1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

do "public domain" works exist... not really, thinks USA gov.

Discussion in 'Law & Ethics Discussions' started by alangeering, Jun 19, 2005.

  1. alangeering

    alangeering Theatre Tech (AV)

    From:

    PAUL D. CLEMENT, ESQ., Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners.

    In trial MGM vs. Grokster
    (where US.gov are supporting MGM in some ways)

    Regarding study on P2P showing (maybe) 90% of content infringes copyright. Mr Clement responding to the claim there are legal uses:


    Can anyone else think of some good "public domain" works of art to send Mr Clement.

    Something creatied using a PhotoCopier and a VCR would do nicely. (read rest of text).

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf
  2. Mbazzy

    Mbazzy Dada

  3. alangeering

    alangeering Theatre Tech (AV)

    Oh I totally agree, it's just that one element in this case is the following "feeling" from the MGM/gov side:

    ----------------------
    Public domain works are not really significant (when compared to copyright infringing file trading). Actually, public domain works are mostly theoretical and used to protect P2P from its responsabilities and liabilities.
    ----------------------


    So far (because it's not in thier interests) MGM/gov have not said anything good or affermative about public domain works. They would be happier if they didn't exist.


    This is another issue that's going to come up.

    "significant non-infringing use" is rapidly becoming "comercially significant non-infringing use"

    In the 2nd case the test (being comercialised) cannot take into account any non-infringing use that is not a commercial transaction. You may be an artist distribution your art my P2P but the cour will happily take away this option because as you're not proffiting from it comercially you're not going to loose anything.

    The fact is that much public domain/copyleft/cc work out there is not being distributed in a commercial manner, there is no business model. The cases now being argued are based on business laws and cannot understand non-commercial activity.

    If MGM win, and in addition redefine the Sony case (VCRs for timeshifting/recording use rulling) (as the content providers so wish to) then it will be a triumph of big content providers over artists, and common sense.

    The big content providers don't need technology like P2P because their business model can take the costs of big servers and DVD delivery. Small artists who can't afford 50 servers around the globe do need P2P. Because these small artists are not seen as "commercially significant" or valuable there is no reason to protect them and their needs.

    Perversely MGM (RIAA, MPAA, et al) still argues that it's on the side of the little guy, protecting artists from the millions of evil downloaders out there.

    The end result of the MGM action, should it be successful, will be the hurt of the people it claims to protect.

    The message to artists is this:
    Don't try to work outside the system.
    Unless we own you don't expect to get promoted/sold, ever.
    You will do what we say, when we say and we'll decide whether your efforts are worth releasing.
    If you try to go your own way we will make sure we strip you of every viable distribution method you can find.
    Come on in, you know you want to...
  4. Rovastar

    Rovastar /..\

    I am surprised the study should as little as 90%. Who *really* uses P2P for anything else let alone people that exist that solely use it 100% legal means.


    The point of view that small artists cannot afford the net as a distribution medium is rubbish. It cost next to nothing to host stuff and there are many sites that will host stuff for nothing.

    Copyright is here for all of us. Without it original content creators would have nothing I only wish it was enforced more.
  5. Rovastar

    Rovastar /..\

    Is that the message to artists really?

    The Internet is a huge medium for new artists. You can set up a Website with your DVD, etc for sale. Download stuff. For very, very cheap.

    If there was in a utopian world a P2P network that had zero unauthorised copyrighted material do you really think the big film companies would try and close it down??

    If you *really* want a solution that helps new artists create a monitored site/p2p download system that only has authorised copyright stuff on it.

    Eg something like

    http://www.mp3unsigned.com/

    Arguing that there is no distribution network is misguided.
  6. DrEskaton

    DrEskaton Triple Hexagon, Osaka

    Re: Re: do "public domain" works exist... not really, thinks USA gov.

    I have to really strongly disagree with this.

    Copyright has been abused in the last 30 years.

    People would still create music, writing or artworks if there was no copyright, as they did for thousands of years before the idea of "intellectual property" was invented.

    Just because you create something doesn't mean that your ancestors or a corporation should have a monopoly on it 50 years after you're dead. Creative works should go out of copyright into the public domain after a period to encourage a creative legacy.

    Look at the Hypocrisy, Disney makes millions by remaking fairytales that are based on works out of copyright but then fights tooth and nail to stop any of their works ever going out of copyright.

    Creative resuse including sampling is fair and legal in the context of parody, political statement or satire and we as video artists have a right to make sure that the technological tools we need to do that are not taken from us.

