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.

Comments

Yay

[B3ryllium]

Does squid violate copyright laws, if you sell access to your cache? :)

Free Advice

[s20451]

Don't post your questions here. Post them at the link.

DVR

[ArsonPanda]

Better Fire up my Tivo so I can steal this by skipping over the ads!!

Valuable questions

[NetSettler]

Anyone can submit questions, and the best questions or comments will be posted to Lessig and Oppenheim for debate and discussion.

If I ask a good question, do I get to claim the copyright on it? And how will I enforce payment?

It's more than just the right questions.

[I'm a racist.]

Just like in a debate between political candidates, the issue isn't so much about what the good questions are. Afterall, they're each pushing an agenda, and will try to get their point across in every question.

The real problem is getting them, specifically Matt Oppenheim, to actually answer the question that is asked. Just like a politician, I assume he's going to go off on a tangent, sidestepping and dodging anything that would make the RIAA smell like shit.

Here's an idea - Give me a camera, a room with a locked door, an RIAA executive (or any politician or lawyer), and I'll show you how it's supposed to be done.

You have to keep pressing them, don't let them change the subject. If they start to go off on a tangent, you need to "violently" (physical violence is good, but just being forceful is enough) bring them back to the point. Also, watch out for doubletalk, make sure they define their terms clearly.

Re:It's more than just the right questions.

[sbwoodside]

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

Re:It's more than just the right questions.

[Merk]

"Friend, you raise an interesting point there. Nobody can deny the significance of plaigarism. In some ways modern technology is making it easier and easier to plaigarise. In fact, due to plaigarism concerns, a significant college admissions exam was cancelled recently. Often the same technologies that make plaigarism easy make copyright violation easy. A search engine can be used to find essays just as easily as it can be used to find copyrighted music. Now artists worked hard to produce that music, and pirates just want to have it for free. While plaigarism affects the original artist's reputation, copyright violation can affect the artist's bottom line. And if the artist can't afford to make new music, wouldn't that be a shame? Next question please!"

Re:"Corporate Jim" I call him

[Gizzmonic]

Obviously someone doesn't think it's important for Slashdot readers to know the context in which this discussion on copyright will be presented.

I'd like to be an optimist, but notice this is online only. It's not even gonna hit the radar of the average PBS-watching yuppie, let alone the mainstream audience.

Perhaps you should encourage Mr. Lehrer to move this copyright discussion into a broader arena. I doubt he will be convinced, but you never know.

They would have interviewed RMS ..

[McAddress]

but then they would have had to call it GNU/NewsHour or would that be GNUshour

Thank god for Jim Lehrer & PBS...

[macshune]

I know this is slightly OT, but damn, can you imagine any of the big 4 broadcasters doing a piece on this? They are all tied at the hip to conglomerates that have deep interests in the music industry.

Well, I can imagine Fox News doing a piece in 2005...

When Copyright Kills: RIAA sniper bill signed into law

Forced copyright assignment

[jc42]

One of the big issues with musicians is that for decades, the distribution channels have been held by a small groups of corporations that enforce a "standard contract" requiring that a musician assign the copyright to the corporation. This has meant only a handful of musicians can actually make any money selling recordings. This is also why so many people don't consider copying music to be stealing. After all, the music was already stolen from the musicians, and nobody who understands the issue has any sympathy for the thief, i.e., the recording industry corporations.

The Internet poses a serious threat to this. However, ISPs have been working to take control themselves. Most of them in the US now block port 80, so most musicians can't legally run a web site on their own machines. The ISPs then offer web space on their machines, but the license states that all files on such a web site belong to the ISP. The result is that, once again, musicians must give the copyright to the corporation that controls the distribution channel. The most notorious of these is msn.com, of course, but others have been doing the same thing.

If they succeed with this approach, it will mean the end of the recording industry, since the ISPs will own the copyrights to everything on the Web. But it will be just as big a financial disaster for musicians, who will still live in a world in which the local internet monopoly controls the distribution channels and can demand the copyright in exchange for making files available.

Is there any solution to this?

