Seagram CEO blasts Napster, deploys "legions" of lawyers

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Rohit Khare (rohit@uci.edu)
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 14:46:10 PDT


At 11:11 AM -0400 5/31/00, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>X-Loop: politech@vorlon.mit.edu
>X-URL: Politech is at http://www.politechbot.com/
>
>The Seagram Company owns Universal Studios and Universal Music group.
>Seagram is a member of the RIAA, which has sued Napster.
>
>Excerpt from the Seagram CEO's remarks:
>>We need to create a standard that balances one's right to privacy with
>>the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters illegal activity...
>>[Otherwise we] countenance anarchy. To do so would undermine the very
>>basis of our civilized society. In the appropriation of intellectual
>>property, myMP3.com, Napster, and Gnutella [are] the ringleaders, the
>>exemplars of theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful appropriation of
>>someone else's property.
>
>Also see:
>
>Anti-Napster fight takes aim at online anonymity
>May 31, 2000
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1983353.html?tag=st.ne.1430735..ni
>
>-Declan

My other favorite excepts are included below. They defy further
comment... Rohit

> If intellectual property is not protected - across
>the board, in every case, with
> no exceptions and no sophistry about a changing
>world - what will happen?
> Intellectual property will suffer the fate of the buffalo.
>
> For the great ferment of works and ideas, including
>your own, if taken at will
> and without restraint, have no chance of surviving
>any better than did the
> buffalo.
>...
> So am I warring against the culture of the
>Internet, threatening to depopulate
> Silicon Valley as I move a Roman legion or two of
>Wall Street lawyers to
> litigate in Bellevue and San Jose? I have moved
>those lawyers - or some of
> them - but I have done so, and will continue to do
>so - not to attack the
> Internet and its culture but for its benefit and to
>protect it. For its benefit.
>
> What would the Internet be without "content?" It
>would be a valueless
> collection of silent machines with gray screens. It
>would be the electronic
> equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements,
>nice colors, no life. It would
> be nothing.
>...
> But the principles of law, of
> justice and of civilization will not be overturned.
>If the Internet requires these
> basic principles to be sacrificed so that it may
>prosper, it will wither and die
> like the Hantavirus, which expires as it devours
>the very life that would sustain
> it.
>...
> Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict
>the anonymity
> behind which people hide to commit crimes.
>Anonymity must not be
> equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right
>to privacy. We have
> no such right to anonymity.
>...
> In the appropriation of intellectual property,
>myMP3.com, Napster, and
> Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of
>100 million European
> children even its name) are, in my opinion, the
>ringleaders, the exemplars of
> theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful
>appropriation of someone else's
> property.
>
> What individuals might do unthinkingly for
>pleasure, in my view, they do with
> forethought for profit, justifying with weak and
>untenable rationale their theft
> of the labor and genius of others.
>...
> World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only
>because we were right,
> but also because we had more men and women, more
>weaponry and more
> money, and that money in turn would train more men
>and women and build
> more weaponry.
>
> But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our
>civilized society to survive
> and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the
>Soviet Union, cracked,
> crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to
>perpetuate a society that
> was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.
>
> And if the Internet should require an unjust and
>unfair paradigm in order to
> perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble
>and collapse, and it won't
> take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.
>...
> Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.

=========================================================================
http://www.seagram.com/news/current-press/scl052600b.html

Remarks As Prepared
                                         For Delivery by
                                       Edgar Bronfman, Jr.
                                      Real Conference 2000
                                       San Jose, California
                                          May 26, 2000

                  Thank you and good morning. I'm very happy to be
here and to witness first
                  hand the mission upon which Rob, his colleagues at
Real and Real's partners
                  have embarked. That mission is vitally important to
better serve a world
                  hungry for information and entertainment.

                  In partnering with Universal, a company dedicated to
delivering entertainment
                  to consumers everywhere, including via the Internet,
we have together
                  committed to creating a top-quality consumer
experience in which the content
                  delivered is completely secure.

                  That work will be the bedrock on which huge creative
and industrial efforts
                  will be based.

                  In the next few minutes, I'd like to focus on some
critical issues that I believe
                  to be central to the continued operation and
expansion of the Internet. New
                  technologies are creating tremendous opportunities
for businesses and
                  consumers.

                  But, like many innovations throughout history,
today's digital technologies are,
                  at the same time, spawning serious and fundamental challenges.

                  While I'll touch on the opportunities that lie ahead
for all of us - and they are
                  without question immense - I want to sound a
different note at this conference
                  by addressing the challenges. Specifically,
combating the dangerous and
                  misguided notion that property is not property if
it's on the Web, and the
                  piracy that that notion perpetuates.

