Slashdot Mirror
Online Newshour Tackling Digital Copyright
dmabram writes "The online version of the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is tackling copyright in the digital age. They are sponsoring a forum where Lawrence Lessig will square off against RIAA executive Matt Oppenheim. Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion. I know that the producers understand the importance of this debate, and would love insightful questions." Looks worth tuning in for.
Does squid violate copyright laws, if you sell access to your cache? :)
Is this from the same Jim Lehrer that allowed Harry Browne and Ralph Nader to be disincluded from the 2000 Presidential debates? Who stood by and joked when Secret Service thugs carted Mr. Nader off the Michigan campus, where the 1st debate was being held?
The only reason PBS exists is so that the corporate fatcats can pretend that there is real diversity in the airwaves. This stifles any type of comprehensive public access before it can start. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting stood right along Clear Channel as they obstructed microradio rollout in the FCC.
You're not gonna get fair representation from Jim Lehrer. And you're not gonna get anything from PBS but stale British comedies and dull nature programs. If PBS were dismantled, maybe people would realize what a hoax the whole "public airwaves" thing has become.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Ask useful questions. If there's enough interest, of course they will set up an interview. Lessing, hmmm, think deep thoughts about the purpose of copyright. "US Copyright law was designed to encourage artists before the industrial revolution. How is it that the period of exclusivity has increased while publishing costs have decreased until today where they are practically zero?" and about ownership in general.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
- If I own a music CD, is it all right for me to download the digitally compressed version of the songs on that CD via a peer-to-peer file sharing service?
- Is it all right for me to make and distribute, to my friends and non-commercially, "mix CDs" that consist of compilations of music from my collection?
- Under current law, is online file-sharing both illegal and punishable?
Thanks!If not, please reconcile explicitly with the language of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.
If not, then why is the RIAA pursuing legal action against so many individuals and their ISPs?
If so, then why is the RIAA lobbying Congress for legislation allowing them to, for example, commit cybercrimes against suspected file-sharers?
renard
I'm bothered by the abuse of language for purposes of propaganda. It is deceitful and dishonest, and therefore I despise it.
Here's the question I submitted:
If lawyers can't even define it, technology can't possibly contain the intelligence necessary to determine the difference between fair-use and illegal copying in every case; so how can the RIAA hope to enforce copyright without violating the fair-use rights reserved to the public? Is there a market for a piece of software that files a lawsuit against the RIAA every time a person tries to make a rightful copy of a recording and is prevented from doing so?
"With online sites such as the Baen Free Library (Link: http://www.baen.com/library/) or MP3.com as well as online projects such as the Linux operating system showing that unrestricted distrobution of a work does not always diminish the monetary value and may instead increase that value, has the legal definition of copyright become outdated? If so, what would you see it redefined as and if not, what do you see as keeping copyright relevant to the digital era?"
In other words: Lessig, explain to me what you really think about copyright and Matt, don't just give me your organization's standard rhetoric, please try to find a convincing argument for once.
Do you like Japanese imports?
So you blame the people for finding easier and cheaper ways to get music and not the recording industry.
I blame the people for the waste of bandwidth, when it is a corporate resource. I blame people for the loss of jobs, when they are due to declining profits -sometimes due to low productivity, other times due directly to the theft of intellectual property.
It is up to the employees to be responsible members of a productive workplace, or to stop being a drain on much needed resources.
Music is a resoure, an infinite one at that.
Music does not get made without studio time, equipment, expertise and salaries. All of those, and the money that purchases them, are finite resources.
Just ask your wedding singer what he'd be willing to do unpaid and you'll quickly get my point.
Finding ways to get that music to everyone cheaper, faster, and with better quality means more.
More? To whom? Not to the people who have made signifigant investment in the viability of an acts' career only to see that investment go up in smoke due to peer-to-peer pirating.
Where did you come up with this? Terrorists need music downloading networks to communicate? Anarchists? What do they have to do with music besides the fact that they will always be breaking some sort of law?
Nothing to do with music; it's the technology I'm concerned with; as I outlined here
Downloading isn't a crime.
Actually, it could be said that in light of recent legislation, it is, in fact, a crime. At least with regards to illegal IP and technologies (such as the DVD decryption flap a while back).
Question everything
I question why so many intelligent people would have such a glaring blindspot just because the object being discussed is intangible.
If I opened up a store where people brought me in copyrighted works to redistribute to other people -sometimes for a fee- (ala' new napster) how long would I stay in business?
Not very, you can bet on that!
"Laws controlling devices are nothing new. There are laws about automobile safety that requires cars to meet certain standards and this allows the government to control technology. There are laws about FCC compliance and this allows the FCC to control devices. Etc. etc."
True, but with very few exceptions, once you buy a car there are no restrictions on what you can do with it. If you want to remove the catalytic converter or drive around without a safety belt, you can do that as long as you don't take it out on public roads. With the DMCA it is illegal to circumvent copy protection even on devices that you own so that you can watch DVDs (or whatever) that you paid for.
Furthermore, if I wanted to start VanDahm Motor Company and sell VMC automobiles to the public, I would be free to do that as long as I complied with the government regulations. If I wanted to make DVDs or DVD players, however, I have to get licenses from a consortium of private companies, who could very well deny me a license if they felt that my business interests were in conflict with their own.
