Slashdot Mirror
When Elephants Dance
One Michael Fraase has written an excellent piece on the battle between the entertainment industry and everyone else titled "When Elephants Dance." Well worth reading, and bookmarking, and referring newbies to in order to get them up to speed in the digital content wars. His solution is right on, too, IMHO.
What I don't get, from reading the article, is: who is the second elephant? The technology companies like Philips or MS?
The first sentence of this article really turned me off.
When elephants dance, it's best to get out of the way.
I resent this. When elephants dance (or try to stomp on everybody), I say take them out with a tranquilizer gun. And if that's not possible, be sure that if you go down, you go down fighting.
We must not get out of the way as the media behemoths try to force law after law onto consumers. It's bad enough that they've had a monopoly on new music for the past ___ decades; now they're trying to control us even more.
I say use P2P and don't buy CDs at all. The artists only get a few cents from every CD purchase anyway; the rest goes to the fat paychecks of the moron blue-blooded executives at Sony Music, BMG, etc.
Instead, if you want to support your favorite artist, buy their concert tickets and fan merchandise from their online stores.
I Personally Recommend This Site For Linux Geeks
the arguments without the polemic; and perhaps my family
will understand better why I no longer go to the movies with them and why I'm making mp3s from my ancient jazz LPs.
Best quote: the RIAA/MPAA does not want you to have a computer.
The corp is different, it doesn't create. It is just a very large self-perpetuating overhead. At the same time a corporation is a useful way that large projects get financed, allowing the risk and losses to be split. Companies started as ways of financing risky projects such as a ship of trade goods on a single return journey.
Keep the corporate rights holder, after all we want films like LOTR financed, don't we? However, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of limiting the length of the rights to 14 years.
Ex post facto laws (making laws retroactive) are illegal as per the Constitution.
Although, given the reparations for slavery case, maybe I'm mistaken.
I support the solution that the original author cites, but making them retroactive is gonna be difficult.
Redhawk
What the fuck to the MPAA and RIAA member companies think they're going to do when all computers are encumbered with this new copy-protection technology?
Lucas wants to go 100% digital, from the lens to the screen.
Disney wants to eliminate celluloid from the animation process, most animated features are done largely on computer.
Tell me that all the digital toys the music industry has to play with could be dispensed with in the production of the latest BoyBand video?
So - you're going to take all your creative professionals, encumber the fuck out of their equipment, you'll be increasing your OWN production costs by an order of magnitude - and more since you wont be able to use cheap commodity hardware anymore, because economy of scale will not apply to things that mainstream consumers aren't going to buy zillions of. And who's going to support your encumbered technology? Certainly not the $10/hr MCSE who learned NT and Linux on his homebrew Athalon running pirated software playing pirated MP3s.
Eisner says he's tired of being finessed by the technology industry? I think he's too full of himself. Don't bite the hand that feeds you Mickey.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I propose a website that hosts selections. Artists pay a small fee to have their content available and listeners rate it. There would, of course, have to be mechanisms to avoid artists artificially raising their ratings, just like ebay does. This web site could even negotiate deals to sell cd collections for the artists.
Actually, this would be an awful lot like Atomfilms does for movies... (if only they used better formats!)
... A mandate for Fair Use.
IE something that reads along the lines of "Fair Use rights must be exercisable."
Right now, we have the rights, but the industry is making it so we can't exercise them.
One of the most immediate ways you can help is to stop perpeutating the linguistic fraud.
http://goatee.net/2002/03#_26tu
02.03.26.tu | propaganda (part 3)
Honestly! I had not intended to return to the frustrating
topic of copyright for some time but Michael Eisner's commentary in
the Financial Times has provided an opportune example of the
misleading usage of the "property".
Abe Lincoln and the internet pirates: The great Emancipator's
forthright defence of intellectual property rights holds true
today.
What was that forthright defense? The statement that the restriction
of speech and ideas, "secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the
exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest
to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and
useful things." I do not disagree with Abe Lincoln, but I do disagree
with Eisner because while he may laud the principle he has distorted
and abused its application. And those of us that get fed-up with
Eisner and his ilk sometimes lash out at the whole artfully
constructed facade. This is a dangerous position for us to be in; as I
wrote two years ago, "... it's difficult to voice this opinion because
the small encroachments of copyright and patent that led to the
present system are largely unseen. It's a creeping heaviness, but to
complain of the invisible weight is thought to be unreasonable."
However, my own reason does begin to fray when presented with a
continued discrepancy between noble principles and unprincipled
action: the perpetual extension of the original 14 year copyright term
, the censoring of research, the theft of authors works via an
underhanded amendment making all recordings works-for-hire, the
acquisition of mp3.com by Universal which then slashed artist pay by
80%, the decreasing costs of producing CDs but the increasing price of
purchase, the debt many artists are saddled with when producing an
album, the likely destruction of small Internet radio feeds, and the
royalties we all pay to the recording industry when we buy a blank
CD-ROM (regardless of its use!). At times, in exasperation, I think
that the likes of Eisner are not capable of honest argument: they
mouth the words, "freedom, author, consumer, innovation", but their
actions call out, "money and power." (In an ironic twist of naming
duplicity, the law that I wrote my senator about a week ago was
introduced this week as the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television
Promotion Act!) But I digress, I've said all this before, it'll
probably get worse before it gets better, and my goal is to look at
how Eisner effects his spin.