                  In addition, I want to discuss the very real
difference between privacy and
                  anonymity. In the blurred vision of speed and
innovation, those two quite
                  separate values have become indistinct, and that
lack of distinction is
                  currently having - and will continue to have - a
deleterious effect on our
                  culture, our society and the long-term growth of the Internet.

                  Clearly, in this New World of technology built upon
technology, opportunities
                  abound.

                  If the past is prologue, then the advent of new
technologies has much to offer
                  both the creators of entertainment and those who
enjoy and consume it.

                  And the repercussions of this current technological
revolution will dwarf the
                  changes that were brought about by previous
advances. We now live in an
                  era in which a few clicks of your mouse will make it
possible for you to
                  summon every book ever written in any language,
every movie ever made,
                  every television show ever produced, and every piece
of music ever
                  recorded.

                  Music is on the leading edge of this revolution, and
because of that, it has
                  become the first product to illuminate the central -
and I believe the most
                  critical - challenge for this technological
revolution: The protection of
                  "intellectual property rights."

                  For all of us, "property" rights are well understood
and universally accepted.
                  You own a home. You own a car. They're yours - they
belong to you. They
                  are your property. Well, your ideas belong to you,
too. And "intellectual
                  property" is property, period.

                  But there are those who believe that because
technology can access property
                  and appropriate it, then somehow that which is yours
is no longer yours
                  -because technology has made it simple and easy for
someone else to take it
                  from you.

                  If intellectual property is not protected - across
the board, in every case, with
                  no exceptions and no sophistry about a changing
world - what will happen?
                  Intellectual property will suffer the fate of the buffalo.

                  For the great ferment of works and ideas, including
your own, if taken at will
                  and without restraint, have no chance of surviving
any better than did the
                  buffalo.

                  And why is this important? Because you, like we in
the entertainment
                  business, are thoroughly dependent on patents and
copyright. You need them
                  no less than we do, to protect your processes, your
conceptions, your
                  software code, your procedures, your designs, your ideas.

                  My central belief that the protection of
intellectual property rights is vital to
                  the prosperity of the Internet, and my assertion
that "you need them no less
                  than we do," illuminate my purpose in making this
address: The Internet does
                  not exist, and cannot prosper in a world that is
separate from our civilized
                  society and the fundamental laws upon which it is based.

                  So am I warring against the culture of the Internet,
threatening to depopulate
                  Silicon Valley as I move a Roman legion or two of
Wall Street lawyers to
                  litigate in Bellevue and San Jose? I have moved
those lawyers - or some of
                  them - but I have done so, and will continue to do
so - not to attack the
                  Internet and its culture but for its benefit and to
protect it. For its benefit.

                  What would the Internet be without "content?" It
would be a valueless
                  collection of silent machines with gray screens. It
would be the electronic
                  equivalent of a marine desert - lovely elements,
nice colors, no life. It would
                  be nothing.

                  The main challenge for you in continuing the growth
of the Internet at this time
                  is not taxation; it is not government regulation; it
is not in any way technical. It
                  is, rather, to manage, preserve and protect the sun
around which all these
                  planets make their stately circles.

                  That sun is not an operating system or even the
                  greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts Internet itself:
It is the content, without
                  which the Internet would die in a day.

                  The main challenge for my colleagues and me is
really the same - for your
                  interests and ours are not separate, they are
closely, inextricably linked.

                  And so I will, as the leader of one of the world's
foremost content
                  companies, fight to preserve the creativity and the
genius of creators
                  everywhere, including the ones in this room.

                  Right now, Universal is engaging in five areas in
order to defend and promote
                  the works of the great talents with whom we are
privileged to be associated.

                  First, we are focused on creating and launching a
consumer-preferred
                  and legal system for consumers to access the media
they desire -
                  beginning with music.

                  We will launch a secure downloading format later
this summer that will be the
                  start of making our content widely available in digital form.

                  We want downloadable music to be easy to find, and
its delivery to be fast,
                  convenient, dependable and secure. That's why we've
partnered with Real,
                  Magex and InterTrust Technologies.

                  And the multi-media product we will launch will be
more than just music.

                  We are providing artists with a broader canvas on
which to express
                  themselves, and we are creating a far richer
experience for the consumer. For
                  example, consumers will have access to album art,
lyrics, production notes
                  and photos of the artists, links to other sites and,
eventually, music videos.
                  We'll also offer the chance for them to chat on line
with artists.

                  And because of the security our product will offer,
consumers' privacy will
                  also benefit because their files and their systems
won't be corrupted.

                  In addition to this product and system we've
developed, earlier this month,
                  Universal Music and Sony Music announced a joint
venture to develop
                  subscription-based services that will include music
and video offerings across
                  every possible platform.