When the government makes it illegal for company A to do business simply because it would interfere with company B's profits, it's widely considered to be corruption. However, that's exactly what the DMCA allows, and that's what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do with music and movie production.
In 1790, the first US Copyright Act was created by George Washington and enacted by Congress. It gave creators ownership of their work for up to 28 years. Today, the period is the lifetime of the creator plus 90 years. Given that methods of distribution and mass marketing have only improved, it seems that time period should have been decreased if it were to be changed at all. Could you explain why copyright holders have been granted more than three times that original amount of time to allow for just compensation of their contribution to the public domain?
The RIAA might dodge the question, but if it is even posed, I will have made my point :-)
In my mind, both copyright and patents can be appropriate in some situations, while problems come in when the range of those situations are overextended and enforcement is overzealous or infringes on other important rights. But at core, the very notion of copyright, even digital copyright, is so much more ethically benign than the notion of patent that it's hard for me understand advocacy against the former in absence of advocacy against the latter. Even a digital copyright only applies to a specific, original form (albeit, wherever that form is instantiated), while a patent restricts a whole class of behaviors that were not even explicitly, sometimes not implicitly, imagined by the creator. Patents are *intrinsically*, at best, a pragmatically necessary, basically fascistic, evil. Copyright intrinsically seems like a buyers choice (not talking here about broken laws that restrict devices or services that might be used to violate copyright copyright).
Yup, there's all kinds of ways to dodge questions. The most effective way to fight that is to point out that they dodged the question and make them look bad.
But if you really want to see them squirm you have to ask the right question. Ask about fair use for example. As a question where every reasonable person who's listening knows what the answer should be, yes. But where you expect the person to answer no. Then you get to watch them squirm because they know what everyone wants to hear as well.
You have to be completely sincere and honest when you ask these kinds of questions. Don't let them brush you off as a joker or a crackpot.
"If you support fair use, how can you justify draconian laws like the DMCA that are headed to destroy that?"
It's a good question because there's no cracks that weasel words can get out of. He can't say "I don't support fair use" so you've eliminated his ability to weasel out by making the protection-is-more-important-we're losing money argument. You can't let him go into that area because they can gain sympathy that way. You can force him to deal with the issue that the Monopolists are ruining fair use with their overpowered laws. You also get in your own position -- that the DMCA is draconian -- which is another one that no one can argue with. He can't call the question unfair, because all the assumptions are true.
And, if he does argue that the question is unfair, he's digging his own hole. Then Lessig comes back and says, no, you've just said that fair use is wrong, or DMCA is invalid, and you're wrong. You've forced them to say something indefensible. So no matter how they answer, you win.
simon
home page
Mr. Lessig and Oppenheim,
There seems to be a disturbing trend towards more restrictive uses for legitimate users, i.e. non Redbook CDs that will not work in purchurser's CD drives. Also in this vein, "CDs" that do not follow the Redbook format but do not loudly proclaim that this is not a CD (just not putting the CD logo on the case is NOT sufficient in my opinion, but this is just my opinion).
How do you feel about the success of Apple's new online music store? Though some people are critical about certain features of this service, such as only being able to make 10 copies of a single play list (personally I think this is an argument of someone who just wants to rip free music), the majority of users love Apple's music store. Do you think that this could be a new and profitable business model?
Could you explain the payment model that an artist gets for a standard CD vs. what an artist gets from the Apple Music Store? Further, could you give us a rough idea of how much profit an artist gets from a current CD sale?
Do you think if you reduced prices on CDs that piracy would diminish? Also, when CDs were first introduced there were comments of prices lowering because CDs were cheaper to make, yet there has been no lowering of prices. Can you explain why?
I've heard quotations of how the music industry is losing x amount of money to piracy. How do you compute this amount? Specifics would be preferable because some of the formulas I have seen are rather laughable, such as the number of mp3s of some group on some (or all) p2p network(s) vs. the official number of sold albums by that group, especially considering the Penn State case where a professor was wrongly accused of sharing some music file (and the RIAA issued an apology for the wrongful accusation).
One question is, is that number (x, from above) still valid now that fake mp3s are being distibuted on p2p networks (some of those being placed by RIAA memebers) to try and curb the pirates?
What do think that the future of DRM is? Most DRM seems to hurt the most non-pirate regular users that usually just want to backup their CD, mostly because if the CD gets scratched, you (RIAA companies) WILL NOT provide a free (besides media cost) replacement. If we bought a license to the music, then you are required to provide a replacement at the cost of the media. If we bought a product, we are allowed backups. Could you please explain which of these 2 positions we consumers occupy? How does your stance compare to the concept of "fair use" according to the US Supreme Court?
There is a CD media tax for recordable CDs. This is supposed to offset the losses for piracy. If I/we are paying this "piracy tax", why can we not make one copy for personal use? A backup copy of a CD is not piracy, so if I do not copy my legally bought CD for anyone else, do I get a refund of this "piracy tax"? If not, why? I have been assumed to illegally pirating music, but if I have not, why do I not deserve a refund?
Thank you for answering my questions.
Bryan
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
In an effort to enforce copyrights, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has made it a crime to descramble a scrambled work (circumvention). Anything a computer can descramble can also be descrambled by a human brain. Is there any reason the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would not apply to circumvention done by a human brain? Doesn't this make it a crime to think certain thoughts? Is this law unconstitutional?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.