    P2P can be a valid tool for that.
  7. VJFranzK

    VJFranzK AreYouDreamingRightNow?

    Re: Re: Re: do "public domain" works exist... not really, thinks USA gov.

    yes, brothers grim was public domain! itself based on euro folktales from hundreds of years before.
    (or shakespeare, who remade tales from earlier playwrights.)

    but now, nobody will EVER be able to think of snow white etc. without mental flashes of the ubiquitous disney version.
  8. elbows

    elbows PixelRomper

    I can certainly understand where Rovastar is coming from on this one.

    I would be the first to defend and wish to strengthen/define concepts such as fair use, and work entering the public domain after a more sensible time & amount of profiting has been achieved.

    But its also quite clear that a good number of VJs also wish to make use of intellectual properly laws to protect their own works.

    I support more flexible & clearly defined systems such as creative commons, but this doesnt change issues such as how much it costs to enforce/protect these rights. Issues such as who has the power to shape the laws and make use of them, are a big deal in this modern world, and it extends far beyond copyright issues.

    To me it boils down to the way that many of these mechanisms are only really available to people/companies that have already made it, in the same way that its so much easier to make money once youve already accumulated plenty of it.

    The US government cannot deny the idea of non-copyrighted works since much of the output of US Government & its agencies are not subject to copyright!

    As it pertains to this specific case, I assume the comments made by Mr Clement regard whether any sizeable amount of P2P traffic is in public domain works, and Im fairly confident the answer is currently no. How many people are using Grokster to get public domain works?

    The real battle is not them trying to destroy the concept of p2p networking, and deny the little man the chance to distribute content. Some may want that, but I doubt they'l get it. What they will do (and probably suceed at) is try to destroy p2p networks that have no digital rights management.
  9. elbows

    elbows PixelRomper

    See heres an example of a service that uses p2p for non-infringing content and offers anybody the chance to publish material without server overheads:

    http://www.omn.org/

    What do they gt out of it? Free advertising for/proof of functionality of the kontiki commercial p2p system.
  10. alangeering

    alangeering Theatre Tech (AV)


    Yes, but with more and more consolidation between large content houses, and also between DRM technologies, there can easily come about a situation where you have to approach the big content provider with the following request:

    Please can you wrap my content with your DRM so that I can use it on this P2P network (that is now effectively owned by you).

    What's in it for the content/p2p company, well, they charge you.

    You are as good as owned.

    "No. I'm sorry, we already have three bands in that sector and wouldn't want to affect their sales. Come back in 12 months..."




    My complaint with the case at present is not that "copyright is wrong". As a designer I'm glad of copyright protection. What I'm concerned about are the errosions to "fair use" that are being saught.

    Also, if I invent technologies that people then use for "bad things" then I can be liable. I'm pretty sure this is something the court will not decide for, because it's too hard to test.


    Anyway, let the debate continue.
  11. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    Too many of these forum battles are etherial. Name the band that has suffered because of the evil copyright protections (maybe "we already have 3 bands in that slot" is polite code for "your band sucks. get an audience and we will be happy to sign you"). Name the film that has suffered because of P2P (Matrix 12 only did $20Billion overseas, and if it weren't for P2P piracy it would have made $20.01Billion...). If you always want to use abstractions and refuse to cite specifics then you are fighting ghosts and there is nothing to do but spout rhetoric and ultimatums. *yawn*.
    :zzz:

    I haven't used P2P yet because I can't think why I would want to download and watch the next HarryPlotter movie when it will be on cable non-stop in a few months.... Likewise, surfing P2P for mp3s is like listening to really really bad radio. I can't find ANYTHING that I want to listen to-- no jazz, nothing eclectic, just more pop (s)hits. It's the same as radio without the commercials (which in my opinion as a consumer is GOOD).

    These networks are the future domain of the generic mainstream. When I am making so much money that I am mainstream I will consider whining about the $0.0002 I lose everytime someone doesn't want to buy my crappy album or see my shlocky movie. Until then the real battle for artists is to diversify and get interesting. P2P will NOT service the underground.... These megacorps have had their run. The recording industry didn't exist 100 years ago and in the last 50 years it has killed the viability of live music and pick-up musicians making a living. Now, P2P is making the recording industry unprofitable and irrelivant: the worm has turned. Only little kids use P2P so they can spend more money on clothes.... Adults will start to look locally for live entertainment and we will not have to put up with LA cheesewhiz movies and London pop acts masquerading as music.
  12. Rovastar

    Rovastar /..\

    Holly you misunderstand as to who uses P2P and what is available on it.

