Slashdot Mirror
A (Suprising?) Viewpoint On RIAA Lawsuits
colnago writes: "The Motley Fool has an interesting article about lawsuits and their effect on capitalism. You may also read this as "lawsuits and their effect on technology." In any case the arguments are similar to what we've read here, but it's good to see the financial community on the same page as the nerds. One tidbit: 'How about picking a judge who used to work for you? Judge Chaplain (who presided over the first DVD trial and ruled in favor of the MPAA) was Time Warner's lawyer on DVD issues before he became a Judge.'"
You people don't understand the importance of copyright laws and intellectual property. Most of you would love to live in a world where there were no IP laws, but guess what would happen? No one would want to publish their work online!
This is absolutely, one-hundred percent, wrong! Back before there was IP laws did people not invent things? Write poetry and literature? Perform music? Paint paintings? I really hate it when people say "without IP laws no one would publish anything" as history has shown that this is false. The very thought that one human can own an idea, or that a thought is the same as real estate, is absolutely absurd. Now I don't think we should do away with IP COMPLETELY, but it should be reformed drastically and protections severely minimized. Mattel sueing everyone and their dog over the name Barbie just shows that as it stands IP Law Doesn't Work!
This is similar to the good intentions behind communism, yet in practice it has proven to be a failure.
Again, this is false. One implimentation of communism crumbled so communism could never work, or doesn't work? I don't think so. This is another argumentative pet-peeve of mine. Communism as the Soviet Union practiced it didn't work, but that doesn't mean communism doesn't, or can't work.
The lawsuits may be hard to swallow at first but they are absolutely essential for the growth of the Internet.
No, they are not. They hinder the internet. For as many people you think wouldn't post their work online in the absence of IP law there are 20 companies and individuals who wouldn't post their work online in FEAR OF IP law.
Why do you think many hardware makers don't release specifications? Because Microsoft is bribing them not to? No. Because they are afraid of potential law suits over patents they may have infringed but because of the time and cost involved couldn't or didn't check with the patent office on each and every method they use. Look at 3Dfx getting sued by NVidia over patent infringement. 3Dfx is open with their specs and that is their reward, NVidia isn't and their reward is staying speed king in the 3D accelerator card market. This is what IP law does.
-- iCEBaLM
Uhh, no.
You are right that there is nothing wrong with intellectual property, either in principle, or in use, and there are times that the force of law can and should be used to protect it.
However,we are well into the process where the laws and protections for IP are being lobbied far beyond any necessary value, either to IP or to the public in general.
Patents and copyrights are being pushed far beyond what they were ever intended for. Little needs to be said here about the foolishness of many of the patents being awarded these days, and copyrights are supposed to fade into the public domain after a reasonable period, not be carried into perpetuity.
Also, IP laws were not intended to trump the basic rights of use. Such necessary rights as first sale, fair use, and the right to reverse-engineer not only should (and must) be allowed, but they also are an integral part of the value of IP.
Laws such as the DMCA, with its restrictions on fair use and reverse engineering, and the proposed UCITA, which actually seeks to shackle the first amendment (making illegal any negative comments about software does just that), among other poorly thought out 'protections', will, in the long run, do more harm to IP, and respect for IP, than any number of violators could ever do.
The article on the Fool does not bash the concept of IP, it merely states that those worried about protecting IP can do a much better job of it if they embrace and use modern technology, rather than trying to suppress it.
Be careful with the allegations of communism, as well. In all the communistic societies, such rights as I have listed above (and many others) are suppressed, not provided as a given. And the ongoing dialogue is definitely about rights. The holders of IP have the right to the protection of their property, but the users of IP also have the right to use that property without undue restriction. IP protection is important, but we should not sacrifice the rights of the users to allay the unfounded fears of those who can't (or won't) grow with the rest of us.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
I applaud the fool for pointing out the hypocrisy of RIAA and the MPAA, and the absurdity of these lawsuits. Let me explain.
The DMCA is one of the most important bills to hit capital hill in a while. Why isn't it receiving more coverage in the media?
The DMCA is subtly undermining how the general populace understands their constitutional rights. Maybe I'm being a tad dramatic here, but why is it that people are simply throwing up their hands and letting someone else's money solve their problems? Why do they believe that money is the only thing that can solve problems?
