Last year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that P2P file-sharing applications are legal because they can be used in substantial, noninfringing ways. The reasoning behind this goes all the way to Sony vs. Universal, back in 1984, when Universal sued Sony for selling the first Betamax machines. Universal said that because VCRs could be used to pirate movies, they should be strictly verboten. Sony replied that because VCRs have legit uses (storing video for later viewing, making a backup copy of a purchased movie), they're perfectly OK. The Supreme Court sided with Sony and consumers, and while Betamax later lost out to the VHS format, peoples' ability to copy media for personal use was preserved.

Laws should hate the player, not the game
When an appeals court upholds a decision such as this, that's generally it--pack up your briefcases and go home. Nonetheless, the record labels are trying to take their case to the Supreme Court, in the hope that those judges will see things differently and decide that P2P companies are in fact legally responsible for the actions of their users. The way things stand now, the law hates the player but not the game. If the labels get their way, the law will hate the player and the game, and that just isn't right when some people are playing by the rules.

This isn't just about music. If the Supreme Court overturns the lower courts' decision, the Internet will become unrecognizable. Seriously--you'll be able to say good-bye to e-mail, FTP, and maybe even DSL. Why? Because most of the Internet will be illegal.

While P2P software differs from other technologies in its architecture, all it really does is connect two IP addresses for the transfer of data. If the RIAA has its way, any company that facilitates a data connection between two users will be held accountable for the actions of those users. Even if your school's or company's network has several noninfringing uses (say, cancer research), the discovery that some bad apples are using it to trade copyrighted files would result in massive fines of up to $10,000 per song. Before long, the incentive for organizations to offer open Internet connections would disappear. In other words, we'd all be surfing on a walled-in version of the Internet subject to censor and control--sort of like the early AOL.

You should control your machine
If anything else in the home was as maddening to use as a computer, most people wouldn't bother with it. Think about it--if your dishwasher crashed or if your TV's video driver went on the fritz, you'd lose your patience pretty quickly. The reason people put up with computers even though using them can be so infuriating is that they have complete control over their machines. We use computers because they can do just about whatever we want them to. If the labels succeed in outlawing P2P, what's next? E-mail? FTP? HTTP? Instant messaging? All of these protocols can be used to trade illegal files. Banning P2P would be the start of one of those notorious slippery slopes. Eventually, computers would come to resemble televisions, washing machines, and other devices with a limited set of capabilities. We'd have lost control of our machines.

I understand the labels' wish to stomp out P2P technology, but if it means we have to unplug the Internet and cede control of our computers, outlawing it probably wouldn't be the way to go.

Fortunately for all of us, there are substantial, noninfringing uses for P2P file-sharing networks. For instance, no one owns old material that has reverted to the public domain, so you can trade that all day long. In addition, there are thousands of songs on P2P networks that were made by bands who only want people to hear them--for free, for money, for whatever.

The Creative Commons reinvents copyright
Here's the nut: someone needed to create new levels of copyright to address the gap between "this is copyrighted and you can't use it for anything" and "take my rights, please." Luckily, the Creative Commons came up with new licenses that give copyright holders varying levels of control while making it clear to consumers what they can and can't do with the song. For instance, some songs are OK to sample for noncommercial use, and others can be traded with impunity on P2P networks.

The songs linked below represent, quite perfectly, I might add, the substantial noninfringing uses that P2P's survival--and perhaps that of technology in general--depend on.

The goods
Here's the track listing of the Creative Commons CD, which comes for free in the latest issue of Wired magazine. You can also download all of them for free from here. In addition to the Creative Commons, thanks goes to Wired magazine, which put together the artist deals and included the songs on a free CD bundled with its current issue.

• Beastie Boys--"Now Get Busy"
• David Byrne--"My Fair Lady"
• Zap Mama--"Wadidyusay"
• My Morning Jacket--"One Big Holiday"
• Spoon--"Revenge!"
• Gilberto Gil--"Oslodun"
• Dan the Automator--"Relaxation Spa Treatment"
• Thievery Corporation--"DC 3000"
• Le Tigre--"Fake French"
• Paul Westerberg--"Looking Up in Heaven"
• Chuck D with Fine Arts Militia--"No Meaning No"
• The Rapture--"Sister Saviour" (Blackstrobe Remix)
• Cornelius--"Wataridori 2"
• Danger Mouse and Jemini--"What You Sittin' On?" (starring Cee Lo and Tha Alkaholiks)
• DJ Dolores--"Oslodun 2004" (includes (cc) sample of "Oslodun" by Gilberto Gil)
• Matmos--"Action at a Distance"

Can the Creative Commons convince the record labels that giving fans more control over their music is a good thing? TalkBack to me below.