The Mark 2010

When music blogs are shut down, it’s the major record labels that are to blame.

The news that Google pulled the plug on six popular music blogs for the violation of copyright law has riled up plenty of music fans. Many are wondering why the company would carry out such a draconian action.

But Google is only a small part of this story. What was left out is the role of the major record labels.

The blog shutdown is an example of the larger strategy of the major labels, studios, and proprietary software vendors. They have stated publicly that they do not want to go after individual copyright infringers, but instead want to focus on what they call the "enablers" – those who provide the communications hardware, software, or services.

The idea is pretty simple: If these intermediaries are held liable for infringement, then they will be forced to become active in stopping it, meaning they will receive the brunt of any public relations backlash.

And so it went with Google, which is obligated to conform to the USA's Digital Millenium Copyright Act and take the possibly infringing material down based on a cease-and-desist from someone claiming to be the copyright holder.

The real story here is about specific major labels going after music fans who are effectively acting as part of their marketing department. Only, instead of being paid in money, these fans want to be paid in music – or rather, the right to help their fans sample the music being promoted.

I consider this whole strategy to be dishonest.

The bad publicity that comes with cracking down on blogs is the cost of using business models that don’t allow consumers to try before they buy. This cost should be borne by those making the decision, not intermediaries like Google.

There are alternative business models being explored by actual creators that build better relationships with fans and avoid such pitfalls. Alas, the majors seem to consider closer relationships between creators and audiences a threat and so oppose these models.

Instead, they focus on the so-called "enablers." This has taken two broad forms: a) holding the intermediaries liable, and b) transferring the control of communications hardware from their owners to the device manufacturers, and holding device manufacturers liable. The latter is sometimes called anti-circumvention legislation and discussed under the misleading title of "Digital Rights Management."

This policy was part of the 1995 National Information Infrastructure discussions, policy laundered through WIPO to form two anti-internet treaties in 1996, and then dishonestly passed in the U.S. as their 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA).

The U.S. has since been pressuring other countries, including Canada, to adopt this policy. The bulk of Bill C-60 from the Liberal government in 2005 and Bill C-61 from the Conservative government in 2008 would have done just that.

This policy has little to do with copyright. It is about protecting the outdated business models of a handful of huge companies. It certainly has nothing to do with counterfeiting, yet it has been added to the negotiations of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Counterfeiting was traditionally defined as being dishonest about the origins or contents of something being sold. Adding policies that target alleged "enablers" of copyright infringement to a trade agreement against counterfeiting smacks of just this sort of dishonesty.