Newsmaker: Record labels' man in Washington

ASPEN, Colo.--Mitch Glazier is one of the most influential lobbyists you've never heard of.

Glazier, 38, is responsible for persuading Congress to heed what the Recording Industry Association of America wants. His latest project is to seek support for a slew of bills, some with criminal penalties, that the RIAA hopes will prompt Americans to think twice before sharing music on peer-to-peer networks.

Before joining the RIAA in February 2000, Glazier was an aide to the very committees he's now targeting as the music trade association's senior vice president for government relations.

It's the position that I hold. I'm an advocate. In that position, I'm going to suffer some attacks.

Glazier previously worked at the Chicago law firm Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg and went to law school at Vanderbilt University.

CNET News.com spoke with Glazier at a recent conference here about the Republican National Convention, outlawing the iPod, his rocky relationship with open-source activists and what new laws are imminent.

Q: You've been busy suing thousands of individuals. Do you have any regrets?
A: No, it's worked. For mainstream users, it was absolutely necessary to educate them that this kind of intangible theft is theft and causes real damage. Sometimes the only way to do that is to enforce your rights.

Do you ever read open-source or free-software advocacy sites like Slashdot?
I don't personally, unless it's forwarded to me by our news guys.

Do you think that in those circles, you or the Motion Picture Association of America is disliked more?
Certain folks in the grassroots part of the tech community see the Internet as a revolutionary tool in a manner that will completely upset any kind of institutional organization that has existed in the past, and anything short of that utopian revolutionary result will be viewed as a failure.

We're very open-minded in supporting any alternative that successfully targets the bad actors and successfully does not target legitimate actors--period.

The music industry happens to be the industry that was the first hit because of bit size. We have been the first poster children. If you had to compare by focus, we probably win only because movies take a lot longer to download so they haven't been victimized as much as we have been.

Do you ever feel personally attacked?
Generally, I don't. I do when I speak on campuses around the country or when I speak in front of certain audiences. I don't take it personally, because anyone else would be equally attacked. It's the position that I hold. I'm an advocate. In that position, I'm going to suffer some attacks.

You've been a big fan of the Induce Act, which was supposed to outlaw file-swapping networks and any other products that "induce" piracy. What do you think of one proposed alternative to the Induce Act, which is more narrow?
As drafted, I don't think that it achieves the purpose set out. I'm not sure that a business that utilizes peer-to-peer in order to profit by encouraging mass infringement would actually be held liable. But I think the Consumer Electronics Association should be commended for putting on the table a serious proposal that contains a very interesting idea, intended to separate legitimate manufacturers from illegitimate pirates.

What are the odds of getting some version of the Induce Act enacted this year?
I think they're good. You couldn't tell by just talking to each of the parties. But if you look at where everybody is now, (they're talking about) isolating the bad actors in a manner that doesn't require any technological mandates, has no functional specifications and has the goal of assuring that no legitimate actor gets caught in the net.

You preferred the original Induce Act. How far are you willing to go?

There's no way that a company that produces great digital rights management for a licensed product is ever going to be shown to want to profit from piracy.

We're very open-minded in supporting any alternative that successfully targets the bad actors and successfully does not target legitimate actors--period. The original Induce Act, we support, because it had the element of intent, which was meant to draw the line between the good guys and the bad guys. The sensitivities about this legislation don't come from us. Really, they come from the IT community, which has very legitimate concerns.

There has been speculation that the original Induce Act could make Apple Computer liable for selling like the iPod. Could it?
No.

Why not?
The original Induce Act focused on the totality of the circumstances. There's no way that a company that produces great digital rights management for a licensed product is ever going to be shown to want to profit from piracy.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation drafted a faux complaint that said the iPod could be at risk.
They forgot the word "intent." It's a key element. State of mind is the key element of the Induce Act. Overt acts that show state of mind for purposes of proof are key elements of the Induce Act. That said, we understand that in this atmosphere, corporations would like assurances that they're able to continue the legitimate activities that they're in the business of conducting.

You're also backing the Pirate Act, which encourages the Department of Justice to sue file traders. The Senate has approved it, but what are its prospects in the House of Representatives?
The House and Senate staff work well together, and when they get together to make recommendations about what an intellectual-property package should look like this year, they'll take a look at each of those pieces and try to figure out what best meets the goal of each chairman.

