Editorial:  Putting a Halt to Piracy

Remarkably, centuries after our founding fathers laid out their vision for America, their great wisdom continues to guide our country to prosperity. Understanding the infinite value of the creative ingenuity of human beings, our forefathers foresaw an America that would promote and protect the creative output of its citizens. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States, our forefathers outlined specific protections for inventions and creative works in the form of copyrights and patents to combat the vulnerability of this commodity to theft and exploitation. This protection has allowed American innovation to thrive, fueling our economy and leading to the production of products that enrich our lives. It is the obligation of the United States to carry out the vision of our forefathers by continuing to foster an environment that respects and protects intellectual property rights.

In today's marketplace, the growth of technology has made the computer's "enter" key a friend of both the consumer and the producer, where access to creative material such as music, movies and software is simple and instantaneous. Like most American families, my family members are avid computer users who benefit from the convenience and accessibility that the e-commerce market provides. While I strongly support technological innovation, the e-commerce marketplace only works if copyrights are protected and the creators and rightful owners are compensated. Technology that seeks to circumvent constitutional protections for copyrighted material is rising, threatening the health of the entire industry and our economy. With this type of technology showing no signs of abating or any respect for copyright laws, it is imperative that the United States set the tone in this new environment to uphold our Constitutional promise to intellectual property holders and protect their livelihood from blatant theft.

The Supreme Court decision in the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd, maintains our promise to protect copyrighted material from, in this case, companies that distribute products that encourage copyright infringement. Ruling that peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, like Grokster, cannot knowingly allow for the deliberate thievery of copyrighted material, is a victory on the part of the High Court to protect one of this country's most important economic assets and provide a national response to the rapid proliferation of copyright piracy on the internet. Stealing copyrighted material is simply illegal. Legitimizing Grokster would have created a new sector of our economy that is predicated on illegally obtaining copyrighted works, undermining not only our economy, but also the creative community who are the leaders and drivers of American innovation.

Since the inception of programs such as Grokster, P2P networks have dramatically expanded their ability to facilitate copyright infringement. P2P users enjoy free access to a wide variety of copyrighted intellectual property including commercial software, movies, music, graphics and text files. As technology expands, P2P programs are adopting even more efficient capabilities that enable users to access copyrighted material. Although P2P networks do facilitate the legal exchange of un-copyrighted material, they do not discourage or prevent illegal copyright theft. In fact, over 90% of users' downloads on Grokster are illegal downloads of copyrighted material. The ease and convenience of these illegal downloads attracts millions of consumers, thus creating millions of dollars in revenue, not for the individual artists, but in advertising revenue for Grokster.

A while back, my daughter and I were driving together and enjoying the Uncle Kracker remake of the classic song, "Drift Away" on the radio. My daughter mentioned that she was going to go home to her computer and download it using a P2P network called Kazaa. Watching her drinking her can of Coke while listening to the song, I pointed out to her that, for a cost less than the can of soda she was drinking, she could download "Drift Away" legitimately, supporting the artists and all those involved in the production of the song. Following this conversation, my daughter chose to remove Kazaa from her computer in favor of a legal approach to downloading her favorite music. To reiterate, the cost of downloading one song is less than a can of Coke.

In the interest of full disclosure, my children and I benefit from the revenue of the copyrighted material by my late husband, Sonny Bono. As a working mother, I have a separate income and do not rely solely on the proceeds of Sonny's work. However, for many artists, revenue from their material is the only means through which they are able to support themselves and continue to produce their creative works. The livelihood of every person involved in the creation of the content (approximately 4 percent of the American workforce), from the songwriter to the studio musician, or the movie set builder to the grip, is threatened anytime a consumer clicks to illegally download copyrighted material. These contributors to the movie, music, computer game and software industry that we enjoy, lost an estimated $23 billion in 2003 due to illegal copying. It is tragic that companies like Grokster are able to take the profit from the labor of today's and yesterday's artists, rather than those who were responsible for creating the content.

Copyright industries are responsible for an estimated 6 percent of the nation’s total GDP and were noted as employing 4 percent of all U.S. workers in 2002. This sector of our economy is helping to close this gap where the industrial sector of the United States is on the decline. However, the intellectual property industry is constantly under attack in this new digital age by programs such as P2P. A thriving e-marketplace is a wonderful forum to promote and sell intellectual property, but only if there are products to sell. Without protection from the rapid pace of copyright piracy over the internet, the creative community will lose their incentive to produce and distribute products into the marketplace. Ventures such as iTunes prove that it is possible to embrace the growth of technology in this new e-commerce marketplace while respecting the intellectual property rights of artists.

The content of the copyright debate has often been in relation to the illegal pirating of CDs and DVDs copyrighted in the United States by other nations such as China. Understanding the threat of this infringement to our economy, Congress has weighed future trade agreements with ensuring that other nations protect intellectual property rights held by U.S. stakeholders. It is irrational for the United States to expect other countries to honor international trade agreements while turning a blind eye to illegal activities at home. The Supreme Court's decision sends a strong message to the international community that the United States will enforce and protect copyrights at home and abroad.

I believe there is still a healthy debate to be had on how to adapt intellectual property laws in the face of this new digital e-commerce marketplace. The Supreme Court took an important first step in assuring the creative community that the courts will uphold the promises of our forefathers to enforce the protection of their copyrighted material. It is important now that we monitor how the Court's ruling is interpreted in the lower courts and whether these courts respect the Supreme Court's stance on copyrighted works. If the lower courts give technology companies a safe harbor to encourage or facilitate copyright infringement, Congress must work on legislation that will uphold and respect copyright laws. It is incumbent upon the courts and policymakers to demonstrate that they can and will be steadfast in protecting the rights of those who own and labor to produce intellectual property now and in the future.