                  We are very aware of the intense and the vast demand
that exists on the part
                  of music lovers to find the music they want, when
they want it, where they
                  want it, all the time. And we are responding by
delivering competitive - and
                  legal - systems for them to do so.

                  Second, we know that going into a record store and
removing a CD is
                  wrong. It is stealing. It is thievery.

                  We will re-emphasize this truth and articulate this
message in an educational
                  effort, with our industry allies, targeted to the
great majority of people who
                  want to do the right thing - yet, may not fully
comprehend that accessing
                  copyrighted material without proper payment or
permission in the digital
                  world, is as wrong as it is in the physical world.

                  Each new technological advance inevitably requires
new behaviors. When
                  tape recorders came along, we grappled with the
distinctions to be made
                  between taping things for your own enjoyment and
selling the tapes. When
                  photocopiers came along, we had to deal with how
much of something could
                  be copied and under what circumstances without
constituting theft.

                  Now the Internet has created a newer version of the
same issues. Once
                  again, we need to thrash out how intellectual
property can and should be
                  protected in the context of new, digital technologies.

                  The Internet world is a brave new world. But make no
mistake, it could only
                  have been created and it will only survive, in the
context of our civilized
                  world, which has taken humanity centuries to construct.

                  This technological revolution will reshape it -
perhaps even more dramatically
                  than the Industrial Revolution reshaped its world.
But the principles of law, of
                  justice and of civilization will not be overturned.
If the Internet requires these
                  basic principles to be sacrificed so that it may
prosper, it will wither and die
                  like the Hantavirus, which expires as it devours the
very life that would sustain
                  it.

                  Universal's third initiative is the use of
technology. Just as technology
                  gives, so can it take away. As technology enables
crime, so can it be
                  used to protect us from crime and criminals.

                  We have available to us growing arsenals of
technological weapons that will
                  be brought to bear on inappropriate access to
material on the Internet.

                  Whether it is better and more robust methods of
security, or tools to track
                  down those who ignore right from wrong, technology
will offer the owners of
                  property at least as much comfort as it may
currently offer to hackers and
                  spies, pirates and pedophiles.

                  Technology exists that can trace every Internet
download and tag every file.
                  These tools make it possible to identify those who
are using the Internet to
                  improperly and illegally acquire music and other
copyrighted information.
                  While adhering to the principle of respect for
individual privacy, we fully
                  intend to exploit technology to protect the property
which rightfully belongs to
                  its owners.

                  The fourth route we have already pursued is to
utilize existing laws to
                  bring to justice those who demonstrate contempt for law and
                  copyright, and seek to profit from that which is not
lawfully theirs.

                  Here, we have already seen some major successes:

                       In late April, a U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New
                       York ruled that myMP3.com was liable for
copyright infringement.
                       In mid-May, the U.S. District Court in Northern
California ruled
                       against Napster. The court denied Napster's
claim that it was a mere
                       conduit, and the court determined that Napster
had not taken
                       adequate steps to keep repeat infringers, who
use pirated material,
                       from using the site.
                       Another recent victory confirming the
application of copyright law to
                       cyberspace involved the unlawful dissemination
of DVD anti-copy
                       codes.
                       A fourth case involving the retransmission of
television signals over the
                       Internet resulted in a clear-cut victory for
copyright holders. The judge
                       in this case enjoined iCraveTV from
re-transmitting broadcast signals
                       via the Web from Canada.

                  These four court rulings illustrate the legal
process that is defining the
                  boundaries of right and wrong as intellectual
property rights are applied to a
                  new technological era.

                  All of us who believe in the right to own property,
and therefore in the
                  sanctity of copyright, will be fiercely aggressive
in this area. We will fight for
                  our rights and those of our artists, whose work,
whose creations, whose
                  property are being stolen and exploited. We will
take our fight to every
                  territory, in every court in every venue, wherever
our fundamental rights are
                  being assaulted and attacked.

                  Let me now turn to my fifth point. We must restrict
the anonymity
                  behind which people hide to commit crimes. Anonymity
must not be
                  equated with privacy. As citizens, we have a right
to privacy. We have
                  no such right to anonymity.

                  Privacy is getting your e-mail address taken off of
"spam" mailing lists;
                  privacy is making sure some hacker doesn't have
access to your social
                  security number or your mother's maiden name. On
line, privacy is assuring
                  that what you do, so long as it is legal, is your
own business and may not be
                  exploited by others.

                  Anonymity, on the other hand, means being able to
get away with stealing, or
                  hacking, or disseminating illegal material on the
Internet - and presuming the
                  right that nobody should know who you are. There is
no such right. This is
                  nothing more than the digital equivalent of putting
on a ski mask when you
                  rob a bank.

                  Anonymity, disguised as privacy, is still anonymity,
and it must not be used to
                  strip others of their rights, including their right
to privacy or their property
                  rights. We need to create a standard that balances
one's right to privacy with
                  the need to restrict anonymity, which shelters
illegal activity.

