copyright over the last decades has seriously eroded the respect the general public has for copyrights, and the recent expansions have not helped in that regard.

@Martine: If you're busy with the site anyway: how about an RSS feed on the comments so I don't have to check the website 10 times a day? :)

You answered the first question yourself - some work and some don't. It depends on the setup - and _the motivations_. Apple and Kindle have a motivation to encourage commerce on the iPad and Kindle - they get a slice of it. Computer makers want to encourage infringement - they'll sell more computers. This isn't a value judgement - just a fact. . . . .As far as fundamental human rights, you're asking the question in the wrong way. We need to BALANCE fundamental rights. Just as you have a right to free speech and privacy (at least in Europe), I have a right to be paid for my work (worldwide and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 27) and a right for it to maintain its integrity (in Continental European Law). So the real question is one of balance. Again, I'm also not sure how to answer your question about the expansion of copyright. It's too long - period. But most of the changes you're talking about (I think) have to do with enforcement. . . .I think a levy system is an interesting idea for music but it wouldn't work for film (too long to explain here but I deal with it in the book). But this raises another question: Once we've decided that we won't enforce this law, where does that end? If we agree that ALL communications are ALWAYS private, how do we make sure anyone pays taxes - because money transfers are essentially a form of communication. And how do we maintain other laws if there's a high degree of anonymity? . . .I think the answer is that we have to reject the extremes offered by Cory. This is a guy who claimed in a speech that copyright threatens democracy; even if you don't like copyright, that's not an opinion worth taking seriously. So let's look at the real world. In the real world, I can get private letters but boxes of agricultural produce from, say, Amsterdam might be inspected :). And if I go through customs, my bag might be inspected. If you transfer this to the online world, emails should obviously be private. but what about 10-gig transfers of data from Moldova? Doesn't that seem less like a letter and more like that package from Amsterdam? . . .Maybe you don't agree, which is fine. And I respect your idea for a solution. My main point is really that we have to start thinking about these issues in different ways. On one extreme, some studios would like to hold YouTube responsible for every single infringement on its server. On the other, YouTube believes it should not have any responsibility for anything on its server. Both of those views are absurd. We need to have a conversation about a solution that would make sense. Maybe that's a "duty of care," as in negligence law. Maybe it's a certain level of filtering. Maybe works can be added to filters so creators can flag each work instead of each copy of the work. Maybe you'll have much better ideas. The point is that the extremes are silly. . . . .And I think Cory is an extremist. Again, I do NOT say that about everyone. You make some great points. Everyone I've spoken to at the EFF is very smart. (I disagree with them but I do not dismiss them.) But Cory offers a false choice that ANY enforcement is a step toward fascism. As for Lessig, his books are full of mistakes and all of his organizations receive significant funding from Google. Once you "follow the money," as the saying goes, it's hard to take him seriously.=

@Robert: I think one of the main issues in political discussions it that people who used to be pretty centered in their positions have taken a more extremist point of view. The RIAA/MPAA has always held some pretty extreme views in my opinion, and if you balance that against more balanced views the result will not be very good. As such, certain advocates have taken up more extremist positions to balance out the total flow of information. I must admit that at times I've felt tempted to do the same. As you yourself concluded: copyright has extended quite a bit in both duration and scope, which has left a lot of people so fed up with it that they now call for the (almost) complete abolishment of copyright. I think that many of them hope the end-result will be somewhere in the middle.

The general purpose computer is so versatile (as it should be, since that's exactly what makes it so powerful), that it can function as a platform for practically anything. iPad and Kindle may be pretty closed platforms, but the type of media they support are not, so e-books get easily infringed upon, usually through a format shift. The same goes for music and video. Consoles remain a rare exception, since the media it plays cannot be played on any other platform, least of all the general purpose computer. For a game to be infringed, it requires not only the removal of its TPM, but also a removal of the TPM/DRM of the games console.

With regards to technology, it's more often than not an everything or nothing choice. You cannot inspect that 10G transfer from a P2P network (which is usually cut into a lot of small transmissions) unless you outlaw encryption. As an intermediary, you simply cannot tell the difference, because that's what encryption was meant to do: keep the outsider out of the communication loop. That's exactly why TPMs fail: the attacker and the recipient are the same person: your attacker is already in the communication loop.