    I have friends with thousands of films and TV shows download and hundreds of thousands of hours of music downloads.

    It is really easy to get films, music, software, etc on it.

    I admit I have used P2p for music as I can get the music I want easier on there before it comes out in the shops. And even feel guilty about downloading music from very small labels.

    Tbh just about *any* music can be found with the right P2P software. Once on the winamp forum there was a thread about ultra rare recordings that no-one could find anymore and within a few minutes I downloaded all of them.
    It is about what software you use.

    " I can't find ANYTHING that I want to listen to-- no jazz, nothing eclectic, just more pop (s)hits. It's the same as radio without the commercials (which in my opinion as a consumer is GOOD).
    "

    Maybe you are just getting old babe. You are turning into your parents. :)



    Sometimes defending copyright is tricky it could have been maybe people like Disney have abused their copyright (like there works going out of copyright). Mickey Mouse, etc become brands like Coca Cola, etc I can understand the motivation to defend the brand.

    I defend the right for copyright though and the right use creative commons rights too. If you want too. If you own something then you can do what you want with it. Public domain, etc.

    If you think of the Snow White fairy tale case that was brought up. The fairy tail is public domain you can retell the story yourself, animate it add a few twists in there and it is your work. That is what Disney did. Disney will not stop you making a animated version of Snow White but if you start giving the same names to the, *sigh* I best be PC, ?vertically challenged people? as Disney did then you will be in trouble.

    All Disney had to go on was:

    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm053.html

    And they changed a public domain story a far bit from the hour + cartoon. You would be able to use all the quotes from the original Grimm version from the link but not the Disney songs.

    But copyright is here to help us all if Microsoft or Disney want to use my copyrighted stuff without permission then I?ll get a lawyer and fight the case. Without copyright law this would not be possible??at all.

    The copyright law is in general a good one (you own the rights to anything you create unless you say otherwise)

    But to be fair this case isn?t about that 99.9999% of people using P2P S/w are using for there own gain not for a political satire message.
  13. DrEskaton

    DrEskaton Triple Hexagon, Osaka

    rova,

    the original purposes of copyright and patent law was to ensure that creative works and technical inventions would eventually get released into the public domain and be available for all. Compensation for the artists was only a secondary reason for them.

    prior to these laws people would keep exact details of music compositions or inventions a secret and sometimes those secrets were lost with the death of the originator.

    so copyright was meant to be a mechanism to fairly compensate the creator, but more importantly ensure after a period that work becomes available for everyone to draw on as a creative base and cultural legacy and is not lost to all.

    modern copyright law has been perverted to only provide compensation for the author but to never allow release of material to public domain (as they keep extending copyright duration).

    sure there should be copyright, I'd like to make some money off selling loops or vj mixes one day, but, the term should be severely shortened to say 20 years after which it becomes public domain and selling media in a way that prevents peoples legal fair use should be illegal.

    Sure Disney's 1937 version of Snow White was an original creative work (derived from a work now in pubic domain) and they deserved copyright protection. But now 70 years later it should in the public domain, they've made their money back off it a long time ago and it should now be available for anyone to copy freely or create derivative works from.

    All art works this way, new works are based on old with endless copying and recycling, the current attempt to artifically restrict that is unnatural and hurts artists more than it helps them while only benefiting large publishing companies.
  14. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    Ooooh, then let's make this a USEFUL discussion! What/which networks are the interesting things on? Which software puts me on those specific networks? All I really know is LameWire (and Acquisition on the mac side). That P2P has nothing of interest... (well, ok, I found Meco's "The Wizard of Oz" a few weeks ago). I used one of the old ones for a while (where you were just on people's servers and there was no search engine), I forget what it was called but eventually it was creepy. It was just a bunch of lonely guys trying to hook-up in the chat part.

    :rolleyes: Which they obviously can't listen to or watch in their lifetimes. I know people with Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder, too. It's because of these people that gambling, drugs, and prostitution are illegal. Thousands of films? Hundreds of thousands of hours of music? This is what they call a "hungry ghost". You know that is abnormal. They are trying to fill their meaningless lives with possessions, but because they are network-savvy the "possessions" take the form of downloaded files. Point them in the direction of a psychiatrist.

