Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Sorry Huck, but I don't feel a single pang of guilt about downloading music. Dishonest and immoral as that may be, your argument just doesn't persuade. Now, if you want to put some time and effort into figuring how to package your product so that it doesn't lose value once it flows out into the public realm . . . well then you have my support.
I'm sorry, but musicians and most entertainers just have too high of an opinion of themselves these days. I'm not sure that the guy who brought us "Gettin' Jiggy Wit' It" deserves to be a multi millionaire. So, I just don't feel bad when some pimple faced punk downloads some Fresh tracks. If you don't like it and it's no longer profitable for you . . . then stop doing it. Go make an honest living creating something of value that really can be stolen. Either that, or just keep pimping yourself to the advertising executives and the record company fat cats in hopes of making undeserved millions. The rest of us will just keep downloading your product and buying lottery tickets.
What you are talking about is anarchy. Just because YOU don't want to be able to profit from the fruits of your labor, doesn't mean you have the right to deny me the right to do so. What you are saying is that the creators should be happy to get the scraps from their creations, if that.
In your hypothetical example of you writing songs and distributing them for free online; what if I was a big record company and had the means to not only copy your work but sell it through my superior distribution networks? Would you just sit by and say to hell with your copyright and let me get away with it, or would you sue me for stealing your hard earned work?
Music is like anything else in life; people will work harder at it if they know they will be compensated for what they do. Your line of reasoning would leave nobody with any rights, and the level of music would be even crappier than now. Most people don't have the money to just sit around making music for free.
I think groups like the MPAA thought they were distributing a disc and not the contents.
They can measure how many discs exist, electrons are a problem for them.
it is not the innovation, it is not the music, it is the royalty control the mpaa exercised.
If the court is to keep true, then it should follow the betamax decision. There are free market solutions which would "fix" their issue. It may just mean the solution does not include an MPAA
Wow, so everything that's legal is moral and everything that's illegal is immoral?
As far as I am conserned, once it is played on public airwaves, it is in the public domain. I can record it off the pulbic airwaves and I can sing it when ever I want, royality free.
The person who wrote the "Jiggy" thing absolutely deserves his money, because people volunatrily went out and purchased copies of the song. Just because YOU don't like the song doesn't mean you have the right to steal from him, or deny him the fruits of his labor. Just because you don't like the free market doesn't mean you have a right to deny it to others.
Are entertainers and musicians not deserving of the same property rights as other members of society? Who are you to tell someone to *make an honest living* when you freely admit to being a thief? The problem is people like you who in your own words, don't feel a pang of guilt about something you admit is *dishonest and immoral*.
And you would be breaking the law. And you would be a thief. By that logic, there can never be any copyright on music. If that is what you want, just say so.
BTW, there is no such thing as the *public airwaves*; lets call it what is and say *nationalized radio*.
A good friend of my wife's tutors learning disabled kids at her home, has done so for over fifteen years. For almost all that time she used a reading workbook which she, and the kids, and their parents, just loved. Over time she purchased 500+ copies, which is not much volume by RIAA standards, but a lot for a self employed tueacher.
Back in 2002, the company which published that book was bought out by another. The new publisher took the whole line out of print, because it competed with their existing line of workbooks (which sucked a** in our friend's opinion).
So being a good citizen, she wrote (through a third party lawyer) to the new publisher, asking how much it would cost to license the right to duplicate and sell the old book in small quantities (no more than 100/year) to her personal students.
Came the reply, three months later, in effect: "You can't afford it. And, we're never publishing this book again. Strongly suggest you find some sand and pound it."
So I was asked to scan the book into PDF format. She now gives a free copy to each student.
Is the company legally entitled to come after us for copyright violation? Of course.
Would you or Huck call us thieves? No doubt.
Can I sleep at night after doing this? Like a baby.
Well done and I agree with you wholeheartedly!!! Extortion by any name is still extortion and technology always people to say "shove it" back to the extortionists.
Your example doesn't change the facts. Your wife's friend does not own the contents of the book. Because she uses the books for a good cause does not mean she is legally justified. Doing a morally wrong thing for a good cause does not make it moral right.
That being said, the publishers sound like a bunch of heartless %&$#@F!!'s. I don't think this is a typical example, and certainly isn't germaine as to whether file-swapping without the copyright holder's permission is morally right or should be allowed.
I went back and re-read the Constitution three times and still couldn't find any reference to the internet or anything that gave the SCOTUS any authority over it.
artistic work to not but= artistic work do not put
>
> Naturally, industries that made billions in the pre-Internet
> economy are trying to use [and create] laws to put the technological
> genie back into the bottle.
>
And we have a winner!
You are making incorrect leaps. It is one thing to record a song from the radio onto my cassette (or Cd, doesn't matter), and then listen to it whenever I want. It doesn't make the song in the public domain. All the copyright protections still exist. What you are talking about is just fair use. If my song goes onto the radio I do not lose the right to sue you if you decide to sing my song and sell your version.
The main reason you are fighting a losing battle is, right or wrong, people really do not care about the issue. The public perception is the RIAA attacks, with lawsuits, grandmothers, kids and a few college kids. This is not perceived as a major societal problem in the world today. Giving a monopoly such as the RIAA the right to check into people's computers brings up the image of Big Brother and people resent it, as I do. So until the image of the RIAA and the entertainment industry changes from a rich, liberal monopoly, people won't care about this issue.
Oh, I'm pretty sure it's there.
Try looking in the penumbra.
Ding! Two marks for jpsb. And not only does it belong to society, it is the value of that common holding of intellectual property that makes copyright laws a legitimate function of government. THAT is why the Founders had to explain WHY they put that in the Constitution.
Real property, in contrast, is a right that no legitimate government could interfere with. This is reinforced, but by no means created, in the BoR.
Intellectual property does NOT belong to *society*! The owner of the copyright/patent owns it. It is REAL property. What you are arguing for is the complete abolition of intellectual property rights. Intellectual property is by definition NOT in the public domain.
What makes intellectual property rights a function and concern of the government is the same thing that gives the government the right to throw someone in jail for stealing my wallet. They are ALL property.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.