I like the fool, but what I'm getting at is the irony underlying the issues in that column. The same invisible hand that entertainment industry is trying to slap or shackle, is the one that also allowed the biggest entertainment mergers in history. Those mergers have limited all televised, thoughtful, discussion on the DMCA, EULA's, and technology in general. Everything is a 20 second soundbite makingthe EFF sound like either a cult of terrorists. In the sixties and seventies, mass media conveyed the idea that computers and mass communication were powerful toold that could change the world for the better. Now, mass media feeds us the impression that these objects/concepts are nothing more than sleek tools, or toys.
What better way to protect your toy chest than to have people forget about it - claim that people don't even have the right to question you about it. For those few fringe people that know it exists and just want to expose it's guts, you can call them criminals and no one will care.
So the hand. The members of MPAA and RIAA used the metaphor of the hand to justify their insanly gigantic unions, but now they're not letting the market do it's job. Corporate rhetoric always sites "the market forces," but the Fool aptly points out that this only happens when it suits them. At all other times - complete ownership of market forces is what's best for business.
Motley Fool reports that Valenti believes that "Commerce trumpst the First Amendment."
Of course, this is not only fundamentally wrong, but laughable. And it is not the law. The Supreme Court has said so.
The Congress passed what seemed to be some overwhelmingly reasonable laws a few years back, stating only that the Copyright, Trademark and Patent laws applied to the States. However, during a Patent and Trademark infringement ruling appealed to the Supreme Court last year, the Court held that the Eleventh Amendment trumps the Patent and Copyright clause, and precludes the Congress from passing laws impinging on State Sovereignty. This is the Florida Prepaid Credit case. Just a year before that, the Court addressed precisely the same issue, but with respect to the Commerce clause. That was the Seminole Tribes case.
In each case, the result was simply this: Amendments trumped the body of the Constitution.
Congress may make no law. Although "no law" doesn't really mean no law, it does mean that unless there exists an exception, First Amendement uber alles.
Now why does the Copyright Act not, properly applied, impinge upon First Amendment rights? So the argument goes: it only prevents aping the expression of another -- you can't be liable under Copyright for using the ideas of the work, and you can't be liable under Copyright for stating your own original ideas, even if they are identical in expression to the copyrighted work of another. At least that's what the Courts have stated. It's not that the First Amendment doesn't apply -- its that the First Amendment isn't implicated by the Act. Where it is, the interstices are usually picked up by the fair use doctrine.
And that brings us to the DeCSS and Napster cases. In each case, we are dealing with an application of the Copyright law that doesn't concern itself at all with the distribution of a particular work by the plaintiffs -- the crux of the case is that an original work BY THE DEFENDANTS is facilitating some sort of copyright infringement. Indeed, this is really creating more patent-like than copyright-like protections, and for unpatentable technologies.
And it is for that reason, that the First Amendment is not only implicated, but a paramount issue in these cases. The "contrebanded" works, at the end of the day, are not those of the plaintiffs, but the defendants.
Capitalism is: an economic system in which the means of production and distribution (aka capital) are privately owned. Under capitalism, distribution of resources is controlled by market demand rather than central government planning.
A capitalist is someone who supports this economic system. Sometimes the term capitalist is also used to describe persons who provide capital for business ventures, e.g. Venture Capitalists.
Someone who manipulates the legislature or judiciary for financial gain is definitely NOT a capitalist. The term that is generally used to describe these people is 'unethical dickwad', although other vulgarities may certainly apply as well.
--
I was reading an article about it in my sister's Entertainment Weekly (cover "A Year Without Movies?"), which basically said that the last time a strike like this was coming, one of the Hollywood moguls was able to negotiate a deal. However, huge multinationals, so says the article, are apparently incapable of negotiating... they'll just have to break the strike.
One of the points that the strikers are upset about is that they are pretty sure that "pay-per-download" TV is coming, but that the writers and the actors who created the original shows used by this system won't get a penny of the profits from it.
I keep wondering if there was some way the people involved with the anti-MPAA lawsuits could hook up with the anti-MPAA strikers. I doubt they'd see eye to eye though.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
DISCLAIMER: I am not a Napster user. Nor am I much of a movie viewer -- and don't have a DVD player nor do I watch them, so do not have a direct interest in that mess, but rather see it as part of a larger pattern. My hobbies -- ballroom dancing, choral singing, reading SF -- keep me busy enough that I rarely even look at TV.