Re:Forced copyright assignment

[Reziac]

See last paragraph for my take on stopping RIAA theft... but meanwhile:

The last time the subject came up here and created a great public outcry -- turned out no one had actually READ what the ISP's TOS *said*. In the case I refer to, the ISP's TOS had words to the effect that "you grant us the right to *distribute* whatever copyrighted material you put in your webspace". This is precisely so you CAN'T sue your own ISP for "copyright infringement" thru "unauthorized copying" -- because technically, the web server is "publishing" your files (ie. copying them to whatever random users access your website). Frex, if you happen to upload a file that you didn't *mean* to have "distributed", but thru dumb HTML mistakes, you let users get at it, the ISP isn't liable.

Nowhere did the TOS referred to say that the ISP now *owns* the material.

I know there have been draconian TOSs in the past that said precisely that all your copyrights now belong to us, but most say no such thing -- if you actually read what it says and don't just assume.

That aside, as to RIAA members stealing from artists... it's going to continue until someone with the balls and the deep pockets takes them to court, and gets a precedent set that the typical RIAA contract is usury, thus illegal and unenforceable -- and perhaps even actionable under fair lending laws -- since at bottom the typical RIAA member contract is really a complex loan against future earnings (if any).

Balance of Power

[NetSettler]

If I ask a good question, do I get to claim the copyright on it? And how will I enforce payment?

I decided to be a little less flippant and submitted a question quite like this one to the site.

One thing that occurred to me and that I asked in the extended question was this:

In the new world of license enforcement, every time I make a tiny use of a song I end up having to seek a license and pay for it. But here I am the little guy submitting a question to the big guys in Television Land and I have no mechanism for forcing them to pay at all for a BIG use of my words if they decide they are important enough to use on their show. Something seems unbalanced about that.

As a straw man, shouldn't they be forced to offer me royalties and trickle out money to me every time they rerun their show? In a world that's becoming increasingly peer to peer, why should an individual do all the paying and none of the receiving?

I suspect the answer is "Because we can" from the big guys. That doesn't seem very fair though.

Big easy question of ownership

[twitter]

Let's see them answer this one or one similar:

Microsoft's new EULA demands the use of "Windows Updater" and grants Microsoft the ability to search for and remove files they consider copyright infinging. The music and film industry has demanded the same "protection" for all digital devices. Do I really own a computer that I can't write files on and that's run by someone else? What does this kind of ownership do to journalism and free press?

ask him yourself, silly.

[twitter]

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.

my questions

[renard]

1. 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?

2. 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?

   If not, please reconcile explicitly with the language of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992.

3. Under current law, is online file-sharing both illegal and punishable?

   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?

Thanks!
renard

DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild

[smiff]

The question I want answered, how do Lessig and Oppenheim feel about this argument? Forty-six professors of intellectual-property law argued that the DMCA's anti-device provision creates a modern Stationer's Guild. It allows copyright holders to control technology, much like the Stationer's Guild controlled the printing press. The court declined to address this argument and I have been itching for a good response to it.

Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild

[frumiousbar]

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.

Re:DMCA as modern Stationer's Guild

[Stephen VanDahm]

"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.

an inflamatory question from a coward.

[twitter]

An AC invents several false analogies and asks, "Machines are often built in such a way that they either cannot be used in dangerous or unlawful ways, or that such use is very difficult. Computers are no different."

There is nothing dangerous or unlawful about my the files on my computer. For you or anyone else to search them would be unlawful as I run free software and have not granted anyone permission to bother me.

It astounds me how people who threaten others with all the force of law over file copying turn around and call those engaged in such activites violent. The felony convictions they have aranged for copyright violation include loss of livelyhood, loss of life savings and jail time. Yet proponents of these insane copyright laws refer to their victims as "dangerous", "pirates" and all that. Try as they might, copying a file against the wishes of a publisher will never be the moral equivalent of murder on the high seas or any other violent act.

The AC then states that DRM will have no effect on journalism or free press. Think about it some more AC. When DRM gets to the point that your post to any electronic network must pass a copyright violation filter that's embeded in your hardware in some mysterious way, you might understand. Yes, your silly post to Slashdot might one day be filtered by your own computer to make sure it's "safe" for public consumption and violates no copyrights. If your computer is smart enough, you won't even know your post did not make it through. If you don't control your press and someone else does, you have no free press.

Can I sue the RIAA back?

[blair1q]

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?

Civil Disobedience

[A_Non_Moose]

Things have gotten so bad with the RIAA now, I almost fear I'll get sued for admitting this, but:

I sing along with the radio, cds I play, and sometimes...well, I don't *KNOW* the lyrics, so I'll look them up on the internet!