In asserting the importance of physical and intellectual property
rights in a democracy, Lincoln echoed the views of 17th-century
thinkers such as John Locke, whose phrase "life, liberty and
property" inspired the Founding Fathers.
Sorry Mr. Eisner, our Founding Fathers did not equate these limited
monopolies on thought to "property." They approached this topic with
care and concern: a limited monopoly (a detriment) balanced against a
requirement to "promote the progress of Science and the useful Arts"
(a benefit). Evidence of that care can be found in our Declaration of
Independence in which Jefferson wrote of, "Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness."
It is as American as the apple pie that one may not take off a
neighbour's kitchen ledge.
But ideas are not apple pies. They are more like recipes that can be
exchanged between friends and improved upon: "why fight over a slice
of pie when through cooperation we can double its size?!"
In sum, despite the article's cogent analysis of the problem (including the media companies' true goal of eliminating the personal computer, which I brought up a few weeks ago), none of the proposed solutions will do a thing about it, and I submit they would only make matters worse.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
I guess that the director can only go into business for himself. No company can own the copyright, so he has to use his personal budget for funding the film. If it flops, he has to declare personal bankruptcy, instead of letting some corporation absorb the hit. How is this supposed to make things better?
I agree with the rest of the article. It's the first time I've seen this stated so well. I'm just curious about how he expects this last point to work.
ps: He should run the Demoroniser over his MS-Word documents before publishing them to the web!
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Moral-based copyrights are an extraordinarily bad idea. Fortunately no one had been so stupid as to come up with them when the Copyright Clause was established. (in fact, virtually no one had copyrights then either -- the first law having been enacted less than a century prior)
The U.S. has a far superior utilitarian model. Essentially, it permits copyrights to be established if, and only to the extent that, they serve a public good. Moral rights are backwards, in that they promote the interests of the author as an end unto themselves. However, the genius of the framers was that authors should best be treated rather like cattle. (it's worth noting here that for several years I supported myself entirely as an artist)
A dairy farmer is not interested in the well-being of his animals. He doesn't care if they're happy. He cares about milk yield and quality. If pampering the cows will produce sufficient quantities of good milk that it is worthwhile to do so, he will. If not, he won't. Thus the lack of solid gold cowbells.
Likewise, where the public interest in having a body of works that is freely usable in all possible ways, and that concerns as many subjects as the human mind can imagine is served, copyright makes sense. Creating copyright to provide for artists is stupid -- it harms the public interest, and the public doesn't get anything out of it. Creating copyright to encourage artists so as to increase the number of distinct but comprehensible works, and limiting it so as to permit free use, is far better.
If your intentions are to help artists, you'll do the former. (unless you really think about it, and remember that artists are members of the public too, and rely on existing works constantly) If your intentions are to help the public, you'll do the latter.
Copyright's fine -- in moderation, and for the right aims. This is not a concept that meshes with the silly nonsense about moral rights, however. The author of the linked article is using about the worst means possible to try to serve a public interest, and it'll backfire spectacularly.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
This would be a terrible idea to enact. As soon as this law was enacted, we'd have massive suits by content holders that it was a "taking". Either the government would have to overturn the law or it would have to "justly compensate" each and every holder of any copyright of any value. Bleh.
On the other hand, saying that new copyrights last for only 14 years is not a taking, as a thing not yet created has no value. I think I could accept the tragic loss of public domain we've suffered, if I knew for sure it was a temporary aberration.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Corporations are legal persons, not citizens. There is a difference. Citizens can vote. Corporations cannot. Citizens can get drivers licenses. Corporations cannot. Citizens can hold public office. Corporations cannot.
Lest you think I'm sticking up for corporations, let me assure you that I am not. Citizens can be tried for crimes. Corporations cannot. That last point is crucial. Microsoft is not being tried for any felony.
But the article you pointed me two has one very gross error amid its wealth of information. It tried to distinguish between the oppression of government and the oppression of corporations. They are one and the same. The East India Company, Massachusetts Bay Company, etc., were all chartered corporations. That meant that the power they wielded came directly from the British government. When independence was gained from the the British government, the corporations instantly ceased to have any power over the former colonists.
If you rebel against corporations but ignore the government, you are accomplishing nothing. The only power they have over you is derived from the government. The RIAA and MCAA is not legislating any law. Congress is doing that. It is only because the people of the United States have elected spineless cowards and money grubbing opportunists that we face this current problem.
If Disney and Sony suddenly disappeared tomorrow, our legal rights regarding digital content would still be in jeapardy. Stomp out Disney and another corporation will take its place. But if you take away the power of Congress to control your rights, then they won't have that power to sell to the highest bidder.
I fear any government, of any political persuasion, that is so large that it has to power to tell what I can or cannot do with my CDs.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I must say that when this "Dance" first started, I was somewhat sympathentic to the corporate copyright holders. They have a legal copyright on works, their copyright is being completely ignored, causing them (I thought) a great deal of financial loss. At first glance, they seemed to have a valid case...
