Copyright Issues in the Mainstream

dmayle writes "Recently, the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruled on a momentous topic, the Grokster case (as covered on Slashdot). It turns out, however, it's not just geeks who are taking notice, and we're not the only ones who think things are getting ridiculous. The Economist has a great story on the subject, noting among other things, that if the cost of publishing had come down with the internet, perhaps the amount of protection needed to encourage publishing is less as well." From the article: "Both the entertainment and technology industries have legitimate arguments. Media firms should be able to protect their copyrights. And without any copyright protection of digital content, they may be correct that new high quality content is likely to dry up (along with much of their business). Yet tech and electronics firms are also correct that holding back new technology, merely because it interferes with media firms' established business models, stifles innovation and is an unjustified restraint of commerce."

Comments

Re:Cost of publishing or cost of creation

[Zphbeeblbrox]

The cost of creation doesn't have to be approaching infinity. Only because they insist on a model of business that focuses on flash and hotbutton formula's (eg brad pitt, angelina jolie heat up on screen) big names, high software costs, and feeding everyone's ego is what drives the cost up. The same thing happens in sports too. The industry cost of doing business skyrockets as the top players insist on having their ego boosted. Personally I'm looking forward to a day when indie films are readily available and the big studios have been put in their place. I like a good blockbuster film as much as the next guy but I also like a little substance and it's becoming preciously difficult to find. And some of the tools to make those wow effects are coming available in the open source arena soon. Maybe the studios should be looking at ways to cut costs to save their industry?

Re:Cost of publishing or cost of creation

[Bimo_Dude]

I think the cost of creation/production for movies/games is increasing due to a lack of real creativity in these industries (as well as the music industry). They have to increasingly rely on special effects, while using the same storylines over and over again (or making the same games over and over again with better|different graphics and sound). I'm not saying that there aren't creative people, just that most of them have been marginalized because they know they produce a quality product and do not want to be ripped off by the big boys.

The more support that independent artists get, the better, including OSS.

Wrong Venue

[ari_j]

The Supreme Court held that you cannot distribute technology with the deliberate intention that it be used to violate the copyrights of another. The decision was correctly made, in my opinion. I also agree that the falling cost of publishing may (see another top-level comment regarding the cost of creation) indicate decreased need for the protections of the copyright system. However, the Supreme Court is not where you should go to make policy, and since this is not a Constitutional ruling it is comparatively easy to change: go to Congress and get them to change the copyright laws on the books.

Yes, Congress is a cesspool of corruption; and yes, Congress gets more time in bed with the entertainment industry in a year than any of us will have with our wives in our entire lifetime. But Congress is the place to fix this, not only because it's the appropriate place but also because Congress is more attune to what people want and more able to make policy decisions. After all, the Supreme Court refers to Congress and the Executive as "the popular branches" for a reason.

Do some research, determine what changes need to be made, and push them through Congress. If it's a good enough idea, then enough people will subscribe to it to convince their legislators to fix the problem. But don't bitch at the Supreme Court for telling you not to break the law. And if you want to make a point about it by breaking the law as a form of civil disobedience, remember (unlike so many current-day protesters) that the hallmark of civil disobedience is being arrested and charged with a crime.

Re:They've got to feed their families, too.

[l2718]

You wouldn't like it if someone broke into your workshop and took your day's work.

This is a false analogy -- here's a better one: say you make a horseshoe in your workshop. I then buy it from you. Is it now wrong for me to make my own horseshoes? These horseshoes I will make will not be taken from you -- they will be entirely my creation.

Now, society benefits from a supply of horseshoes, and you might not invent the horseshoe if, once you sold me one, I would never buy another from you. Therefore, society took an unusual step: by legal fiat, we will voluntarily give you a monopoly on your invention for a limited time, even though you can't force us to do it. Since it us doing it, we'll optimize the "limited time" to maximize the benefit to us -- long enough for you to make enough of a profit to justify spending time on creating new things, short enough so that we too can make a profit by making horseshoes. In fact, we realize that if we gave you a permanent monopoly you'll simply grow fat making horseshoes. On the other hand, but limiting the time of your current monopoly we hope you might decide to go back to the shop and invent something new (the crowbar?), so you can get a new monopoly.

Copyright law is based on the same principle, except now it's about ideas rather than physical invensions. Again, we need to strike a balance between allowing the authors to get a return on their investment of time and work, and between our desire to profit from their ideas by selling them as their are (reproduction) or reworking them in new ways (making derivative works).