Pro vs. Con On File Sharing And Compulsory Licensing. Salon has decided to set up a little debate between someone who says that
file sharing is bad and the EFF's compulsory licensing plan is worse and (of course) someone from the EFF who repeats their
pro compulsory licensing response.
The first piece has its problems. It's not as bad articles that just
call everyone thieves, but it's not great either. It says that anyone
who thinks file sharing should be legal needs to lay out an alternative
so that we can "collectively" decide which system "we" prefer. Except
the world doesn't work that way. It's not an either/or sort of
decision. The markets decide as we go - and markets are constantly
changing. In this case, the market is speaking volumes about wanting
free, unrestricted music. However, his specific complaints with
compulsory licensing do make sense. I'm not a fan of compulsory
licensing as I think it's the wrong approach, and is something that
sounds good on paper, but will be dreadful in practice. Any time you
make something "compulsory" there are going to be huge problems
associated with "fairness". I still think that the market is going to
solve this problem by itself, when people begin to realize that free
music is one of the greatest promotional tools around. The only issue,
really, is how complicated is the established music industry going to
make life for all of us while this plays itself out. They would have
been the perfect ones to embrace this vision, but now it will be up to
others.
[
Techdirt]