.MP3s that I downloaded and ended up not buying the CD for, I no longer do. While I used to think that the giant Hollywood studios and uber-rich recording studios were a necessary evil to bring me quality entertainment, I now think that they are holding down the level of quality that we can expect from artists. While a few years ago a situation like that described in Bruce Sterling's Distraction (where China has destroyed the US economy by placing all English-language IP works in their public domain, available for free download), now I find myself perversely almost rooting for something like that happening.
However, the more that I've read up on the background of this issue, the more the RIAA et. al. have pushed their bone-headed, intrusive, and greedy "solutions" to this "problem", the more I learn about the relationship between distribution corporations and artists, the less and less I care about their plight.
I've actually come to the point where I hope that in the near future I see some of these companys jump into the giant grave they've been digging for themselves and start pulling the dirt in. While I used to have moral qualms about
Maybe it's time to cut Mickey Mouse and PrettyBoy bands out of our economic picture, and let art be done for art's sake?
CC-licensed translations of Japanese fiction: http://tonygonz.blogspot.com/
LOTR paid back the whole series in the first few weeks the first movie was out. Everything to do with DVDs, product licenses, and so forth, not to mention the other 2/3 of the movies, is profit. As far as whether bootlegs are concerned, they'd made back their investment nicely before the bootlegs were even available.
Having the copyright on the movies (and images from them) expire after 14 years is plenty long enough, provided that studios acquire a modicum of taste and try not to make movies that are obviously bad. Moving movies is a major risk only because they don't weed out movies which are not worth making, and because they sometimes throw a huge budget at a movie which has a limited appeal and should be done for what people will pay to see it (since the diehards who will see such a movie won't care much that the budget was low).
Prohibiting corporations from holding copyrights wouldn't be so big a problem; you just let the artists retain the copyright, but finance them (and provide camera teams and such) for a license, with terms depending on what they want. Corporations don't create anything, but it's not like a corporation is founded with pre-existing works, which it then makes all of its money by licensing.
The real issue, though, is what person gets the copyright for something collaborative like LOTR, if corporations can't hold copyrights. It would be like trying to get a non-GPL license to Linux: you contact every single person who did anything on the project and try to figure out what's going on. The editors own the particular cut, but the images in the cut are owned by the animators and camera crews (with the lighting owned by someone diffierent), but all of the acting in the images in the cut is owned by the actors, who also own the voices, except that the audio splicing is owned by the sound editors...
In any case, the ownership of copyrights by corporations isn't much of a problem, if the copyright term isn't related to the lifetime of the original owner. Make it 14 years for any work, regardless of whether it was created by an individual or by a group collectively assigning copyright to a corporation.
All these fights over copyrights and laws are distracting us from the real problem, which is staring us in the face:
If information products can be shared for free via the net, it will be very difficult for the creators to make a profit. And that means that there won't be many people making new music, movies, books and other information goods.
I think most people, deep down inside, understand this, but they don't like the consequences. They try to think of ways that artists could make money, like selling T shirts, or by private donations, but these can produce only tiny revenues. Or people distract themselves by demonizing the record companies, or the MPAA, or Hilary Rosen. It's more fun to hiss at a villain than to try to do something about the train that's bearing down on you.
We are heading for a very bad situation. The tremendous production we have enjoyed of information goods is mortally threatened. I don't claim to know the solution, but I don't pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Please, pull your heads out of the sand, and face the issue squarely. The problem is not the Hollings bill or the DMCA or the record companies. The problem is that the net may make it impossible to make money producing information goods. That's going to have a huge impact on society in the next few years, probably a very bad one no matter what the outcome. Let's face this reality squarely.
Althought the entertainment industry might like us to believe this, it is backwards. The Constitution grants certain privileges to copyright holders, not rights to customers. In fact "customers" (i.e. citizens) have inalienable rights. The are not granted by the Constitution, citizens own their rights.
The privilege granted to copyright holders is the exclusive use of their creations for a limited time. The reason the Constitution grants this privilege is to encourage people to invest the time creating useful or entertaining content. Ultimately this is for the benefit of everyone, copyright holder and consumer alike.
The Entertainment industry consistently distorts this fact for their own use. They like to argue that copyrighted material is Intellectual Property, thereby distorting its true nature to resemble real property. They then continue to argue that distributing copyrighted material is equivalent to stealing. It isn't. Distributing copyrighted material is equivalent to breaking a contract; the contract the Constitution established with the Copyright holder.
An important consequence of the fact that copyrights are a contract is that the contract can be re-negotiated. This is something the Entertainment Industry never addresses in their public arguments. They public agruments go something like "we own this material, we can do what we like with it, and you can't tell us what to do", when in fact the government signed a contract with the copyright holder, and the form of future contracts can be changed. In fact, recent changes to the contract have been in the copyright holder's favor, such as the "Sonny Bono" law, or whatever it was called.
What needs to happen now is for the government to re-negotiate future copyright contracts (i.e. copyright law) in light of recent technological developments, and to strike a balance between the content producers and content consumers.
I'm out of breath now.