I can't help it! Honest! It is the Artists!! They made me do it...why, just look at Mick Jagger (ok, bad Idea)...consider Mick Jagger and the Stones in the song "Miss You" with:

what's them matter man..{something, something} with some Puerto Rican girls just diiieeng to meet-chu. We gonna bring a case of wine {long string of words...I think} like we used to!

And the woohoo-hooo-hooo is just so damn fun to sing I don't know when I'm over the line with; Copyright Infringment, Public Performance and Wreckless Endangerment and Public Indecency.

See what happens when you "Start Me Up"(c)(r)(tm) of Microsoft Corp (right?).

/where's that sarcasm tag in the HTML specs?

My Question (Slightly Reformatted)

[Catiline]

"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.

Re:My question to Lessig would be

[Bold Marauder]

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!

My Question

[MacDork]

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 :-)

digital copy versus material copy

[stock]

The principle of a digital copy is thats a exact copy with the same quality's as the original. in fact they are the same by the last digit. All you need is a computer and a copy or cp command. So cp msoffice1.iso msoffice2.iso can be done on any PC. It shouldn't be illegal. Next the copy command can be used to copy and burn that iso on a CDR recordable. We go ahead and do it and place it on the shelf next to the orginal. Thats not illegal. Next we buy a 2nd PC and install msoffice1.iso on the 2nd PC. Well according to that big software company, thats illegal. I say it isn't if you can just do it without more effort as just inserting the office cdrom into the 2nd PC. Now what efforts did we have to take here? Yes we paid $1500,= for the 2nd PC.

Now another scenario. We have again a 2nd PC , however its the neighbour's PC. This time he paid the $1500,= for his PC. He wants to run that msoffice too. I give him that CDR with msoffice on it. He inserts it and install/runs MS Office completely without extra efforts than inserting that CDR. Now we ask again, is this illegal??? Some say yes, some say no. It depends. lets assume that the $1500,= covers also the expenses for running msoffice, then its completely ok. If the $1500,= does not cover running msoffice then it is not ok to give your neighbour that CDR. But then again. What value does the msoffice CDR represent? The CDR itself is just a lousy $0.25 media costs. If you find it in a desert with no PC's for over 5000 miles, you can only use it as a coaster. The msoffice CDR will only be of use if you have a running PC.

Bill gates said exactly the opposite to the director of the Altair factory : "Without my software your Altair is completely useless". Well that is just not true. You can always find some other version of a office package or OS to run on your PC. There's expensive ones, cheaper ones and even free to download iso versions which you then burn and install.

What i want to make clear is that for a digital copy to work one needs some sort of a materialized copy to go along too. Staring at a directory and watching at two files : msoffice1.iso and msoffice2.iso ain't a real copy. It takes a extra CDR to burn and a 2nd PC to install/run msoffice also on that one.

Now comes the Internet. suddenly people don't need CDR's anymore to transport iso's from Joe's PC to Jack's PC. Jack anyway burn the msoffice2.iso on a CDR and installs/runs it. Jack also paid $1500,= for his PC. If that price covers running/installing msoffice its ok. If not, then Jack is the bad guy. Not for having a $0.25 CDR with msoffice2.iso on it, but for installing/running it.

Oh what a mess. In the old days making a copy was technically also easy, but media, harddisks and tapes were way more expensive. What i want to point out here, is that a digital copy technically takes no effort at all. its sometimes just 1 command on a prompt. There's no regulations i can think of that can prevent that from happening. Its a digital cyberspace thing. What matters in the end is the materialization efforts/costs which are needed to run a copy on a different street address. That would take a 2nd PC and CDR. if we want to have a sane digital copying act , let it act on the extra materalization efforts needed to run it on a different place.

Feel More Strongly about Patents

[Josh]

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).

Tax my blank recordable media?

[CPgrower]

If the RIAA forbids the copying of CD's, why do they receive a royalty on blank casettes and recordable CD's? Specifically, why does the RIAA assume I will be using the recordable CD specifically for recording copyrighted material. What if I were to record my *own* music? It seems like a double standard to me.

rob

Some questions

[bryan1945]

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

What I wrote...

[Soko]

Good evening, gentlemen.

