Can Justice Scalia Solve the Riddles Of the Internet?

Wall Street Journal ^ | April 1, 2005 | Daniel Henninger

[billorites]

As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster...

Conundrum #1: Has the Internet, the most powerful information pump the world has ever known, drowned the incentive to create in words or images?

Conundrum #2: Has the Internet effectively displaced the antique notion of the profit-motive with a newer, unstoppable reality that everything on the Internet is, if it wants to be, "free"?

Conundrum #3: How is it that millions of Americans who wouldn't cross the street against a red light will sleep like lambs after downloading onto their computers a Library of Alexandria's worth of music or movies--for free.

Even writers gotta eat. But this means one has to buy into the validity of eeeek, "profit." Absent that, there's no hope.

New business models like iTunes and techno-fixes such as micropayments matter a lot, but the unshakable reality is that digits and microchips are not like any previous reproducing technology. If you can digitize it, you can grab it, for free.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain, for "everyone."

What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?

[tet68]

while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?


Are you kidding, they are having the time of their lives.
Red Bull? Eek! Don't they know about Jolt Cola and Krispy
Kreme?

It's sort of funny how liberals can get SOOO excited about
"profit and property" but only when it's THEIRS.

[Huck]

What about song WRITERS? They aren't having the time of their lives. They aren't performers. They are writers who have legal rights against copyright violation. All the little thieves out there, young and old, are just that. Immoral, dishonest, THIEVES.

I subscribe to real rhapsody, which is a cheap and easy way to download music without picking someone else's pocket.

[Huck]

I think if my man Ronnie were alive, he'd be out to get ANYONE stealing his music without paying for it:

Well I work seven days a week
Eight when I am able
When you take money from me
you take food from my mama's table

Let's cry for this bad man
I wrote a song for the bad man

Oh baby you know who you are

How about all you cheap bastards out there get out the crow-bar, pry open your wallets and PAY for their work?

[Huck]

All the Internet has done is shift the costs around, dramatically.

That's not all its done. It's made it extremely easy to violate the rights of copyright holders, namely songwriters and publishers. It's theft, and sooner or later, in a sane world, that will become evident. Just another sign that loose morality and a lack of basic ethics and decency rule the day. Not surprising in a world where adult males play video games.

[Huck]

By the way, I'm a working musician. Are you? If not, you might as well just clam up about what kind of time the musicians are having, unless talking stuff you don't know is a hobby of yours.

[Huck]

I'm sitting around bored. I'll bump this thing. I could use a nice orn'ry debate this morning.

[Uncle Fud]

I wonder if Ronnie was referring to his recording contract when he wrote those lyrics.

I think that creative artists deserve total protction from piracy for a LIMITED time - 25 to 30 years is about right, everything prior to the 1970's should rightfully be in the public domain by now.

The USSC has correctly ruled that the existence of copyright is an issue of right or wrong, but the duration of copyright is a political decision, no different in my opinion from tax rates or speed limits.

[Huck]

I wonder if Ronnie was referring to his recording contract when he wrote those lyrics.

I don't know and I don't think it matters. He was a songwriter who held the legal right to that property. Anyone who violates his copyright is stealing. It's no more complicated than that. And personally, having been a Skynyrd fan all my life, I think he'd personally bust anybody's jaw that tried it if he could.

I think that creative artists deserve total protction from piracy for a LIMITED time - 25 to 30 years is about right, everything prior to the 1970's should rightfully be in the public domain by now.

On what basis? Just cuz it'd be nice for you? Why shouldn't Ronnie be able to pass ownership of Sweet Home Alabama on to his kids, so they can receive the fruits of HIS labor? Why are ppl so anxious to pick the pockets of songwriters?

The USSC has correctly ruled that the existence of copyright is an issue of right or wrong, but the duration of copyright is a political decision, no different in my opinion from tax rates or speed limits.

That may be, but even so, I don't see why the creator shouldn't own their creation and be able to pass it on to their kiddies. At some point music should probably enter the public domain, but I'd like to hear the compelling reason why it should be so soon. I'd like to think an artists grandkids or even great-grandkids could enjoy the fruits of their own family's labor.

[sgtbono2002]

I sleep well because I am innocent, I havent heard anything worth taping or copying in years.

George Jones is the only real performer left alive.

[Huck]

Here's Johnny and Donnie Van Zant on the subject:

Saint Louis, Missouri: What do you think of Napster, the online file sharing system? Do you think there is a future for music to be released over the Internet??

Johnny: I have strong feelings on this. When you write a song it's your creation. Unfortunately we live in the land of the free, but nothing's for free. I can't walk into Wal-Mart and walk out with a pair of pants.

Donnie: It's our livelihood.

http://www.usatoday.com/community/chat/2001-03-02-vanzant.htm

I see no reason to think my man Ronnie would have thought any differently.

"Slicker steal my money
since I was seventeen,
If it ain't no pencil pusher,
then it got to be a honky tonk queen"

Or maybe it's an immature, irresponsible adult child who, like an infant, wants what he want when he wants it, never mind the rules.

[Huck]

"50,000 Names" makes me cry every single time I hear it.

[kingu]

Our family spends just over a hundred dollars a month for cable. For that money, we have access to six hundred channels of music, movies and entertainment programs. If we decide to pay extra, we don't have to drive down to the local video rental store to watch the newest release which will be on next month as part of our subscription fee.

In my opinion, the media giants have somehow forgotten that they are in a business. They are so wedded to their disc creations that they've forgotten the concept of giving the market what it wants, and making a profit at the same time.