With regards to YouTube and similar platforms: what's wrong with the notice-and-takedown or notice-and-notice procedure used by these intermediaries? It gives rights holders the ability to take their works down from these platforms without placing liability on them, and through a court order they can get the subscription details of the person who actually committed the infringement, so he/she can be held responsible.

Platforms like YouTube do have one advantage to many other platforms (e.g. USENET): the format is defined. YouTube knows what type of files are on the server, and they cannot be encrypted or otherwise obscured. As such, YouTube already offers filtering techniques to rights holders so they can more easily identify infringement. I do feel however that such techniques should only be available on publicly shared material, so rights holders don't get to see my private videos just because they're rights holders as some entertainment giants would like to see.

PS: Yes, I'm using multiple posts at the moment. It's the only option for now to get anything resembling paragraphs in a response. :)

@Robert: You said: "As far as laws holding up, I mean that courts have held that artists' rights to get paid for their work are more important than than programmers' rights to use open source software _if it requires hacking certain platforms_.". The question is of course: what do you define as a hacked platform? If I just want to run Linux on my home computer, why should that be considered a hacked platform, and why should I be prevented from watching dvds on it? On another level: when I move from the Netherlands to the US, why should I be prevented from watching my legally bought dvds there? Why do movie studies get a legal right via anti-circumvention laws to prevent me from doing that?

@phulshof. Thank you for your input, but please do keep your comments gathered in one reply.

@Martine: Answer sent via email to keep the thread clean.

DRM doesn't stop all piracy. Fences don't stop all trespassing.
But a fence *does* tell people "hey, this is private property". You might disagree with the owners right to the property. You might disagree with their decision to put up a fence. You might disagree with the very notion of property. But the fence sends a message--and, really, that's about ninety percent of its purpose.

The problem is not with TPM; the problem is with anti-circumvention laws. Aside from the debate whose property you're putting that fence on: my physical property (the dvd + dvd player) or your copyright, the question is: should I be allowed to circumvent the fence (to which I have the key so is it really circumvention or just opening the lock with the key? After all: I did buy the dvd) to do something that's otherwise completely legal under the law?

Except it isn't, actually, your property. Buying a small plastic circle does not give you infinite rights of reproduction and retransmission and rebroadcast.

Of course it doesn't; I don't own the copyright on the work on the disk after all, but that doesn't mean the disk isn't my physical property. I can give it away, sell it, use it as a coaster, etc. With regards to what I can do with the work: that's limited by copyright law. Copyright law forbids me to make copies for others, distribute it to others or make the work public. Copyright law allows me to watch it where and whenever I feel like it, quote from it, make a private copy, watch it on any device I want, etc. There's no copyright law forbidding me from buying a dvd in the US, and watching it here. There's no copyright law forbidding me to skip the commercials. There's no copyright law forbidding me from watching it on my Linux PC. The only thing that forbids that is the TPM/DRM, made law by anti-circumvention laws. Anti-circumvention laws make copyright law (and its limitations) moot, because it replaces it with whatever the copyright owner decides within its DRM.

Google and YouTube profiting greatly off of someone else's genesis and hard work is wrong and it's bad. It is also a metaphore of what is wrong with American capitalism in general. The scavenger mentality (grabe what you can when the opportunity arises), is what bandits did in the old days. It's everywhere. It destroies artistic drive. It destroies the idea of an honest days work for an honest days wages. It's not just the music business. Speak-out against the madness ... if you dare. Ivan

Why is it wrong to get paid to provide a service? When I upload the music I play to YouTube, it's my choice and to my own benefit isn't it? Why would I care if YouTube also makes money for providing the service that I and others use? Your words remind me a bit of when the Belgian newspapers complained about being indexed by Google, and then complained again when Google removed the indices. Apparently they DID want to be indexed by Google, because it provided a service to them (searchable links to their websites), but not only did they not want to pay for the privilege, but they wanted to GET paid for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Certainly, copyright infringement should be stopped, but YouTube's already doing way more than the law requires of them in that regard. Now I know the industry would just love to close down an alternative way for artists to present their own works, but that doesn't mean we have to give them total control to do so.