Firstly, I don't download music, nor do I share my CD collection on-line. Downloading content I haven't paid for, or that isn't given to me by the rightful copyright owner, in my opinion is wrong to do.

That being said, I also believe that the "technological cat is out of the bag", so to speak.

I haven't bought a CD in over 2 years, since they are outrageously priced, and there just hasn't been anything out there that I feel warrants such an expense. There have been a few songs that I wouldn't of minded getting, but I would be paying the full CD price for a song or two. I have spoken to many, many people who feel the same way - not enough quality content to justify the full price of a CD. Add to this the onerous copy protections that the Industry wants, their seeming hatred of Fair Use doctrine (I have each of my CDs backed up in MP3 format on 2 separate computers in case the origionals are damaged in some way), the well known fact that very few artists actually make money from the sales of CDs and the way the RIAA has tried to stifle technological advances, you end up with many, many people who are angry at the record companies and feel justified in acquiring thier content via P2P networks. This trend started quite a few years ago, and since the music industry did little to re-close the bag back then - by addressing what thier customers now wanted, not how to prolong the status quo - the cat left.

Sharing of content is taken as a misdemenour at best, and an inherent right when you're connected to the Internet at worst. You are no longer serving your customers, you are fighting them. This being the case, any Economics undergrad can tell you that the current business model of the Music Industry is now fataly flawed.

Seems to me that people are just voting with thier dollars. If it were easier and less expensive to acquire the content that customers of the RIAA actually wanted on a CD, rather than putting up with the hassles of downloading said content, this issue would just go away.

Regards,

Ron Sokoloski

What needs to be done!

[Cognitive Dissident]

Expose the current state of copyright law for the fraud that it is! We need to ask questions that give Lessig the chance to point out how copyright law has been perverted by corporate lobbyists.

INFORMATION IS NOT PROPERTY.

It cannot be. There would be no need for 'copyright' if it could be. Yet corporate lobbyists have hammered the word 'intellectual property' into dozens of laws over the past couple of decades and have managed to replace copyright law with a fraudulent redefiniton of the concept of 'property'.

You can ask obvious things like "Why is copyright so different from what it was 30 or 40 years ago?" and "Exactly what IS 'intellectual property' and how is it different from copyright? or you can go for something more subtle if you have a good understanding of some particular issue that will leed into this. But we must get this one issue exposed as much as possible.

Re:DVR is overkill for skipping ads on PBS.

[Robber Baron]

Apparently you've never been subjected to the misery that is a PBS pledge drive.

Betty White: If you like great PBS programs like "Do Shut Up" and "Shut Your Gob" you'll want to support our pledge drive. If you watch even one second of PBS and don't contribute, you're a theif, a common theif!
PBS Guy: Okay, take it easy, Betty.
Betty: Sorry, but these theives make me so mad. You know who you are.... thieves!
Homer: You're mad, where's my show!?

two tough questions

[rjnagle]

For Mr. Oppenheim:
1.The value that the entertainment industry has traditionally brought to the artist has been production and marketing. But costs of producing artistic works has plummetted, and many would say that "viral marketing" (through the sanctioning of alternative/free distribution channels) is cheaper and more effective anyway. Given the ever-shrinking royalty percentages and restrictive nature of entertainment contracts, why does it still make economic sense for artists to sign up with major media companies?

For Mr. Lessig:
2. Nobody ever put a gun to an artist's head to sign an unfair contract with the entertainment company. These contracts are freely entered into because both parties believe it in their respective self-interests. Why then is legislative tampering necessary? Isn't the problem self-correcting? If enough artists get screwed or perceive themselves as getting screwed by signing up, they won't sign up, or they will insist on more favorable terms. Why then should Congress hamstring the ability of artists and companies to enter into contracts? To justify legislative intervention, it seems to me that you would need to demonstrate that entertainment contracts are instrinsically predatory and exploitative.

What Mark Twain thought of copywrites:

[budalite]

Only one thing is impossible for God: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet.
- Mark Twain

They always talk handsomely about the literature of the land....And in the midst of their enthusiasm they turn around and do what they can to discourage it.
- Mark Twain Speech in Congress, 1906

I wonder if I can copywrite my own genes? or that cute thing I do...

Something we'll look back at this all and say 'WTF?'

The question I submitted.

[Alsee]

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?

-