There have been a few steps in the right direction, but it will never work until they get off their duffs and offer open licenses in exchange for monthly fees through a third party. Give us $15 a month, and you can use x number of devices to play just about anything you want, when you want to. Give us $15 a month, and you can watch any television program when and where you want. Music distributors would kill to get every family in America to buy two CDs a month, but getting that same income through open licensing seems to be an alien construct to them.

Television media would love it if they could get the same revenue per household, and make some extra on the side for advertising.

Instead they continue to hold themselves captive to that magic disc. A magic disc that can be easily copied, distributed and resold, all without any additional profit, and protected by federal laws that have no justification under the US constitution.

I don't expect the court to agree. I expect that they will find a way to outlaw one form of technology as a holding action so that this battle can be fought another day in another court.

[elfman2]

I’m not sure what you’re upset at. Writers aren’t making the money they deserve? Musician’s?

Few here think downloading music isn’t theft, but there’s not a lot of sympathy for the idea of perpetual copyrights for $15 CD to make hundreds of billions. When we were born, artist’s financial opportunities were probably less than today. People had to struggle a little more to copy tapes for friends, but there were less million dollar contracts and worldwide (legal) distribution of their work.

Few are promoting less copyright protection, but few are willing to support a massive police effort to strengthen them or are sympathetic to sob stories. Everybody struggles.

[Uncle Fud]

Why shouldn't Ronnie be able to pass ownership of Sweet Home Alabama on to his kids, so they can receive the fruits of HIS labor?

For a long time the duration of an American copyright was 28 years. No one to my knowledge argued at the time that this was instiutionalized thievery or unfair to the creator. Lots of authors and songwriters made very good livings under that law.

At some point music should probably enter the public domain, but I'd like to hear the compelling reason why it should be so soon.

Well at least when the argument moves to this stage we are talking about differences in public policy, rather than who's a monopolist and who's a thief.

The most compelling reason I can think of is the enormous amount of "lost" material - music, books, films - from the 1920's on forward. These are works that NO ONE is making one dime on, but which can not be reprinted because the trail of copyright ownership has been lost in legal tangles, and our insanely long copyright duration keeps it out of the PD.

A possible compromise here, even within the current copyright duration, would be to say that after the first 30 years, copyright is renewable as long as the work is still available for public purchase.

This keeps the Van Zant kids in eats as long as you can buy the albums, but if they go out of release it lets the file swappers have the music.

[kingu]

At some point music should probably enter the public domain, but I'd like to hear the compelling reason why it should be so soon.

The most compelling reason is creativity. Locking everything away into patents and copyrights that never expire stifles the creation of anything new, lest you inadvertently copy something that already existed in some form. Twenty five - thirty years - sure, that's a reasonable time to have an exclusive right to anything, but beyond that, it is counter productive. And even if you don't have the exclusive right to it, there's nothing to prevent someone from continuing to publish and distribute the work and continue to make money at it.

You just have to do it the good old fashion capitalistic way.. Produce a better product, offer it at a better price, and do it better than your competition.

[eno_]

Go back to the original copyright term our Founders were comfortable with, and I would sign up for protecting copyright works.

The current laws are illegitimate w.r.t. the word "limited" having any meaning. I have no guilt about downloading music. The RIAA and MPAA can, and should, go to hell. They have bought illegitimate laws. They should choke on them.

[elfman2]

" I don't see why the creator shouldn't own their creation and be able to pass it on to their kiddies. At some point music should probably enter the public domain, but I'd like to hear the compelling reason why it should be so soon."

Because no one creates music with the incentive to pass its license on to their kiddies 50 years later. Extending copyrights benefits the shareholders of Disney, not the creative process. Copywrites used to be for a shorter period of time, in line with profiting for a product, not for shareholders to milk an artist’s work’s long term integration onto our culture. An artist’s kids should get what the artist saves.

[Huck]

I’m not sure what you’re upset at. Writers aren’t making the money they deserve? Musician’s?

As Clint said in "Unforgiven", "deserve's got nothing to do with it." Funny how conservatives morph into liberals and use someone's financial success against them, as if there ought to be a law against success. What gives? Should we limit what profits wal mart can make, since they are so successful? This is socialist thinking.

Few here think downloading music isn’t theft

Do they think then that theft is ok? I pay for a subscription service. I don't download music illegally. That's the only right way to do it. There is no right way to illegally download music. It's theft.

but there’s not a lot of sympathy for the idea of perpetual copyrights for $15 CD to make hundreds of billions.

What's sympathy got to do with it, besides the aformentioned socialst class envy line, normally reserved for liberals? I don't have "sympathy" for Keith Richards, but neither do I want to pick his pocket.

When we were born, artist’s financial opportunities were probably less than today.

1. Total conjecture. 2. Totally irrelevant. Are you saying there ought to be a ceiling on opportunity? If not, then how is this relevant?

People had to struggle a little more to copy tapes for friends, but there were less million dollar contracts and worldwide (legal) distribution of their work.

1. You have no data. 2. As with above, it's irrelevant. It's a lot easier for me to get a job than it would have been 100 years ago. Should I then have less rights to the fruits of my labor?

Few are promoting less copyright protection,

No, they're just actively violating them to feed their own immature appetites.

but few are willing to support a massive police effort to strengthen them or are sympathetic to sob stories.

Translation: we are ok with the current laws, as long as we can freely break them and no one tries to hold us accountable for our larceny.

Everybody struggles.

Marx has spoken.