The Founding Fathers did not regard "intellectual property" as a natural right, but rather as an artificial, legislated right which was of benefit to society as a whole, only if managed properly. The compromise they decided upon, and wrote into the Constitution dictated that "authors and inventors" might be granted for a limited time copyright or patent protection, with the consideration that after that limited time the work must pass into the public domain.
I contend that the present regime does not fit under these Constitutional conditions and limitations. In the music industry, it is rare for the true authors to have title to the copyright of their works (there has been rather a bit of commentary lately about impoverished artists, from whose work the big music houses have made fortunes). Nor -- and this is my most critical point -- is the present copyright term anything that can be considered "limited" at least from my point of view.
Under the present copyright law, works written a generation before I was born (I was born in 1953) are not scheduled to be released into the public domain until at least a generation after I die. This is not what the authors of the Constitution meant by "limited".
And even when works pass into the public domain, the publishing industry claims that they have not! As an example (I am an avid singer of classical music), my copy of Vivaldi's Gloria claims "Copyright Walton Publishing Co. 1988 All rights reserved No copy whether in whole or in part may be made without written permission of the publisher." (A quick survey of my pre-1800 music collection shows that this behavior by the publishers is pervasive.) This is not a claim "editorial markings copyright..." as case law would suggest, but of copyright in totality for a work first published more than two centuries ago! This kind of claim is widespread in the classical-music publishing business -- Kalmus (New York, Berlin) being the primary exception that comes to mind in this matter.
Some will claim that such protection is appropriate reward for the (mechanical! -- music-typesetting is a mathematical algorithm, described as such in the IEEE's journal Computer in the mid-Eighties) job of typesetting. Kalmus success as a publisher that does not make this kind of copyright-fraud sets the lie to this claim that copyright is necessary as a protection for the job of type-setting.
The publishing industry have hijacked copyright law in a way that seriously conflicts with the Constitution. After due thought, it is my considered, reasoned belief that they are (by and large) a bunch of thieves, robbers, and extortionists.
In the matter of "Two wrongs do not make a right," it is well worth writing about this first and primary wrong as well as the second ("music pirating") one.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
I have come to the conclusion that copyrights and patents (I refuse to use the term 'Intellectual Property') mainly encourage distribution, not creation. If you look at who, by in large, has profited most from them, it's distributers, not creators. If you look at who screams the loudest, it always the distributers, not the creators.
This encouragement isn't needed as much anymore. With the widespread ability to copy practically anything, the economic incentive to distribute isn't as important.
I think creators should have some form of limited control over their work that vanishes over time. I'm not convinced that copyrights and patents are the best form for this control to take. They do, of course, have the ultimate control of choosing whether or not to produce something.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
N.B. This link was not hard to find either, just go to www.free-dvd.org.lu and click on the cute furry Kangaroo...
Say no to software patents.
When Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA, said in 1982 - new technology (vhs tapes) "is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone." Yet today, so much revenue is the result of vhs tapes being sold... casette tapes were even shunned because people could tape off of the radio. Why is this man still the president of the MPAA? The statistics have shown that vhs and casette tapes helped the industry.
When Lars went after napster he generated more publicity for napster than he probably intended. I know many who learned of napster due to Lars. The MPAA publicized DeCSS when the went after Johansen... They are trying to fight the war the old fasioned way and it's not working... When will they wake up. They're shooting themselves in the foot. This 2600 case no doubt brought more attention to DeCSS. The MPAA hypocrites are bringing more attention to that which they are so desperately trying to hide from the public. Wouldn't it have been better for them to take a wait and see attitude?
New technologies are always feared by the tyrants and control freaks of capitalism. The market advances only when it's free of restraints. Would the MPAA have made billions of dollars of vhs tapes? NO... they would not be as rich as they are today. If Linux users could watch DVD's then they would buy DVD's. Unfortunately this is about Control.
The MPAA wants you to be a consumer droid... buying what they tell you to buy, watching what they tell you to watch, and watching it their way - through their system. I'm sorry, but if you look at the recent past, you will see that when consumers could choose how to watch, listen to, or enjoy their media the MPAA was financially successful. Now with the advent of HDTV, they want to stop you from recording shows because "it's digital." So what, people can record movies off cable now. After watching a few taped episodes of the Discovery Channel I would even consider getting cable. The more someone is exposed to samples of a product, the better the chance that they would buy that product. When will the MPAA get it!