Slashdot Mirror
Variety Says Class Action May Stop RIAA Suits
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Variety reports that Andersen v. Atlantic, the class action which has been brought against the RIAA in Oregon may 'ultimately force the organization to drop or dramatically change the way it uses its principal weapon in the fight against online piracy"'. The RIAA responded to Variety saying that 'We are confident that (Andersen's) claims have no merit....We look forward to presenting our arguments in the next few weeks to the court about why this case should be dismissed. In all our cases, we seek to follow the facts and be fair and reasonable in resolving pending claims.' p2pnet opines that Hollywood's interest in the suit bodes ill for the RIAA."
The RIAA has a very unusual and skew view of the words "fair", "reasonable" and "facts". Could someone buy them dictionaries with those words highlighted please.
I suppose they use the word "piracy" because it sounds more evil than "data duplication."
However, all they have really done is make the word "piracy" seem less evil.
To quote some other slashdot poster from some other article:
"Sharing is caring! Arrrr..."
Stick it to the man in the suit! That's the way to do it... Oh, you meant LAWSUITS , my bad.
Those uppity little people....let's SLAPP them back!
Forget the RIAA. I'm going to make my own Artist Association, with strippers and blackjack...
Actually, forget making an Association!
I don't think they're going to stop suing people altogether. I think that the class action suits will serve to severely stunt the growth of their ever-mounting kills but it won't stop them. The MAFIAA may have to resort to more, dare I say, legal means of investigation.
The game.
Fear and surprise, surprise and fear.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Maybe this will force them into changing their marketing model and allowing artists to concentrate on music rather than creating an album. Nah. They are too entrenched in their position to allow themselves to change.
Variety should have copyrighted their court papers and their evidence and licensed only the judge/jury to view them without allowing distribution. Then when the RIAA tries to get a copy, sue them for copyright infringement!
p2pnet: FAIR(ly hotheaded) and BALANCED (precariously between mouthpiece and rabid lobbyist)
A $15 CD is 3 hours of minimum wage work. Most of the people who do that work are high school and college students, an audience that spends nearly $200B of disposable cash according to marketing estimates thrown out in some of the magazines I've seen. Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money? It's not like we're hurting for options on how to get it cheaper than a typical overpriced local store.
When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other.
With the RIAA in the back pocket of judges (campaign contributions, anyone?), Anderson v. Atlantic is unlikely to make any changes in the way things are done. Sadly, the soapbox and ballot box are no longer effective, and it just might take nothing short of an all-out revolution to change the sad state of affairs in the world. Either that or the Apocalypse, one of the two...
The problem is... where does it stop? Do I get sued for giving a friend of mine a copy of a CD that he was never going to buy, anyway?
It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
It's not everyday you see CLASS and RIAA in the same sentence.
The issue is not that guilty people get sued. The issue is that the way the RIAA gets evidence is immoral and probably illegal (invading people#s computers, entrapment etc.) then of course the fact that many people get sued for copyright breach that never happened. And finally, the fact that they aren't sueing someone who stole one mp3 for $1, they're suing for hundreds of times the value of the mp3. There are more reasons than that, but the fact is we side against the RIAA not because of what it does, but rather how and to some extend why, they do it.
How do you know if you like a CD, if you haven't listened to it? Many people buy CDs to support artists they like, after listening to unlicensed downloads of their songs.
I also think this is a case of car manufacturers vs. the buggy whip industry. IMHO, it's environmentally irresponsible to haul CDs around the globe, when we have a better technological alternative. I'd pay for lossless downloads at guaranteed speeds, if the alternative is mp3s at questionable quality and availability.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Actually the GPL is used as a weapon against copyright it is actually what's known as copyleft. Fighting fire with fire.
If there was no copyright then there would be no need for the GPL.
The GPL violators are in fact the hypocrites here. They copyright their own work whilst using works which have been freely given to the public domain.
Apparently, you didn't RTFA. If you had, you'd have noticed that this class action lawsuit really doesn't have anything to do with illegal downloading; in fact, as far as anyone can tell, the lady starting the lawsuit apparently had the case against her dropped. Her lawsuit basically alleges that the way in which the RIAA goes after its 'victims' is not legal, in the form of not gathering anything but totally circumstantial evidence before choosing to sue.