An intellectual property package? Are you going to be pushing for that by the end of the year?
I don't know. It's worked different ways in past Congresses. For example, on the Pirate Act, which the House hasn't considered, the House could say, "With the following changes, we think that the Pirate Act achieves the goals of this committee." The Senate could then approve those changes.

You envision this happening, even with no hearings on the Pirate Act in the House?
I think that each committee has to determine whether there has been enough process on each bill. There have been no hearings on the Piracy Deterrence bill--that the House is about to move--in the Senate. There have been no hearings on the Induce bill in the House. Only the committees can determine whether there's been enough process on each bill.

Are you thinking of an end-of-2004 appropriations bill as a way to get this legislation through?
We're not thinking anything -- it's (up to the committees). But no, I don't think so.

How big of a threat to you is the legislation to amend the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "anti-circumvention" section?
We're concerned by it. We think it's a terrible precedent. I don't think there's a chance that it goes into law this year. I don't know what (House Commerce Chairman Joe Barton's) plans are for September. I hope that we've done effective advocacy so that the members of the committee don't push it to the floor.

The 9th Circuit handed you a bitter defeat by protecting Grokster and Morpheus. What's next?
No decision's been made.

The Department of Justice would never--and we would never ask them to--go after a college kid for copyright piracy in lieu of going after terrorists.

If the record companies decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, the Grokster decision directly contradicts what Judge Posner ruled upon in the 7th Circuit in the Aimster case. There is a clear split in the circuits on the issue of willful blindness, of pulling down the shade in your architecture so you're not aware of any specific infringement, even though you're well aware that you're producing mass infringement. It's ripe for review.

Has the RIAA changed what it's hoping to accomplish against file-trading networks through legislation or litigation?
The overall policy hasn't changed. The ultimate goal is still the same, which is to produce the most investment in the creative process. We signed (a peace accord with the computer industry) agreeing that tech mandates are not the way to go. But coming up with an actual implementation of how you will target Kazaa (is more difficult).

By suing Morpheus, might you drive other networks further underground?
By suing Kazaa, you might force more people to go to eDonkey. But there's always going to be companies that are willing to do this, despite the risks. Our job is to make the risks high enough that fewer companies are interested in taking those risks.

What are your plans regarding open-source or free software that facilitates file sharing, which tends to be hosted at sites like SourceForge?
I don't know yet. We have dealt with the individual development of peer-to-peer systems on college campuses when the OpenNap systems were being developed. We have stopped college students from developing independent networks and exporting those to other colleges. My guess is that we would have to proceed the same way. But no decision has been made in antipiracy strategy for open source yet.

When will you decide?
We're thinking about it now. Our antipiracy department, headed by Brad Buckles, is constantly searching for how people are pirating our materials. There are lots of ways of trying to deal with it. Some include litigation.

You've failed to persuade the Justice Department to prosecute P2P users using the Net Act. What happens next?

We threw a great party at the Democratic convention; we're going to throw a great party at the Republican convention.

The department realizes that under the Net Act, as it exists, it is possible to prosecute people. But the thresholds written in the Net Act are not an exact fit with the type of piracy. Does that mean uploading a thousand files? Does it mean downloading a thousand files? Does it mean 99 cents a file? If you put up one file that's downloaded a thousand times? Is making it available in your shared folder enough, when it's impossible to prove how many times it's downloaded?

Even if the bill passes, will prosecutors seeking career advancement target college kids over terrorists?
The Department of Justice would never--and we would never ask them to--go after a college kid for copyright piracy in lieu of going after terrorists. Zero money dedicated to the Department of Justice's counterterrorism unit would ever go after someone accused of copyright piracy.

So you think they'll be willing to go after big-time P2P pirates?
They might. We think it's important to prosecute, for deterrence reasons, end users so that a message is sent and people understand that this is criminal activity. Sometimes when a case is prosecuted, people will understand that it isn't right. This is stealing. I don't think anyone is asking the Department of Justice to commit all of its resources to bringing millions of cases against end users. But there are legitimate cases that should be pursued.

