Slashdot Mirror
Music Piracy Documentary Released As Torrent
goodbye_kitty writes "The producers of a new documentary film analyzing global music piracy have decided to 'put their money where their mouth is' by releasing the film as a free Xvid download (hosted by the Pirate Bay, as one would expect). The film explores the blurred line between 'fair use' and piracy, and includes interviews with DJ Danger Mouse (creator of the now infamous 'grey album'), Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons), the lads from the Pirate Bay, and even some guy from the MPAA. Here is a link to the torrent."
I wonder who's paying the producers salaries.
I really wonder about that. A lot of movies don't get a distributorship, it's a basic fact of the industry, even more so with indie films.
Anyways, "blurring the line between fair use and piracy" is a red flag to me. I really won't agree with an argument that somehow fair use can be blurred to the extend that distributing entire works (entire songs, entire albums, entire movies, entire TV episodes) to potentially millions of people is somehow fair use. Fair use has usually been interpreted as short clippings, parodies, making a personal copy of a work that you legitimately have and so on.
I wish I could be optimistic for their bank account, but here's what will probably happen: the file sharing crowd will download it, watch it with a few beers, nod in constant agreement, curse the Man, and then raise a beer in a toast to the coolness of the producers. Perhaps a few will even contribute to the tip jar. But the jar won't fill up enough to pay for the time put into the project. And the producers sure won't make enough money to support themselves or a family so they can do such a cool thing again. Oh well.
Next time I download an OS via BT, I'll think of you... I'm really sorry, man.
That said, I'm a little surprised and disappointed at Slashdot's reaction to this documentary. Someone does a documentary about file sharing, puts it up on BT and we attack them for it... sad. I would have thought we'd be glad to see that someone is finally starting to smell the new media. Do they want their documentary seen? Of course, they do, but if this works out, you know there will be thousands of fairly smart people thinking, "OK, now how do we make that a business?"
The age of the fight between content creators and peer-to-peer sharing needs to come to an end. The age of the peer-to-peer media empires is long overdue.
Well of course the "blurred line" won't appear when you counterpoint two extremes: short clips on the one hand (clearly fair use) versus distributing full copies to millions of people on the other hand (clearly copyright infringement, according to current laws).
However, your implication that there is no "blurred line" isn't fair. The example given in the summary is DJ Danger Mouse, who mixed two different works to create something totally original. The music labels said that this was "clearly infringement" whereas many artists and fans said this work was novel and original, and clearly something that should be allowed under fair use (whether or not it actually is fair use is for courts to decide, I suppose, but the arguments regarding copyright are not so much about what the law is, but rather what it should be). This is one case where there is disagreement about how to interpret the actions, hence a "blurred line."
Lawrence Lessig (in his books, blog entries, talks, etc.) provides many other examples of activities which straddle this line (e.g. a film-maker begin told to pay thousands of dollars because a Simpsons clip was playing in the background of one of the scenes in a documentary). Sometimes they are legal yet still legally persecuted by the big-labels. Sometimes they are illegal yet many people feel they are legitimate personal uses, or important creative uses. These fringe cases are very interesting.
Now, I have not watched the documentary under discussion, so I can't say whether they tackle these fringe cases in a thoughtful way. However, I can honestly say that there is a dangerous blurred line between what you are allowed to do according to "fair use" and what you are going to get in trouble for doing according to "copyright law." The fact that this line is so ill-defined is what leads to all the questionable lawsuits against artists and end-users... and to a chilling effect in the production of creative works (which Lessig worries about constantly).
the word infamous means famous in a disgraceful way. it's a bad thing. you're not using it right.
That depends on whether you consider fame to be a good thing or not.(Infamity ftw)
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
That's not true and it's never been true.
If i want to buy and view the movie "300" but a friend comes over with a movie of his and we watch that instead, I am no less inclined to eventually purchase and watch the movie 300. If he made me spend money to watch his movie, then I would be less inclined.
Even if the movie in question WAS 300, I'd still be willing to go and purchase it if I decided it was worth my money, and a lot of movies are.
The argument you're implying is that getting something for free makes you less likely to spend money, and that's not true, it's never been true, and it will never BE true. People with money and nothing better to do will spend their money on stuff they like and want.
You have to keep in mind that the guys you're supporting are the same people who catch someone watching a movie that they didn't pay for and spend hundreds of thousands in attorney fees in order to victimize said person to set an "example" of what happens to you if you ever watch movies for free before paying for them.
All for what? To save a few bucks in the future? To "save" their business from the evil pirates? Hardly. The reason these guys hunt down and victimize kids and college students is because they can write off their legal expenses as a cost of doing business and hopefully slip into a lower tax bracket, cheating the American people out of tax money.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.