                  We cannot suggest that the ready and appropriate
distinctions we make
                  between privacy and anonymity in the physical world
are irrelevant in the
                  digital world. To do so would be to countenance
anarchy. To do so would
                  undermine the very basis of our civilized society.

                  In the appropriation of intellectual property,
myMP3.com, Napster, and
                  Gnutella (which has stolen from the breakfasts of
100 million European
                  children even its name) are, in my opinion, the
ringleaders, the exemplars of
                  theft, of piracy, of the illegal and willful
appropriation of someone else's
                  property.

                  What individuals might do unthinkingly for pleasure,
in my view, they do with
                  forethought for profit, justifying with weak and
untenable rationale their theft
                  of the labor and genius of others.

                  They rationalize what they do with a disingenuous
appeal to utopianism:
                  Everything on the Internet should be free.

                  Other than the gifts of God and Nature, that which
is free is free only because
                  someone else has paid for it. What of the
extraordinary gifts of software and
                  whole operating systems of which we sometimes read?

                  They are rare, and sometimes they are loss leaders.
Some of the donors may
                  regret their generosity when later they are
confronted with their children's
                  college tuition and orthodontic bills, but yes, they
have given, and they have
                  given freely.

                  There is a difference, however, between giving and
taking. Had those donors
                  been compelled to do what they have done, it would
be a tale not of
                  generosity but of coercion, not of liberality but of
servitude. Those whose
                  intellectual property is simply appropriated on the
Internet or anywhere else,
                  are forced to labor without choice or recompense,
for the benefit of whoever
                  might wish to take a piece of their hide.

                  If this is a principle of the New World, it is
suspiciously like the Old World
                  principle called slavery.

                  It is against this that we have initiated legal
action. It is not, and will not be,
                  because we wish to suppress ingenious methods by
which our products may
                  be delivered, but because we wish to maintain
rightful control and receive fair
                  compensation.

                  The massive power of the Internet can permanently
wipe out and shut down
                  in one unthinking moment, a writer who may depend
for his living on the sale
                  of 5 or 10 thousand copies of his book. It can
devastate a musician who sells
                  a few thousand copies of a homemade CD to his fans
in some small and little
                  known community.

                  And these would only be the first casualties. The
rest would follow as the
                  very basis of the New Economy was undermined.

                  Undermined - by whom?

                  Well, not by most people, who have stated in
overwhelming majorities time
                  and again that they would be perfectly happy to pay
a fair price for what they
                  receive, but by a very small segment who would
profit by cultivating and
                  taking advantage of each person's least admirable qualities.

                  And while it is often true that ambiguity exists at
the core of a controversy,
                  here, however, is perhaps the clearest exception to
date to that general rule
                  of ambiguity, for the dangers are obvious, the
issues familiar, the principles
                  long established and for good reason.

                  To those who would abandon or subvert those
principles, I say we are right
                  with the Constitution, in which protection for
intellectual property is founded;
                  right with the common law; right with precedent and
right with what is fair and
                  just.

                  But being fair, or being just, in a battle for
survival is often not enough.

                  World War II was won by the Allied forces, not only
because we were right,
                  but also because we had more men and women, more
weaponry and more
                  money, and that money in turn would train more men
and women and build
                  more weaponry.

                  But being fair, and being just, is what allowed our
civilized society to survive
                  and prosper, while that of our conquering ally, the
Soviet Union, cracked,
                  crumbled and collapsed because it attempted to
perpetuate a society that
                  was fundamentally unjust, and unfair.

                  And if the Internet should require an unjust and
unfair paradigm in order to
                  perpetuate itself, then it too will crack, crumble
and collapse, and it won't
                  take five decades of Cold War politics for it happen.

                  That is why it is in your interest to join our fight
to protect and defend the
                  property rights of creators everywhere. And that is
why we are bringing our
                  fight to the court of justice and to the court of
public opinion.

                  We will fight our battle in the marketplace as well,
by bringing our products
                  to consumers with innovative, legal,
consumer-preferred solutions. And we
                  will work with the research laboratories of
technology companies throughout
                  the world, so that we may better protect our
property and promote our
                  purpose.

                  Let this be our notice then to all those who hold
fairness in contempt, who
                  devalue and demean the labor and genius of others,
that because we have
                  considered our actions well and because we are
followers without reticence
                  of a clear and just principle, we will not retreat.

                  For in the end, this is not only a fight about the
protection of music or movies,
                  software code or video games. Nor is it a fight
about technology's promise or
                  its limitations. This is, at its core, quite simply
about right and wrong.

                  Thank you for letting me speak from the heart.


Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 02:37:42 PDT