Sen. Orrin Hatch has talked about prosecutors filing "tens of thousands" of lawsuits. Is that what you'd like?
We would want the Department of Justice to use its best judgment in prosecuting serious infringers.

You wouldn't object?
No, of course not. But we wouldn't propose it, either.

What's your take on Canada, where it's perfectly legal to download as much music as you can fit on your hard drive?
Canadian law was written a long time ago with the idea of getting material out to the hinterlands, to the northern territories, to the Yukon. I think that its legislature is going to have to grapple with laws written for a good purpose in a different time, when things like P2P weren't available at all.

I hear that you threw a wild party at the Democratic National Convention.
It wasn't a wild party. We threw a great party at the Democratic convention; we're going to throw a great party at the Republican convention. Our goal is to get some of the music that our artists create to our policymakers. Music is a great tool, because it speaks by itself.

What artists will you have?
We had the Black Eyed Peas. At the Republican convention, we'll have Kid Rock.

Does that say anything about their respective political views?
Actually, they're both really cool, hip artists. The nice thing about our parties at the convention is that they're much more about music than politics. There's no stress on politics. (We're co-sponsoring) the party with Intel, TechNet and the Consumer Electronics Association.

At the business level, we're all partners. Our companies and the technology companies are cutting deals every day on new distribution methods. Sometimes, we get too hung up in the policy debate, where it looks like content versus tech. Only in Washington are we sitting on opposite sides of the table.

Rep. Howard Berman didn't re-introduce his bill that would allow copyright holders to disrupt P2P networks. Were you disappointed?

We didn't ask him to introduce it the first time. We thought the intent behind the bill was terrific. We thought the bill, as drafted, didn't come near the kinds of activities that its critics said it did.

It created such a controversy by those who misinterpreted it, focusing on those technological (countermeasures). Given the controversy, I think that it's not a big enough piece of the puzzle to justify the effort, even though it's right.  

More Newsmakers

[bernhug]

the music industry

it is obvious that the music industry is probably more corrupt that the Porn industry, at least we all know about the porn industry.
i am in the music industry and have been for the last 35 yrs. it might be nice if this industry cleaned up it own house. whilst piracy is theft the music industry as been doing it for decades.
we use P2P for moving files around the world and not music but large data files, and we be totally screwed with out it. long live P2P

[bobby_brady]

Mitch Glazier is a worthless human being

may he get sick.

[Steve Bryan]

Weasel alert

Mitch Glazier is the weasel who tried to carry out the largest
theft from recording artists in history. While he was working for
Congress he was responsible for slipping language into a bill
nearing passage after all discussion was finished. That language
changed the rules of copyright so that all recording would
become "work for hire" so that copyright would always be the
property of the recording company unlike the current situation
that varies according to details of contracts.

After the bill passed and it was noticed what the ethically
challenged Mr Glazier had enabled, the RIAA was busy back
pedaling and eventually that outrageous provision was rescinded
in a later bill. But Mr Glazier had demonstrated his bona fides to
the RIAA so he left his job in Congress and took a million dollars
a year job with the RIAA.

It is weasels like Glazier who renew authentic meaning to the
lyrics of Gilbert and Sullivan (from Pirates of Penzance):

"Oh, better far to live and die
Under the brave black flag I fly,
Than play a sanctimonious part
With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
Away to the cheating world go you,
Where pirates all are well-to-do;"

[Fray9]

That sound you heard

That sound you heard in the background while you were reading this article was the sound of me reading it and grinding my teeth.

Strangely enough it sounded much like the rubber-stamp "music" the RIAA is "producing" these days.

I could write a book on the dire straits the american public is in at the insistance of the RIAA for the sole purpose of protecting their empire from disruptive change. But I wont because I know it wont make one iota of difference.

The RIAA doesnt care about its customers.

Theyd rather sue every person in america than give in to change.

The RIAA is desperate. Desperate men and desperate companies do desperate things. With the power, money and influence they have though the desperate things they are doing are extremely destructive to the american way of life.

[stephenmeyer]

A Complete Waste of Time

Mitch Glaser is delusional.

