On the Right

National Review, Nov 10, 2003 by William F. Buckley Jr.

Bee Gee Wars

NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 30

A big battle is shaping up. The major players are musicians and the industry that retails their wares, and the people (mostly young) who love the music but don't want to pay for it. The music industry argues that music is a form of property. Nobody would object to policemen preventing someone from stealing your Sony. So why should anyone object to policemen approaching Jane Doe to take her to court for having downloaded songs off the Internet?

On this quarrel I am an entirely disinterested party. Perhaps not to the extent of my friend, a distinguished amateur musician and doctor. We met recently and exchanged sheepish confessions of ignorance. Was I, he wanted to know, familiar with any of the names published every day in the newspapers telling stories of things like the Bee Gees and the Hellzapoppins and the Fires-on-Earth? The answer was no. Although, I said with wistful thought of rehabilitation, I once wrote an entire book about Elvis Presley. "Oh?" the doctor asked. "What was it called?" To my dismay, I could not remember the title until a half hour later, which was too late. On the other hand, my interlocutor confessed that he had not heard, before reading that morning's obituaries, the name of Johnny Cash.

Well, never mind us aliens. There is a throbbing demand for the music of the pop world. Enter the ACLU. The locus of the fight is Boston College and a student, called by the authorities Jane Doe. Ms. Doe, we are given to understand, has a whole library full of music which she has taken off the Internet and, conceivably, passed on to friends and, perhaps inconceivably, sold to non-friends.

The prosecutors are asking about her pursuant to responsibilities vested in them by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law that gives copyright holders powers to pursue suspected infringers. But the ACLU is objecting, on the grounds that there hasn't been any due process observed. To isolate the identity of a consumer of Internet music is not the equivalent of subpoenaing someone suspected of stealing private property, they argue.

It does sound as if it were, but Professor Jessica Litman of Wayne State University deals nicely with the question. "She suggests," the New York Times reporter tells us, "that the comparison between privacy rights and property rights is the sort of thing that sounds good if you say it fast, but that breaks down under close scrutiny."

Ms. Litman scoffs at the idea that privacy rights protect any and all information privately amassed. "Property law, she said," the Times goes on, "is largely intended to make it possible to sell property, not to keep it secure. The property framework does fit intellectual property because those rights help artists and their representatives 'trade their art for money.'"

The stuff being picked up on the Internet is certainly copyrighted. And the Millennium Act seeks to stress the point by authorizing law enforcers to move against what, thieves?

Only in America!: a raft of organizations is at hand. They march under the banner of P2P United. That stands for "peer-to-peer." The general idea is that the browser who shoots out the latest Bee Gee to you is, really, just a "peer," talking friendly to a peer.

Questions before the courts: 1) Is your right to the information you have generated, or amassed, the equivalent of your right to ownership of the music, or literature, you have written? And 2) Do protections that are explicit or inhere in the Constitution, shield you from the official (officious?) curiosity of the Justice Department? Jane Doe will edge us toward an answer to those questions. And who will provide her with music in jail? Who will be her peer, the faculty adviser or the warden?

Odious Activities

NEW YORK, OCTOBER 7

Believe it or not, there is a Canadian website called odiousdebts.org. It focuses on a question generally thought to be just over the horizon of public interest, but no longer. Concretely, should the U.S. acquiesce in the repayment of the debt Iraq owes to its creditors? An odious debt was defined in 1927 by the Russian theorist of international obligations Alexander Sack as one incurred by a "regime," not "a nation." When Saddam went to France and Russia to borrow money, was that money turned to the use of the Iraqi people or was it for self-aggrandizement?

The Democratic high command in Congress has joined forces with the White House in taking the position that the debts should be repaid. But that view of things hasn't been highly ventilated, and the political season is one that would certainly welcome a public debate on the question.

At the end of October, Madrid will host a conference at which the question will be discussed. One can expect that France and Russia will be there insisting that their loans to Iraq must not be segregated as odious debts, not repayable by the new Iraq. As things now stand, the U.S. government will simultaneously argue 1) that the debts should be repaid, and 2) that other nations should contribute to the cost of restoring Iraq.