Slashdot Mirror
Decriminalizing File Swapping
IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"
Here is a blurb from a article on the failure of prohibition by the Assistant Professor of Economics at Auburn University, Mark Thornton. If you read it, just substitue 'file swapping' for 'alcohol' and it seems to ring very true.
"National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that
much stronger."
My favorite quote from prohibition was this on by Reverent Billy Sunday:
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
Seems like the same kind of quote a RIAA is telling artist when they talk about their fight against file swapping.
Well, I know that I am drawing at least a couple unfounded correlations between the two, but its fun to do. Also, I should point out that I am not for or against either position. Both positions have their own problems.
--greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
Instead, criminal proceedings should be geared more toward prosecuting large-scale counterfeiting rings instead of going after "a young person who fills up his or her iPod."
See, but the music industry doesn't want to do any real investigative work. They want to make examples out of people that are just like everyone else. Everyday people who are swapping music for their portable media players are not going to feel scared of sympathetic towards large-scale operations. They are going to be scared of someone "just like them" that was prosecuted for doing exactly what they are.
"People still look at this as 'harmless, file sharing,' but the fact is that the effects are the same, or even actually worse, than a massive-scale organized crime piracy operation," Rechard said. "If you look at the number of files that are distributed and the number of music that is being offered without payment to the authors and injury inflicted to the copyright holders, at some point people need to start understanding what we are up against here."
That's because it is harmless and we have proven time and time again that your trumped up "loss" numbers are nothing more than spin and bullshit. At no point will be stop understanding that the music industry conglomorates are nothing but money grubbing, lying, pieces of shit that do nothing but steal from both sides of the equation for their own benefit.
So now that Jusitces Kennedy and Stevens are advocating the use of international law and foreign judges opinons in Supreme Court descisions do you think they are going to take these rulings into consideration? It shall be interesting to see.
Madre de Dios! Es El Pollo Diablo! -- Captain Blondebeard
What is 'personal use' of an item that HAS no other use? All films, music etc derive 99% of their income from sales to individuals, either through cinema or DVD /CD sales, so doesnt it seem counterproductive to remove what is essentially this mediums only revenue source? How do they suggest that these items generate income when its equally made available for free as a download by people who have no financial attachments to the creation of the work?
- You theoretically could have recorded it (existing fair use).
- By the time a movie is on television, movie studios have generally extracted a majority of their profits from it. The purpose of copyright (to encourage the creators by allowing them control/compensation for a limited time) has therefore been fulfilled.
I'd like to see copyright reduced to ten years, for motion pictures, at least.So, France doesn't produce much music the world wants to listen to, or many movies they want to watch.
The best way to understand the relationship between Anglo and French cultures is to think of them as parallel universes. There is a lot of great stuff that happens in both that doesn't 'cross the bridge' between them.
French movies tend to be 'small' and not huge CGI blockbusters, but they tend to be the best of all the 'small' movies of the world. During the movie theater era before the VCR revolution of the mid-1980s, French films were widely shown in every major US cities. French directors like Truffaut and Rohmer were known throughout the world.
French music is not only the pop songs of the radio, but also most of Europe outside of the UK. Paris is also the ground zero for the world music movement. Much of the music of Africa is recorded there and many of the best African musicians are based there. Paris is also the center of the European orchestral music movement, both modern and classical. Classical music is rare and modern orchestral music unknown on US radio.
Back to the topic. I believe that the final effect of all the DRM and legal action against the consumers of corporate entertainment product will be the marked decrease in the demand for this product.
This might be beginning to happen with Hollywood movies. The box office revenue growth seen in the past eight years seems to have stopped. This has nothing to do with movie file sharing, because that activity is very small compared to the size of the industry itself. It's more due to high prices at the theaters and unexciting movies.
What we will see, hopefully, is a lot of smaller movies on DVD that rent for 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of the latest blockbuster. It would seem to management that 20 $1 rentals is a lot worse than 4 $5 rentals, but that isn't so because the consumption of entertainment product creates its own demand for this product. It's a different type of product from, say, food. The more entertainment that you consume, the more that you want and the more money that you will pay for it.
As a writer, programmer, and creative person, I've always been for strict copyright enforcement.
But I'm changing my mind. Why?
Art is about the medium, message, and reception. It used to be the medium was radio or a record, the message is the content, and the reception was just somebody absorbing the content.
That worldview is no longer valid. Therefore, laws and mores built upon it need to be re-examined.
The medium can be anything now -- disc, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc. The reception -- and here's the key point -- is not the human ear anymore. It's the hard drive. When I TiVo an old Star Trek episode, my computer's hard drive is the first to get it, not me. I use the computer as a extension to my brain and memory process. It's nothing at all like a book, or record.
This sucks for content producers, because the rules are going to change. Maybe not today, maybe not even this decade, but the world is changing. The people who made buggy whips were probably outraged that the horseless carriage came along.
I think the situation sucks. The reason it sucks is that people who have been playing by the rules are getting screwed by file-sharing. But there are no culprits here, save for the evolution of the human existance. Demonizing people and paying a lot of lawyers is just smoking so much rope. How many times was the new Star Wars movie downloaded in the last week? 100 thousand? More?
Use Occam's Razor -- has the world suddenly grew infected with souless criminals intent on stealing from the mouths of the creative industry? Or has time simply moved on?
Another good question is how are they supposed to make any coin from it? Advertisements? I would be surprised if there are any /.'ers here don't have blocks for that. Donations? Not going to happen. Support? Thats how Linux is porfitable, yes? Well, working a CD is pretty easy -- not many people will call tech support for that. Touring? Ever set one up? I have, for my cousin. Even with the merchandise, we barely broke even. Endoresments? Yeah, we tried that too -- Airwalk never returned our calls. Haha.
/.'ers are actual creators of original media works. Not icon sets or wallpapers, but movies, videos, music and books. Stuff that takes a chunk of change to make. Having directed a small PV for my cousin, as well as doing some work on several of his tracks, I am not 100% sure where I stand on this issue.
Doing a live show can pay as little as $150! Three hours there, three hours back. An hour to set up. $150 is nothing for the time invested. But, you can get a free hotel room out of it. Its the exposure that pays off, and the hope that you might make it big someday. Now, they want to take that away, as well.
I'd like to know how many
I don't like th RIAA any more than you do. But, asking us to give everything away for free is bullshit! I've met people who have shunned the recording industry, namely Geffen records, for their bigotry. It took balls to turn that down. But, given the nature of the community as a whole, I am wondering if it was in his best interests to do so? He still has a day job. Makes a small paycheck. Has a kid to support. But, oh, he was pretty big on MP3.com, which is braggable.
Even with all of that, he still likes what he does. And, he has commented on how its always "the broke ass people who give their shit away".
In a perfect world, Linux would be No. 1, and F/OSS would be the default. And, music and movies would be free to make / free to own. However, we don't live in that world. It costs money, takes time, and sadly, is not very profitabble when you play nice.
I agree with your assessment of the relative virtues of a movie theater. I think it is almost comical that there are news stories about the horrors facing George Lucas because of the pirating of his movie. Meanwhile he is earning the biggest return in history during the opening of the film. Do they show any trace of irony? Not that I have noticed. I think it is entirely possible that even if there were unlimited file sharing there might not be any significant change in how the movie business operates.