    I'm undoubtedly old, but I'm also a bit of a minimalist (certainly NOT my parents who seemed to think possessions made them important). The possessions I want (honest friends, artistic/job growth, and hardware, generally) just can't be downloaded. *shrug*

    P2P is the new word-of-mouth. Before the BrothersGrim and WDisney slapped their ownership on SnowWhite she was owned by everyone and grew more interesting each time the story was retold.
  15. alangeering

    alangeering Theatre Tech (AV)

    "Too many of these forum battles are etherial"

    I was talking about the future, which by necessity is etherial.

    I've never been against copyright or it's enforcement.

    In my lifetime I'm much more likly to output more programs/devices/inventions than works of art. I am concerned about the scope of the case before the court (the fact that a new interpretation of the sony case is being sought) and what it means for things I make in the future.

    over the last year I've been working on a lecture capture project. It's a device to record high defenition / high resolution audio and video. It could easily be re-purposed for recording protected HD video.

    As the law stands (with its current interpretation) my device is legal and my work is legitamate as there is a use for it that is not infringing copyright.

    As the law could be re-interpreted after this case; whether my product is legal or not depends on what people do with it. (requirement is for commercially significant non-infringing use, and significant is a relative term). I become liable for making a product that can be misused. I'm (almost) an accessory to a crime.

    Now, this is absurd. If this logic were to prevail I would expect gun manufacturers and not P2P developers to be targeted first. But, this is the US and priorities are lead by financial concerns.
  16. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    But, it's the responsibility of the mediacorps to keep inventing copyprotection schemes like CSS, Macrovision,... and what was the one Sony recently put on CDs? It was rumored to destroy your CD player/computer and immediately tanked (no doubt losing some serious R&D dollar$).

    Alan, I agree that the wording looks grim, but these are scare-tactics like the RIAA lawsuits. As soon as these technology schemes are put in place someone comes along and defeats it. It is the industry's treadmill that will eventually consume them. Remember CDs and DVDs weren't introduced because they sounded better (benefit to consumer), they were introduced because they were cheaper to manufacture (better for megacorps). It is their own fault. They swiched to digital and promoted it as "better" for the consumer. There are plenty of people that think "digital" means "higher-quality", but anyone who works with media files knows that isn't necessarily true.

    Besides, if it is illegal to defeat Macrovision, et al, then why can you buy a little Edirol box designed to defeat it?
    [​IMG]
    Because, as you say, it has a ligitimate purpose which is easy to defend. If small artists are not embracing P2P it is likely because they are lost within the 1000000+ hours of obsessive/compulsive downloads and it does them no good.
  17. Amukidi

    Amukidi New Member

    I'd love to see some evidence underpinning this statement.. I was always led to believe it was to protect the commercial rights...
  18. DrEskaton

    DrEskaton Triple Hexagon, Osaka

    ok I guess it's debateable which was the "primary purpose".

    but according to the US constitution copyright protection must be for a "limited time", there was a clear intention to allow works to pass into the public domain after that time.

    Laws have been conveniently passed to keep extending copyright whenever there is danger of any major Disney works (themselves ironically based on out of copyright public domain fairytales) passing into the public domain.

    see here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

    Here is the relevant text from Article I of US consitution:

    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;

    so it's clearly stated that the purpose of copyright is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" not to compensate authors.
  19. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    Then the current copyright laws (the Sonny Bono laws?) are un-constitutional. I'm not sure if they have been tested in court. Do we know an actual case? Congress can pass all the ridiculous laws they want (ban same-sex marriage, too) but if it's unconstitutional any judge can dismiss it out of hand.
  20. DrEskaton

    DrEskaton Triple Hexagon, Osaka

    it was tried and failed Holly in 2003. The copyright extenstions are not "unlimited" so they were deemed constitutional.

    see "Eldred vs Ashcroft"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft

    Want to get famous?

    make a remix DVD of Disneys WWII propaganda Donald Duck cartoons, overdub it with political messages and some flash animation comparing bush to the nazis. Start selling it on ebay, then send Disney a copy.

    Now contact the EFF and ask them to represent you pro bono in an attempt to have your work declared protected satire and the copyright extensions unconstitutional.