Ah, here's the link I was looking for: http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/66586355/the-man-strikes-again-youtube-wars

To all those in support of DRM, it doesn't stop piracy, it creates it. For example: Last month I purchased Skyrim for the PC and was so happy to finally own it. As soon as I got it home, I carefully placed it on a shelf before downloading the cracked version to my Android and transferring it to my computer. Always connected DRM doesn't recognise the fact that not everyone can get a reliable internet connection for their PCs.

Mangled memes:

I used to be an honest person like you, then I took DRM in the knee.

Yarr har, fiddle dee dee
Being a pirate is forced upon me
If you like software to be trouble-free
You are a pirate

Adverts:

SecuROM: Preventing your use of your legally obtained PC games

Multiple voices: EA Games
Whispering child: Rip off everyone

Fact: Ubisoft's name has been co-opted to describe a piece of software that has been properly betatested before release and works fine before subsequently being broken by the application of DRM.

I think the main problem with copyright infringement is not in the term infingement or with those who infringe it but in the term copyright (and even copyleft) itself because it applies equally to non-comparable things and which should be protected by very different kinds of legislation rather than the same.

FIRST. Take biomedical research and the patents for medicines held by the big labs, a type of copyright which has come under fierce criticism from those who believe that it not only hinders further medical research because one scientist cannot improve on another's "invention" for fear of being sued, but it is actually immoral because the poorest of the poor will never be able to pay the prices demanded by the copyright (or patent) holders.

SECOND. Take physics. Why should Einstein's heirs or Max Plank's heirs not collect royalties from every school, kid, college, research lab, IBM, for their absolutely life-changing formulas at the base of every new technology dceveloped today including computers? And say how can Bill Gates be claiming that people pirate his software, or that the cloud is owned mostly by Oracle or whoever owns the servers which store information?

THIRD. Take any Picasso or Dali or Frida Kahlo or whoever. Why shouldn't their heirs be receiving royalties for every person that walks into a museum, or every kid that downloads a wallpaper, or every art dealer or auction house who sells or buys one of these paintings?

FOURTH. Take music copyright, the royalties of which are divided, usually at a great disadvantage to composers, among the 5 main publishers that control the western record market, the 5 great record companies that do the same, the non-com`poser interpreters (singers and musicians), and collective rights management organizations (in many countries extremely corrupt power swamps), plus the cut for the record stores and payola, all of which make an original extremely expensive.

The problem in music is not copyright and it's infringement, nor is it piracy or illegal internet radio stations. It's both in the number of people that claim they have a right to a cut of the royalties, and in the way the royalties itself are collected (sometimes under threats and violence). In Mexico, for instance, there is evidence which shows the top management of SACM, the collective rights organization not only has lincs to the narcos but in its statutes provides for secrecy, for everincreasing and arbitrary cuts on the share going to specific composers and prevents composers from suing the organization or critizising it in any way.

The Spanish "Canon" is also a case in point. It is a tax on " all equipment that can potentially be used for copying music and file sharing" independently of whether I use it or not for that purpose. Not only does the tax presuppose my a priori guilt, but it is levied, not by the government, but directly by the collective rights management organization (SGAE) without supervision and which ends up in the pockets of its executives and members of the board (i.e. successful composers). The horrible corruption scandal last June which ended in the imprisonment of 5 or 6 of SGAE's top administrators proves this.

And then there is the case against Universal in which Eminem sued the company. Universal has 2 different ways of collecting royalties and 2 different percentages going to the artist : one is for the sale of physical records which awards the artist less royalties because of the cost of the production and distribution and another is a licence to use the records by, say, a download. As it happened Universal paid Eminem the same for both.

So something is perverted in the model itself. And therefore if we isist on holding on to model created for another time, and if we do not start thinking of alternatives, we will just go on fighting forever and ever for the scaps the big entertainment monopolies, labs, etc leave the creators and innovators. I think it's time to start thinking collectively for a solution to all this and the only way is together.

@Monica Saenz: thank you for your contribution. there is indeed much room for discussion on the future of copyright and we hope to provide a good platform for that.