Two new articles are talking about Audible Magic, a company that sells acoustic fingerprinting technology. I've mentioned the technology before, but this time the gauntlet is down. RIAA chief Mitch Bainwol says, "It really puts the P2P community to the test. Are they serious about becoming legitimate, or are they not serious?" Underscoring that point, the recording industry and Audible Magic are touring DC to convince legislators that P2P companies can and should do more to protect copyright.

But here's the best part. The RIAA is pitching Audible Magic's wares by saying, "Congress, we've got a working method to determine which copyrighted works are being traded on the Internet. A major rightsholders' organization currently uses it to calculate artist payments from radio stations. In fact, it's more accurate than anything we've ever seen before in radio (more on this later). And, yes, It can be configured to respect privacy."

Sounds to me like part of a collective licensing scheme.

The interesting, perhaps wonderful thing about acoustic fingerprinting is that it's robust enough to monitor today's networks but unable to sniff tomorrow's encrypted traffic. I say "wonderful" because it's a clear illustration of two paths. The first looks much like today, where Audible Magic-style solutions can interoperate with relatively open networks to determine fair compensation for artists. The second is a world where the arms race continues, market-based solutions become impossible and legal/technical/cultural antagonism takes over.

Josh Bernoff from Forrester Research is wrong when he says, "Now if you're a legislator, you're going to have to make a decision about whether you're going to protect the rights of downloaders, or of the people who own the copyrights to the music." The real choice is whether to use this technology to kill another, or to expand its already proven application as a productive tool for artist compensation. Which one sounds like a better policy to you?
.:link:. | .:link:.