    I guarentee you'll get media coverage, could make a career for a US based VJ.
  21. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    That's so bogus.:mad:
    I don't understand why works that are owned by an individual don't seem to last as long as works owned by a company. 90 years seems a very long time..., but tbh I'm not sure when a work should become public domain.... Like with that StarWars trash, everytime a new digital fx gets inserted does the whole thing get re-copyrighted? With movies (like as in: hollywood) 20 years doesn't seem quite enough. They're still making Indiana Jones and StarWars movies and that copyright is at list 20 years old.... Should it be a generational thing? 40 years? 40 years ago was Motown and JamesBond. Technically 40yrs is still within the lifetime of the artist(s) so the point is moot.... But when does public domain become the right of society, theoretically speaking? 90yrs just seems too long. I can't think that there is any public value in ragtime or charleston music only now becoming public domain.... Or silent classics like Nosferatu and Metropolis. If these weren't already public domain (or whatever they were and now aren't?) these films would have been lost forever. Their companies are long gone, and no definitive original prints exist at all for the copyright to be affixed to...

    Assuming you would allow a copyright at all, when is a good time for it to expire into public domain? Should it be different for each: music, books, and film, seeing as how their trans-generational accessability differs?
  22. KillingFrenzy

    KillingFrenzy KillingFrenzy Visuals

    Devices

    Just remember that what we're talking about here is making software illegal that allows people to infringe copyright. By the same reasoning, Final Cut Pro, Premiere, any Analog Video Capture device, a V4.... all of these are tools that allow copyright infringement....
    Putting Grokster in jail is like well.... putting Tommy Chong in jail for selling Paraphenalia.
    Whenever the system can't actually afford to enforce its laws on a 1 to 1 basis, they start bending the laws to attack the enablers instead of the real law breakers. This is "ends justify the means" thinking.
    Providing widely accessible, efficient, legal methods to access content and honor copyright is the only way to get the crowds to shift their behaviour.
  23. Stuart

    Stuart New Member

    I don't agree with some of your conclusions Alan. Music and or movie filesharing is first and foremost theft. While it can be argued that filesharing might in some instances be a helpful way for independant artists to get exposure it in no way justifies the wholesale, unbridled pirating that we are seeing today. The creator and or owner of a work has the right (for a limited time, certainly the period is up for debate but we can all agree that it would be a time that extends beyond a few weeks after release) to profit from and control distribution of that work. Any grousing about how major labels are evil has zero relevancy to the context of intellectual property.

    I have been a contracted recording artist. I know from experience that having your work ripped off is no fun.
  24. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    Hmmm. Not meaning to flame this thread, but I think the T Chong/P2P analogy is a bit revealing:

    There are very real uses for FinalCutPro, in fact its primary use is not to rip/edit other people's copywrit material, but to make/edit your own.

    On the otherhand, there really isn't a ligitimate legal use for a bong.... It's primary purpose is to smoke pot. And while it is possible to smoke legal tobacco with a bong, that is (in practice) a very unlikely use. P2P is in essence the same situation, eh?

    I wonder how many people who defend P2P would defend gun ownership....
  25. elbows

    elbows PixelRomper

    I guess its also relevant to think about previous technologies which have posed a 'risk' to big media/record industry etc.

    eg photocopiers, tape recorders, video recorders, cd writers, dvd writers.

    It was probably easier to show a better ratio of legal/illegal use of such devices than with p2p, and the 'solution' often took multiple forms such as a 'compensation tax' on the blank media and/or devices, attempts to use technology to prevent copying of copyrighted works (eg macrovision) etc. They likely also received less legal onslaught due to the amount of money to be made from manufacturing & selling such devices & the blank media.
  26. alangeering

    alangeering Theatre Tech (AV)

    dudes, I never said I disliked copyright, and I never said I didn't want it to be enforced!

    my issue is the extension/reinterpretation/twisting of the sony law. it if favoured with acceptance by the court allows interested parties to remove abilities, devices, and inventions from production if they feel threatened - with only cursory care taken over the legal users of said abilities/devices/inventions.

    If a content group run a study and show that $x million was incurred as loss of sales (usually very inflated) and you can only show that the legal use only made $x-1 million then should your technology be allowed?

    What if the technology was mosly be used for free purposes without commercial value, the content providers /big party would always promote a bigger number.


    I'm not talking about grockster, I'm talking about the future, and this is what this particular part of the case is about.

    According to MGM they could win the case on the grounds that grockster went out trying to promote the illegal use of p2p and capitalise on it.

    What MGM are doing with the sony part of the law is a liitle bit of legal tweaking on behlaf of the hollywood lobby and unnecessary in the seeking of reparations for losses incurred.
  27. revjrbobdodds

    revjrbobdodds New Member

    This is an argument I've hesitated to get involved in, but here goes. I was recently speaking at a UN conference at which copyright and P2P was a principal issue, so I have some (hopefully useful) information to bring back from that experience.

