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.
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?
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
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.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
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.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
but then they would have had to call it GNU/NewsHour or would that be GNUshour
Well, I can imagine Fox News doing a piece in 2005...
When Copyright Kills: RIAA sniper bill signed into law
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?
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
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?
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
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.
Things have gotten so bad with the RIAA now, I almost fear I'll get sued for admitting this, but:
/where's that sarcasm tag in the HTML specs?
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?).
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
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 :-)
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
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.
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston