Slashdot Mirror
Universal and MySpace Square Off Over DMCA
moore.dustin writes "Universal and MySpace look to be on a collision course that could shape the future of media companies and the internet. The article discusses the DMCA's impact on their case, and talks ways in which the law lags behind the realities of technology." From the article: "Yet, as lawyers prepare for battle, they do so on uncertain legal ground. The legislation at the heart of the debate, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, was written years before social networking sites such as MySpace even existed. That fact has injected considerable uncertainty into the matter, according to copyright experts, and helps explain why lawyers from both sides are proclaiming that the DMCA, as it is known, is on their side."
For the lazy, the case in TFA involves Universal accusing MySpace of copyright infringement based on the ability of its users to post copyrighted music videos to the site without permission.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
MySpace is not fundamentally different from offering generic webspace. The safe harbor provisions cover this. It's hard to argue that MySpace is not an ISP under the terms of the DMCA.
The fact that to deny responsibility, the ISP is better off not policing their network is hardly the ISP's fault. It's a badly drafted law. Perhaps Universal should have thought about thiswhen lobbying for it.
It is on MySpace's servers since MySpace implemented its own video-posting functionality similar to YouTube and all the rest. The feature was MySpace's response to the YouTube boxes that were springing up on all its users' pages. It's fairly idiot-proof, you don't need to know a thing about HTML coding to use it.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I've written on this point exactly: here.
FTA - "Its part of the continuing struggle between content owners and developers of technology, he said. People are trying to find out where the line is."
This is a very basic concept - the same people who invent technology are the types that create content. Broad-thinking creative types. The other type of people are the merchants: traditional business owners.
The battle between these SAME two factions drove founding of America. It was the traditional merchants who did not have enough power in 'old culture' Europe - so they left and came to the new world. They have been running things, yoking and squeezing the creative types ever since.
It is the same factors that drive the Shiite and Sunni conflict. It has lead to the most significant ideological gaps in human history.
Interestingly, the tide turned in the USA in November 2006. No longer is there any need for the small-minded, traditional merchants to run the system. Global communication, Web 2.0-mentality, and the empowering of the individual are all working together to eliminate the entrenched foothold by the merchants.
It will be great to see if the courts follow suit.
There are many possibilities:
Then, of course, there's also the final possibility: they don't. After all, what makes you so sure content has to be "worth something?" Who says that having people "make a living" doing this stuff is necessary? Isn't it possible that making people keep their day job and do this stuff in their free time if they want to is good enough?
These sorts of models are working for Free Software, after all...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
My brother has a full time engineering job and still makes and releases CDs on the side with his band because he likes it. In my book you can't beat a live performance. So, maybe the future of music professionals is to make all of their money on tour...Oh right that is how it works today except Sony et. al. don't rake in the millions. Then you would jsut give away your music for free on the internet as promotion for your concert.
GENERATION 27: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
"How are content creators supposed to support themselves? I mean writers, actors, singers."
5 -artists-rights_x.htm
Well, apparently the first thing is to avoid being associated with record companies that belong to the RIAA:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2002-09-1
That's probably 90% of the battle right there.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
For example, most painters and sculptors cannot expect to make a decent living in their lifetimes, nor can many classical composers and musicians, and nor poets nor authors. What makes the agents of pop and rock musicians and film and TV actors and producers so special that that they can bully and threaten others to protect their (sometimes dubious quality) work. Most signed bands are in debt to their agencies for years, most of their money goes to people who have no talent and have never contributed one single thing to the creative advancement of humanity.
I have no objection to artists being paid fairly for their talent. I have every objection to the agency vermin that feed from us all.