    Copyright was originally promoted in the UK to insure that authors' works would be reproduced in the form originally written. Wordsworth's works were being reprinted in bastardized form at the time, and he was central to the arguement.

    In the US, copyright was originally instituted to serve a dual purpose: 1) to encourage innovation by rewarding artists for their work; and 2) to move that work into the public domain after a reasonable period of time, for the greater good of society.

    Obviously, copyright law now extends not only beyond the life of authors, but beyond the lives of most corporations who actually own the copyrights, so the law has become a bit of an ass.

    Now here are some basic number things to think over:

    At the moment in the UK, PRS only pays royalties to about 5% of their members -- the rest never receive royalties.

    If you break down where royalties for record sales go, the record company itself receives approximately 49%. The artist receives approximately 6% (before reimbursing the record company for recording expenses, etc.). Credit card companies receive 7% for transaction fees.

    6% of 5% of royalties from record sales go to artists. Grim.

    Despite claims otherwise, P2P filesharing IS on the rise, and there truly are not enough policemen in the world to prosecute the filesharers. Copyright is really only useful to the artist (with the exception of mega-stars) once -- when they give it up to the record/film companies. Following that, copyright is useful in business to business relationships. Ask a copyright attorney how many of his recent clients were artists, vs. how many were corporations if you want some evidence.

    There are, in fact, very few issues of copyright in artist to consumer relationships.

    Finally, audiences have changed. Entertainment was once an interactive medium and a service industry, prior to linear transcription in the 20th century. In the 20th century, entertainment became a product-based industry. Because of ITC, linear transcription is now again becoming marginalized. Audiences want to remix. They want to create. They want to share. They want to give away. And they will do that, regardless of what policy-makers try to impliment.

    Entertainment has again become a service industry. Most artists make money from performance, not performance rights.

    We are seeing the new raft of litigation not because of moral issues over copyright, but rather because the entertainment industry has been very slow to respond to these massive changes. Should they continue on this track, we may all witness a Soviet-style collapse of the entertainment industry.

    There IS a business model for P2P. Just look at the new data-usage charging policy BT has implimented for broadband. They are advertising 30 gig data use as the ability to download 600 tracks a month. Do they really think anyone is going to buy that many tracks? Of course not.

    Rova, this doesn't mean quality entertainment will disappear because the old entertainment companies have to find a new way to make money. Production tools are now cheaper than ever. Fan films are made constantly. Mash-ups, remixes and original tunes can be knocked out in a bedroom. Podcasting is the new radio (and is HIGHLY illegal under current law). It DOES, however, mean that the way we produce, distribute and consume entertainment is in for a massive change.

    The law needs to respond, but policy-makers, I'm here to tell you, are going to move brutally slowly, as are old entertainment companies.

    the rev
  28. holly

    holly WetCircuit.com

    :rolleyes: Well, I can only think that was incredibly stoopid of grockster. If they'd mantained the whole time that they were doing something for the betterment of the industry, exploring a commercial-free way to deliver info, files, and media, it would matter a LOT less that 95% of it was used for illegal file sharing. If they run out and announce their mission statement is to stick it to the man then they don't have much of a case.

    1st rule of defence:
    Deny, deny, deny.
  29. Stuart

    Stuart New Member

    lets exaimine this


    your first sentance is based on a premise that only works if the artist no longer receives compesation after they are signed to a label. You refute this premise by citing that artists get 6% or so of revenue for sales. I also question that figure. When I was in the business the standard record deal had you making around 2 dollars per unit sold. The figure is irrelevant however and no matter how much or how little the artist is making or how much or how little the label is making theft is still theft. It is the standard red herring defense in this context.

    You also cite that the labels are the ones engaged in copyright litigation, not the artists. Of course they are. When you agree your points on a contract it is understood that the label will incur a myriad of expenses in the service of your work. Marketing, manufacturing, distribution as well as retaining attorneys to go after illegal distribution are a part of those expenses. Again, all of this is completely irrelevant.


    So many artists in the film industry make piles of cash from property rights. Any director, screen writer, producer will be hurt by pirating as well as many actors who take money on the back end in liue of a larger fee.
    Most entertainers in mediums hit hard by pirating would tell you that their goal is to be making money from their intellectual property.
  30. elbows

    elbows PixelRomper

    The suggestion that podcasting is highly illegal is quite misleading. Many podcasts are about far more than just emulating radio by playing copyrighted music as part of the show.

Share This Page