Whether or not you approve of file-sharing, I'd imagine it's in your best interest to uphold the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty. =P
Walk with Music;
Think about it -- because many of these suits have a high number of defendants based on digitally obtained lists that may or may not be accurate based on the tool used to auto-generate the list. I can just about guarantee that another program took their lists and auto-generated many of the filings. [because I don't see the RIAA hiring masses of para-legal qualified folks to type up their legal filings....]. So at the minimum there is a
- software list "maker" generating a list connected to
- a software file-creator for that fills up the postal or other mail services for
- the purposes of ostensibly extorting legal settlements,
- and yet another set of programs filling up the legal system with cases based on program talking to program talking to program.
Anybody else have a problem with corporate law being conducted like that? To my way of thinking every filing should have to be done without the intervention of a software list generator, wouldn't you think? That way a corporation must risk the cost of the data entry and hand operations to generate their filings, just like the rest of us would. Seems fair enough, doesn't it?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
No you do not! You demand outrageously overinflated damages and target people with all the accuracy of a drunk stumbling out of a bar. Most importantly, you are extorting money from people who have never used p2p file sharing and violated NONE of your copyrights. You then proceed to rely on scare tactics realizing most of these lawsuits will be settled out of court because the prospect of going toe to toe with a major corporation in the court room is downright terrifying and can financially ruin an individual of far lesser means than you.
You have every right to protect your member organizations' copyrights via the court system. You *do not* have the right to pick people at random, bring financial ruin down on them, and harras them and their families.
I don't have a huge amount of faith in the court systems these days, but you really need to lose. And badly. I'm not talking about $5.00 coupon-for-a-CD settlements. I'd really like to see a judgement so harsh that some of your member organizations are driven to bankruptcy. After all, it's what you've been using the courts to do to people these past few years. Turnabout's fair play.
RIAA: "Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable... to... speak?"
(Apologies in advance)
When it comes down to other IP rights, why should those be sacred? It doesn't bother me at all when the latest GPL violation is posted on Slashdot. In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy. Both are copyright violations, and neither is more sacred than the other. The issue isn't the actual right of authors to control distribution of their work. The problem is the shady practices and dodgy logic that the RIAA uses to press their suits. I fully support the right of a artist/author/creator to control the distribution of their work and profit directly or indirectly for their efforts. However we protest that IP = undeniably unique identifier, That use of any means to gather information is fair, that intimidation and harassment or misrepresentation to obtain information are legitimate tactics. They simply are not. The RIAA have bought the courts, they aught not be allowed to behave in such a manner.
We also do not agree that simply making a copy of works we own physical media to are in fact copy right infringements. Even more organizations like the Sound Exchange or acts like the Canadian media levy where a agencies is granted rights to collect monies for artists but in turn do not turn it over to the artists is unethical. If my unsigned band allows Digital imports to distribute our works via streaming radio the SoundExchange has no rights to charge any fee for this.
We protest these not the right to steal music, but the ethics and actions of the various agencies representing DISTRIBUTORS. As the members of the RIAA are not artists themselves but the distributing agent (Sony, EMI, Virgin etc..).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Slimy reason: The software copyright thefts Slashdoters attack are done by larger corporations (i.e. "the bad guys"). The Music copyright thefts are done by individuals.
Honorable reason: Creators of Software art tend to actually get reasonable contracts. They are designed to pay a fair percentage, based on the value of their work. As a result there is a clear bellcurve effect with a a huge number of people making a living wage, and a small number of hobbyists making almost nothing, along witha small number of superstars making way too much.
But creators of Musical/video art are NOT given reasonable contracts. Instead they get sucked into a system designed to leach off their genius, and only pay them a fair price if they become a HUGE mass market success. This means that musicians, actors, etc. either "make it" and earn millions, or "fail" and can not earn a living doing what they love.
In other words, when you steal software, you are actually affecting the artists yearly pay by a measureable amount.
