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 ...
Thank you
Copyright violation is not a "moral wrong." Our copyright laws have lost legitimacy because they do not embody the Founders' intent.
It is a far more moral thing to do to drive the publishers' cartel members into bankruptcy than to adhere to illegitimate laws. Morality often means breaking bad laws. The Founders who wrote the patent and copyright clause of the Constitution just got done KILLING their oppressors. Read the Declaration. Violence against oppression is written into our heritage. Downloading an mp3 ain't nothin'.
I don't think anybody is arguing that copyright laws are bad in principle (actually eno was noting they are recognized by the Constituion) or that artists should be discouraged from making money.
The debate concerns the status quo with regard to these laws.
If we lose sight of their purpose we as a society will suffer. A lot.
C- (even on today's grade scale) in Civics for you, bud. IPRs are a creation of our government. Real property rights are not. Nobody held any truth about copyright to be "self evident." It was a controversial idea, and the Constitution gives only a limited authority to write laws to protect IPRs.
Or look at it this way: If Congress wrote a law limiting your right to live, the way that patents expire, would THAT be a legitimate law?
Copyright and patents exist ONLY to create a larger pool of works in the public domain. It says so right on the instrutcion sheet for running this Republic.
But if I was on a jury I'd acquit (or not levy damages since it's really not a criminal matter)
It's our heritage, and I doubt that John Peter Zenger cared.
Different case. For one thing, that was 50 years before the constitution was written. It was a libel case, not a copyright case. Also, John Peter Zenger was correct in what he said. It was not libel, whatever the law said. Reproducing someone's book without consent or compensation is clearly a violation of the copyright laws. Are no laws to be followed now that we feel are unjust? Is there no such thing as law at all?
It was jury nullification of a stupid law. Which means one should support smart laws supported by the populace. Which means don't sue some 14-year-old to oblivion so Metallica can get one more dime.
Being as how you are a musician how are doing on royalties?
I might aggree with that if you agree that you or the lawyer that represent the copyright shakedown industry, do not to sue me or the bar I sing at if I sing the song that you put on the PUBLIC airways.
If your bar is paying it's dues, then you will not be in trouble. If not, then you damn well deserve to be sued if you do not compenesate me. You have this incomprehensible idea that the act of transmitting a song on the radio suddenly eliminates it's copyright protection. The Supreme court said no such thing. They were talking about fair use, which is stated in the laws. If i sing my songs on the street corner and you hear them, you are not entitled to record your version of it and distribute it. The same thing with the radio. If what you say is true, there is no such thing as intellectual copyright.
What I'm saying is that if I were on a jury on one of these RIAA cases, I'd probably nullify.
You don't like copyright laws,
You haven't been following the thread.
I don't get royalties because as of yet I have not published anything.
Before you sign that big contract read this article by Janis Ian.
I stopped just about all live music over this issue (as did all bars in my area). Since I am not breaking the copyright, the band is, I feel they should pay the licese, just like the Jutebox does. Yall want to shakedown bars? fine no more bands, yall want to sue for making copies of CDs? Fine no more CD from the music store, keep it up.
"Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
I was quite rightly corrected on this way up-thread.
The Constitution permits not mandates the existence of copyright law, and as the USSC decided last year, the duration of said law is a political not a Constitutional issue.
Congress could change the duration of copyrights to 5,000 years, or 50 years, or 50 weeks, or 50 seconds, or nil time, all within the clauses quoted above.
A law whose terms are so draconian as to encourage violation on a wide scale may be constitutional, it also may be stupid and counterproductive. That's what our current copyright law is.
My state could pass a law restricting the speed limit on rural highways to 8 mph. It would be constitutional. Anyone violating would be a criminal. But it would be STUPID.
Interesting fact: under current copyright law, the Federalist Papers could not have been freely reprinted until 1906.
You continue to ignore the fact that people really don't care about an issue this small. I agree with the other poster who said if he was on a jury he would not give you anything, I might give you a dollar as an award from an individual, but not one cent more. I'm sure if the RIAA continues suing individuals, the public ridicule would force a change in the law away from the ludicrous copyright protections.
The problem is that all of these RIAA suits have so far been settled. A test case is badly needed.
The band does pay the license, indirectly. You pay them based on the cost of having them there. The more your costs are, the less you pay them. They do pay therefore, as do the patrons of the establishment who listen (the costs are indirectly on them too).
Sueing for illegal copying and distribution of CD's will not in any way limit the amount of CD's in music stores. It doesn't add costs to honest retailers. In fact, it helps the retailers.
Going out for the night now; will respond tomorrow. Take care all.
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.