The facts:

a)Downloading is NOT on the decrease and for the past four years, global music sales have declined.

b)The RIAA and labels can NEVER stop downloading because ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE DIGITALLY TO PREVENT IT, CAN BE UNDONE DIGITALLY.

c)The lawsuits the RIAA files each month against several hundred people who download only alienates consumers more. to see how well the opposition is organized, just go to www.boycott-riaa.com )

d) If the RIAA and labels REALLY care about expanding their market and keeping consumers who buy music, LOWER THE PRICE OF CDs. In a world where best selling DVD's are often cheaper than CDs, the $16.98-$18.98 list price is ludicrous.

e) Sales of the iPod and songs on iTunes evidence the consumers don't care about buying a CD...they only want selective music and songs.

[Not Bugged]

Who says you can't buy Justice?

If this isn't the most blatant case of big corporations spending money to keep thier hides rather than let market forces and common law act, I don't know what would be. How can Congress justify the fact that copying a song from tape to tape is a civil case while doing the same copy via a computer is a criminal case?
The music industry had a chance to cut this off in the beginning by offering services such as iTunes long before anyone else but failed to do so because they saw more profit by controlling the distribution and forcing people to pay for an entire album to listen to one song (notice how singles vanished as CDs came about and the cost steadily increased despite lowered distribution and manufacturing costs?).
All the "data" so far to support the "loss" in the industry has to do with economic downturns and people no longer replacing their old tape collections. But don't let facts get in the way of "good" legislation.

[WinTaper]

Invest in musicians - not lawyers - to fix the music biz

Perhaps the reason for the economic slide in music is caused by the absolute garbage the big labels peddle (aimed directly at young kids with little or no money) and the fact that many parents refuse to buy such crap for their kids anymore. i doubt mr glazier knows anything about music business other than the legal side. The music industry is totally mis-managed and 15 years behind the times. No amount of legislation or lawsuits will correct this. Mr Glazier is a self-serving idiot if he thinks he can.

You have now entered the twilight zone

Unfortunately, this little expose reinforces the attitudes most Americans express about attorneys. Anyone who takes a little time to gain a balanced understanding of the current state of the copyright and patent processes will generally agree that the processes are seriously broken. Protecting IP is not what the laws are about anymore. Much more often than not, the laws protect broken business models, weak products, and monopolistic behavior. The recorded music industry is NOT a $100B a year global business, no matter how much the B-school grads and lawyers want it to be. Look at the fundamentals. It does about $20B a year because thats what it does. Period.

[liveagua]

Morpheus...Invincible???

I used to work for Morpheus before we were sabotaged
by Kazaa. We were told over and over again that
digital music downloads wouldn't work and people
would continue to "steal" music in record numbers. 100
million downloads later we are all talking about how
great ITunes is. The bottom line has been restated over
and over, we have unscrupulous people running
companies that literally bully people into acting a
certain way. This is the same elitist attitude that most
liberals have, "we are smarter than these common
people and we have more money,...so we are the ones
who knows what is best." Mitch in the end, you are a
weasel. Sorry but that is the truth. At the end of the day
you are a hired gun who's opinion is influenced by who
signs your paycheck. You are as bad as John Kerry,
but at least i know where to get some waffles if I am
ever hungry.

MonopoLIES

It's amazing how much trouble someone can get into when their market is controlled by such few organizations (a handful of recording firms derive 90% of the market).

I'm absolutely pro-business; however, there are some monopolies, dupolies, and oligopolies in the US that need some trimmin'. The saying about power corrupting absolutely is absolutely true.

I am all for musicians making their fair share, but targeting peer-to-peer networks based on "contributory liability" is absurd. The logic seems flawed that VCRs can copy from a network (let's call it broadband -- as in broadband from the radiowaves) yet you can not copy MP3s from a network. The network a VCR obtains its copy from is also copyright protected.

The problem seems tied to a definition of digital audio device? The problem is unfortunately really tied to a 9th Circuit that is out of whack with reality.

Of course, the real issues have yet to come and that's unfortunate. It's unfortunate our telco monopolies in the US have given us substandard service (just look at South Korea -- how do they have better broadband than we do?). Now, its also unfortunate our recording companies are going to give us substandard peer-to-peer services (due to litigation) and even less music choices.

It's why I have yet to buy even one music CD in more than two years.