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?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I subscribe to real rhapsody

I am suspect of anything offered by Real Networks and will not use Real Player. However, does Real Rhapsody allow downloading in MP3 format or do they use a DRM format like iTunes?

[jpsb]

"I just said I already know what you think"

Well then I am surprised you are so unsympathetic to my point of view. this is a bread and butter issue to an entire industry and to many startup/amateur bands. No one has argued against copyrights, everyone aggrees copyrights are a good thing, but for a reasonable period of time. Not life plus 70 year with an option for renewal. That's just plan crazy and will greatly harm all but the very very best (popular) in the music industry.

[Huck]

I don't know. I've never actually downloaded or burned anything from them. I use it to learn songs for my solo gigs.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

The restriction of certain exclusive rights for the promotion of "science and the useful arts" is NOT a privilege granted to the poor inventor but a RESTRICTION on his already existing property rights. It is not the granting of a monopoly but the taking of his property for something that the Founders considered a greater good, the progress of science and the useful arts (technology)..

"Second, authors and inventors are both exactly equal -- Congress has the power to grant limited-time monopolies to each"

No. They are not. They have been lumped together it is true by Congress from the beginning; it may have been the actual intent of the Founders. They should have said so in the constitution; they didn't, they spoke of the justification for RESTRICTING the normal property rights of inventors for the progress of science and the useful arts, which is most definitely NOT music or literature.

If you need a clarification please read all of my earlier posts because it gets boring rehashing the same thing over and over.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Karaoke at your friendly neighborhood bar. Taking your girl out for a spin on the dance floor at your friendly neigborhood bar. Jam night at your friendly neighborhood bar"


None of these are things we are entitled to, nor are they rights in any understood sense. It's not a shakedown, it's called paying for what you are using to bring in the customers. You are not entitled to having a profitable bar on every corner.

[jpsb]

Obviosly Congress agrees with you, so all I can do is watch and complain as the Music Dies. Is is sad watching the large coporations shut down anything not owned or produced by them, oh well. Just turn on the radio and listen to the same crap on every station, dido movies, dido TV, dido newspapers, and soon dido friday night as only ASSCAP approved venues (big rich bars) will be hosting bands.

It is hard to believe yall musicians really want to put thousands and thousands of bars out of the live music business. But like you said, there is no laws saying bars need to be profitable and thier is no law saying they have to hire bands ether. We will think of something else to entertain our customers. Like, wet t's, on line games, pool/dart tournaments, gambling, or whatever. Live music is not the only game in town.