Slashdot Mirror
Lessig on Streamcast/Grokster Decision
scubacuda writes "Lessig has an editorial in Financial Times regarding
the recent court decision in favor Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") and Grokster. 'The wisdom of this rule is something innovators in Silicon Valley are increasingly coming to see. When courts intervene to maintain copyright's balance, the inevitable consequence is that innovation is harmed. If every innovator with technologies affecting content must bear the burden of a lawsuit before his innovation can be allowed, there will be many fewer innovations in the distribution and creation of content. That in turn will harm artists and technologists alike. Better to let the innovation happen, and then consider whether the change caused by the innovation is so significant as to require new legislation by the legislature.'"
It may, in the end, come down a choice: Free speech or copyright enforcement. I know what I'd pick.
So i could see the look on the faces of the RIAA drones turn from smug self satisfaction to shock. Go the District court!!!!
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Well they won this battle, its time for the thousands of mindless appeals aiganst them now.
You know...apple embraced the p2p sharing thing, and they are making alot of money off of it, the artists are going to make money off of concerts not cd sales, so if the governing bodies are so worried about their existance...one would think they would simply embrace this as a new distributing channel and make money off it like apple did. Guess logic isnt their strong suit.
What i find funny is how the executives talk about this as being on the same *moral* level as walking into the store and stealing the cd....please...this is comming from the people who when *their* morality was questioned for the content they advocated, they said they were just pushing the limits of scoiety...now when someone else is using morality that isnt in their interest...its *immoral* please.
Let the retarded appeals begin
I honestly think this is the only way to go.
If you release music as an audio file you can include meta data giving the URL of a Website from where you can make payment for the track.
Video can include a still frame at the start giving a URL from where a license payment can be made.
Those without Internet access could make payment via telephone or even in traditional stores.
If I was the music industry I'd be saying to myself,
"Right, can't beat 'em - exploit 'em."
By unleashing the distribution innovators of any kind of licensing or copyright problem could distribute their material further a field that they could ever dream about - and if only a small percentage actually go the appropriate payment website and make payment it could still be a huge amount compared to today's sales.
What would be the problems with this kind of set-up? Would the labels just disregard this idea outright without a second thought?
A 'good fences make good neighbors' metaphor implies a peer-peer relationship. It somehow implies that the 'fence' divides an area into two equal spaces.
That's really not at all the problem here. In the case of copyright protection, the fence divides an art conservatory from a flea market. The 'peers' who are 'sharing' content are a community of people who create little or none of the content that they're 'sharing' among themselves. Rather, they've expropriated content from a different group of people and they're dividing it amongst themselves.
Now, if more, maybe even 15-25%, of the content on P-P sharing systems was created by the people doing the 'sharing' it would be different. As it stands, they've just ripped off a bunch of stuff out of the conservatory and they're selling it cheap on tables at the flea market.
The records companies, movie studios, etc., are trying to preserve their monopoly on the only thing that they have of value to sell, that is, their content. Before the day of P2P, they attempted to suppress cassette tapes and VCR's in much the same manner, using the same tactics of Chicken Little "sky is falling" doom and gloom. It didn't happen then, it probably will not happen now.
In fact, much of the revenue generated by a film is through it's secondary sales channels, namely videos (videotape and now DVD.) Had the masses not had the ability to record, how long would it have taken for VCR's to be adopted? Much longer would be my guess.
So at the end of the day, the content providers figured out how to actually utilize the new technology (VCR's) that previously had been the (they said) precursor of their Armageddon and make money off of it.
It may just turn out that they could do the same with P2P. Yes, piracy is rampant in that area currently, but there are ways, as iTunes has obviated, to make a lot of money by downloading music. iTunes has given consumers choice, and consumers have shown that they are willing to pay for high-quality music of their choosing.
No iTunes is not P2P, but it is what P2P really is -- an electronic distribution channel that brings the record store to the web browser. That's really what Grokster, Kazaa, etc., are -- ways to get music sitting in your underwear on Sunday morning while you're sipping coffee. Music that you choose, not the 13 other tracks on a given CD that, well, suck.
They should have learned this, if nothing else: that consumers are far less willing to accept the old status quo of buying albums by the current "pig in a poke" method -- you know the one song that Clear Channel's been bribed into playing, but the others are a mystery. More often than not, they aren't the greatest. Rare is the album that's pleasing end to end any more. And at $19 bucks a pop, it's no wonder people are refusing to plunk down the price.
Given the choice between a fair price for a legal Napster of a certain guaranteed quality, of songs that they want (no filler) I would think that many people would be happy to pay for it. Time will tell. What's clear though is that the meteor has crashed into the record companies' world and it is now their choice to be either dinosaurs or evolve into something that can survive.
If such an innovative, practical, and quality service is available and legal under the DMCA, what are we really complaining about? I think Apple has debunked a lot of myths about the DMCA, and some of us here just can't deal with that.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Of course, during his time, he had no idea that technology would ever develop at the pace that it did in the 20th century and that it will in the 21st century. On the other hand, even if he could imagine such unimaginable technological growth rates as we have seen in the last hundred years, no one from his time could imagine such prohibitive measures being taken to prevent technological advancement in today's world.
The popular opinion regarding Malthusian theory of economic growth is that Malthus had it backwards -- his prediction that man's consumption would strip the earth of its resources failed to consider (1) technological growth and (2) that man's wants and needs evolve as well as anything else. In other words, as our resources change, our wants and needs are at least partially shaped by what we can possibly provide. We adjust to the environment in which we live. (Agent Smith says, "There is another organism on this planet...")
The question I would like to pose to Slashdot's readership is this: To what degree was Malthus right considering man's habits of mass consumption and self-imposed barriers to innovation such as copyright laws, and to what degree was Malthus wrong considering technological and other innovations? (Hmm. Ask Slashdot?)
I disagree. Lets take MS for example: As much as I dislike their business practices, they have done a lot of good for innovation. By developing and supporting a common platform (the Win32 API), they have allowed for tons of innovation in software. The problem with MS is that they *own* the rights to build implementations of that API - if the API was a standard and any vendor could provide an implementation, their offenses might not be as egregrious. Unfortunately, they have not disclosed all aspects of that API and they continue to collect monopoly rents. The failure in the system with regards to MS has been mainly with several rulings by appeals courts and the toothless remedy sought by the pro-MS federal goverment.
Anyways, Lessig makes several good points. Go Lessig.
smd4985
When it comes to issues involving Big Business, I don't trust the Republicans OR the Democrats. I think Gore Vidal said it best, "America, with its one political party, and its two right wings."
If every innovator with technologies affecting content must bear the burden of a lawsuit before his innovation can be allowed, there will be many fewer innovations in the distribution and creation of content. That in turn will harm artists and technologists alike.
What on Gods green earth makes you think that any respectable company would have any interest in doing something like protecting the people or groups that make them money? Why do that when you can simply get laws passed to enforce the way you want things to work?
If you don't stop reading this right now you owe me $1,000. Send check or money order too...