On Thursday I critiqued a New York Times story (which appeared in the print edition on Friday) about the expiration of some European copyrights on recorded music. Joe Liu points out that the Times has changed the story to address one of the issues I raised.

The original story said:

Defenders of the copyright laws, like Mr. Turkewitz, argue that, if anything, American laws are still too lax and that the European laws are totally inadequate.

This was a strange way to put it, since, far from defending the copyright laws, Mr. Turkewitz was offering fairly harsh criticism of them. The Times subsequently changed the story to read

Defenders of extended copyright terms, like Mr. Turkewitz, argue that, if anything, American laws are still too lax and that the European laws are totally inadequate.

It seems clear from the context that the laxity and inadequacy that Mr. Turkewitz sees are in the length of the copyright term. If so, then the modified sentence is accurate but vacuous, akin to saying, “Defenders of tax cuts argue that, if anything, taxes are too high,” or, “Defenders of increased exercise argue that, if anything, people don’t exercise enough.”

The original version, though, more accurately describes the record industry’s self-image. They seem to see themselves as defenders of the copyright laws, as opposed to advocates of a particular version of copyright law. Further, they tend to view people with different views about copyright law – even those who view the current copyright laws as just about right – as opponents of the copyright laws and even of the basic principle of copyright.

The first time I had a private conversation with a record company (not RIAA) executive, he seemed very surprised to learn that I was not totally opposed to copyright. The only public positions I had taken at that time were (a) opposition to the DMCA, and (b) skepticism about the feasibility of DRM. To him, it was just obvious that anyone with those views must oppose copyright altogether. His first question to me, in fact, was whether I could envision any situation where copying was wrong.

So I’m not surprised to see that an RIAA honcho would think that any defender of the copyright laws would necessarily support arbitrary extensions of copyright. I’m glad that the Times ultimately saw the error of that view.

[By the way, does anyone know which version of the story appeared in the paper version of the Times on Friday? I don’t have a copy.]

An article by Anthony Tommasini at the New York Times (online) reports that the European copyrights on many musical recordings for the 50’s will be expiring soon. Some paint this as a disaster for the recording industry.

This is one of those articles that just cries out for skeptical analysis. Several points leap to mind.

The tone of the article is that there is a problem that needs to be rectified, but it’s not clear exactly what the problem is. Sometimes it seems that the problem is that U.S. and European copyrights expire at different times. But the article implies at certain points that the problem is that the copyrights will expire at all.

According to the article, anyone will be able to release recordings of a work in Europe once its European copyright has expired, but it will be illegal to import and sell these works in the U.S. Here is the RIAA’s comment (quoted from the article):

“The import [into the U.S.] of those products would be an act of piracy,” said Neil Turkewitz, the executive vice president international for the Recording Industry Association of America, which has strongly advocated for copyright protections. “The industry is regretful that these absolutely piratical products are being released.”

Let’s disassemble this. The first sentence is pretty unobjectionable (leaving aside the use of “piracy” rather than the more accurate “infringement”). But the second sentence is a whopper, implying that a legal-in-Europe recording is an “absolutely piratical product” even if it is released only in Europe.

(By the way, this is a perfect example of how the term “piracy” promotes fuzzy thinking. It would be ridiculous to say that a legal-in-Europe recording, if released only in Europe, was an “absolutely infringing product.” I doubt you could get the New York Times to print such an obviously wrong statement. Say “piracy” and the statement is still wrong, but the error is harder to spot.)

There is another irony here. According to today’s article, because of the disparity in copyright terms, “The [RIAA] is trying to persuade European Union countries to extend terms of copyright.” Recall that U.S. copyright terms are longer, in part, because of the 20-year extension passed a in 1998. And yet, according to a February 19, 2002 article in the New York Times, “Support for the [1998 U.S.] extension also came from those who argued that it was necessary to match the copyright term granted by the European Union.”

Finally, check out this excerpt from today’s article [italics added],

Defenders of the copyright laws, like Mr. Turkewitz, argue that, if anything, American laws are still too lax and that the European laws are totally inadequate.

Shouldn’t that be “Critics of the copyright laws”? Only in the surreal world of copyright rhetoric can you “defend” something by arguing that it is “too lax” or “totally inadequte.” What Mr. Turkewitz is “defending” is not the copyright laws we actually have, but the ones that he wants us to have.