Slashdot Mirror
Lessig And RIAA Answer NewsHour Questions
Zeta writes "The answers are finally in! Stanford's Lawrence Lessig and the RIAA's Matt Oppenheim have responded to all the tough questions on copyrighted music, many from Slashdot readers, for the online part of the PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Take a look - some of the responses may surprise you." We ran the original call for questions a few weeks back.
The Recording
Industry Association of America (RIAA) sued four students on April 3 for allegedly
operating music-sharing Web sites, accusing them of enabling large-scale copyright
theft. Although the RIAA initially asked for $98 billion in damages, it settled
the case on May 1, with the four students paying fines ranging from $12,000 to
$17,500.
Marking another victory for the recording industry, a federal judge
on April 24 ordered Verizon Communications to reveal the names of two Internet
subscribers accused of illegally trading music online. Since that decision, Verizon
received subpoenas for information on two more Internet subscribers.
Verizon
turned over the names of its four Internet subscriberson June 5 after
the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. rejected the telecom company's
request for a stay while it appeals the lower court decision. Verizon plans to
appeal that ruling.
Meanwhile, on April 25, a federal judge in Los Angeles
delivered a setback to the entertainment industry by dismissing lawsuits against
two file-swapping services, Streamcast Networks and Grokster. Judge Stephen Wilson
ruled that the two services were not liable for copyright violations that may
have occurred while people were using their software.
Although the ruling
does not legalize the downloading of copyrighted media online, it shields companies
that provide peer-to-peer software from liability for the actions of their users.
Does the entertainment industry has the right to prevent the "sharing"
and downloading of digital copyrighted media? What methods should it employ to
deter, or stop, the downloading?
Is music sharing tantamount to online theft?
Or is it the consumer's right to have unfettered access to online materials, including
copyrighted media? Should online music, film and other media be available for
public use?
Two leading experts representing the two sides of the debate
answer your questions about consumer rights and media copyrights in the digital
age.
John Wilcox from Arlington, VA asks:
(1) If physical communities can form libraries for the purpose of sharing copyrighted materials with community members, why can't virtual communities?
(2) If I can go to my local library and check out a CD for free, why can't I copy a digital CD from an online friend? And if I like a song enough to re-record it onto a cassette, why can't I copy the song from a digital server? What are the fundamental differences between the library setting and Internet file-swapping services that make the former both ethical and legal, and the latter unethical and/or illegal? Don't both the public library and online file-sharing services serve the same public interest?
Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School responds:
Let's distinguish "can" from "should." Simplifying just a bit: Why "can't" you? Because when virtual communities "share" materials, they make copies, and copyright law regulates copies; when real space libraries "share" content, they don't make copies, so copyright law doesn't regulate that. But should there be such a difference? No. Our tradition has always recognized the importance of balance in copyright restrictions; it has always recognized the importance of access.
There is no reason that the technical accident that everything online is a copy should mean the end of libraries. Obviously, libraries shouldn't become the pirates lair. But neither should the Internet obliterate libraries.
Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:
(1) The idea of a virtual community that "shares" music is a great idea. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening on P2P [peer-to-peer] networks these days. Networks like Kazaa, Gnutella, iMesh, Grokster and Morpheus, among others, are encouraging and helping individuals to distribute perfect digital copies of music to millions of strangers simultaneously. Nobody
We don't need Kazaa because the transcript and an audio clip is posted on the website at http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june03/do wnloading_4-24.html.
Why was the parent a troll? Have a sense of humor, asshats.
You know, I think the mistake was made when the monopoly right granted was named "copyright" instead of "publishingright".
Copying, in any and all forms, of any work, should be legal. *Publishing* (aka distributing copies to the public) is what should be restricted.
But, since it's called "copyright", we have lawyers that argue that running a program is a copyright infringment, since a copy of the program is made from disk to RAM, and we have to use "fair use" as a defense for private copying. If it were "publishingright", people wouldn't get into these silly arguements to start with.
itunes's format can't be burned to cd
Not only can purchases from the iTunes Music Store be recorded in Red Book format to Compact Disc Digital Audio Recordable media, but a given playlist can be burned three times.
iTunes Music Store is currently in a beta test and is scheduled for full deployment in December.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Say Lye Ow who is currently serving 24 months for a felony charge of trade secret violation would tend to disagree with you that trade secrets aren't protected by law. Look up the Economic Espionage Act of 1996. Here are the current cases.