Dear Commission,
Thanks for giving us the possibility to react on these important issues.
I will answer on behalf of eClassical.com, an e-commerce store that has been selling digital music on the Internet since 1999.
Only those questions that apply to our business will be answered.
1) Do you agree that fostering the adoption of interoperable DRM systems should support the development of online creative content services in the Internal Market? What are the main obstacles to fully interoperable DRM systems? Which commendable practices do you identify as regards DRM interoperability?
Answer:
We don't believe in DRM in any regard as it is our strong belief that DRM is bad for our customers, thus bad for any business trying to sell music. Mentioning DRM and interoperability in the same sentence is rather contradictive, since the sole purpose of DRM is to counter interoperability!
For instance, we have long since decided to only offer MP3 without DRM in our store, because that is the file format that works on most platforms: computers, hardware players and mobile phones. We also strongly encourage our customers to make custom audio CDs from our files, so that they can enjoy the music on their HIFI and car stereo.
Wanting to offer the best possible solution to our customers, DRM is completely out of the question.
Those who want to share music illegally can simply remove the DRM anyway. Therefore, DRM only means bad business since it lessens the freedom of our customers and means little in stopping people from sharing the music anyway.
2) Do you agree that consumer information with regard to interoperability and personal data protection features of DRM systems should be improved? What could be, in your opinion, the most appropriate means and procedures to improve consumers' information in respect of DRM systems? Which commendable practices would you identify as regards labelling of digital products and services?
Answer:
Yes! We think that customer information with regard to DRM should be improved! We think that the customers must be educated never to purchase a product that is defective or restrained because of DRM. Only when everybody understands how bad DRM really is, and how much better DRM-free music is, there will be a real market for selling digital music. Those who don't know how much freedom non-DRM music has to offer when compared to the DRM music must be enlightened in this regard so that they realize exactly how good digital music can be.
I think the European consumer organizations should campaign against DRM and educate the customers. It's their responsibility to protect consumers from purchasing defective products, and help customers return such products with a full refund if they are lured to purchase a product defective by DRM.
3) N/A
4) Do you agree that alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in relation to the application and administration of DRM systems would enhance consumers' confidence in new products and services? Which commendable practices do you identify in that respect? 5) Do you agree that ensuring a non-discriminatory access (for instance for SMEs) to DRM solutions is needed to preserve and foster competition on the market for digital content distribution?
Answer:
Se previous answers. We think DRM is bad for consumers, thus bad for business.
6) Do you agree that the issue of multi-territory rights licensing must be addressed by means of a Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council? 7) What is in your view the most efficient way of fostering multi-territory rights licensing in the area of audiovisual works? Do you agree that a model of online licenses based on the distinction between a primary and a secondary multi-territory market can facilitate EU-wide or multi-territory licensing for the creative content you deal with?
Answer:
The way we see it, Internet is a global market place. There should be as little licenses and laws as possible to hinder us from selling any music content to any part of the world.
8) Do you agree that business models based on the idea of selling less of more, as illustrated by the so-called "Long tail" theory, benefit from multi-territory rights licences for back-catalogue works (for instance works more than two years old)?
Answer:
I think that all record labels ought to make all of their back-catalogues available in digital form. There is no point in holding copyright for products that will never reach the public. It will only encourage illegal sharing of such products if there is no way of legally acquiring works from back-catalogues.
If a company refuses to make available a work that is in the back-catalogue, thus preventing the public from enjoying that work, then file sharing of such a work should definitely be legal. It has never been the purpose of the copyright laws to stop the public from enjoying works of music or any other cultural expression.
Please see answer to questions 6,7 for our view on territorial rights.
9) How can increased, effective stakeholder cooperation improve respect of copyright in the online environment?
Answer:
A start would be not to go after the customers for non-profit file sharing. Then to abolish all use of DRM would be a great step towards gaining respect from the public. Show the public what great a medium for enjoying music the Internet can be, and what the benefits of DRM-free music are, and respect will follow.
10) Do you consider the Memorandum of Understanding, recently adopted in France, as an example to followed?
Answer:
We strongly believe that this is totally outrageous. Not only is it lacking legal security (an IP address is never the same as one person, also technical evidence is really hard to present in tying one single person to the act of violating copyright over an Internet connection), it's also disproportionate (shutting off the Internet access is really the equivalent of taking away a person's freedom of expression and the right to public information), collective (shutting off the Internet connection can't be a personal penalty if the Internet connection is shared by more than one person - a company, an organization, a family etc), and also counterproductive (if the goal is to have people using legal alternatives to illegal file sharing, then shutting off the Internet connection is not the best way to achieve that goal). Additionally, it further alienates the public from the content industry and undermines the respect for copyright law.
We believe in the development of consumer-friendly music services on the Internet, not the removal of the Internet itself.
11) Do you consider that applying filtering measures would be an effective way to prevent online copyright infringements?
Answer:
No, we belive in the development of consumer-friendly music services on the Internet, not the removal of the Internet itself.
There are also many ethical and political arguments against censorship and totalitarianism, but I leave those arguments for other commentators.
Kind regards
Rikard Froberg
eClassical.com