When you steal music/video, you are NOT affecting his yearly pay by a measureable amount (he/she is either way over payed or way underpaid), instead you are affecting the giant LEACH on him sucking out most of his pay that is also stifling the non-star talent, preventing them from earning a reasonable middle class salary making music and other art.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Ultimately I agree with you... I've been purchasing music legally for a number of years in CD, downloads and vinyl form for the harder to find things, and additionally, I subscribe to Rhapsody for the more mainstream music. There is no real reason to download music illegally. That said, the issue is more to do with the quality of music. Its still quite common to have cd's with one good track and the rest of them being complete garbage. If thats the case, you are asking people to essentially buy the one song they want on cd for $15... now thats severely inflated. Considering, particularly, that i haven't heard anything on the radio that has compelled me to buy a cd in years. Ultimately, I think the market should dictate the price of goods. Supply and demand and all that jazz. Except that there is no shortage of supply in the digital age, and therefore there is no material value. If a cd is good, I'll buy it. Plain and simple. If its not, then I won't. But to me what the market seems to be saying is two things. 1) The music we are downloading has no real value and it isn't worth paying for.... but there is still some demand, so we'll just steal it. The real solution would be to give people a compelling reason to pay. 2) We want lots of music, and different music, from different albums.... if you added up the number of albums you'd have to buy it would be several hundred dollars. That is outside of the impulse buy range now. The music industry needs to collapse on itself (including clear channel and mtv) and then perhaps we can get a fresh start and some new talent
Wow, your comments show a huge lack of understanding of this issue. Just to clarify, the issue here is not copyright violations, it is about how the RIAA has been conducting itself for years now. This class action has nothing to do with cheering on copyright violation, it's about putting an end to the RIAA's illegal and borderline illegal abuse of the American courts. Copyright abuse is a two-way street and by all accounts the RIAA has acted as improperly as any copyright violator.
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts. If the RIAA were not taking this overreaching severe action then file sharing sites would be as rampant as the the days of the original Napster. I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working. I don't know anyone who shares files at this point. 5 years ago it was a different story.
- If people decide to just stop buying the good, than the market completely collapses. No demand and no buyers means that all of the providers go out of business.
- However, if people decide that they need the good, then a second market will appear, providing lower prices and filling demand. The first market's providers get choked out from the undercuts, and die unless they stop fixing prices.
So, what we have in this case is a second market. It is a black market, a market that is not legally sanctioned. The cost of goods on this market is effectively zero, making it a free good. The RIAA can't possibly undercut or fairly compete with a free good like pirated music, so instead they resort to these lawsuits to try and scare people away from the black market. Does it work? Not really.So, what should the RIAA do? They should stop fixing prices and let the market sort itself out. There are two types of participants in the black market: People who want the good, but don't want to pay for it; and people who would pay for the good if it were a bit less expensive. The former will never leave the black market, but the RIAA could court the latter if they would only stop fixing their goddamn prices.
That's the economics of it, anyway.
~ C.
OK Troll, I'll bite.
In fact, I say that the rights of developers working under the GPL should be totally ignored as long as we're going to cheer on people who are getting sued for downloading music they didn't buy.
Music downloaders == GPL software users (can not breach the GPL).
Bootleggers == GPL violators (Getting money for other's work).
In my country, you get a 200 USD fine for the first one, and a year in prison for the second one.
Eknagy
p.s.: Yes, there are some people who would like us to beleive that "torrent" means "distribution". You don't have anything, then you download it, and by downloading it, you distribute it (although you did not have it in the beginning). Riiight.
The Bush admin is considering a $15 tax on orgasms. Why is it too much to ask if you enjoyed the experience, you pay the money?
The reason why I support the abolishment of copyright, support and actively participate in filesharing, but I am against gpl violations is because I couldn't give a fuck about copyrights, all I care about is having an open information age, with the most freedoms guaranteed for creativity and for doing what drives our society forward: incremental progress.
Therefor, violating copyright when it restricts freedom == GOOD.
violating copyright when it is a tool to forbid restriction of freedoms == BAD.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
As stated before: consumers could stop RIAA law suits fairly quickly and forever by declaring by the millions that they have downloaded music and requesting legal action against themselves.
If the numbers were big enough, literally millions, preferably concentrated in a local area (let's say New York City or New York State), where the court system would suddenly face prosecuting millions of people, sending them to jail (since all consumers would refuse to pay fine, they would insist on going to jail) - suddenly the whole issue would get into a real context.
It would reveal that that an entire city of state could be crippled by removing considerable portion of the work force, it would help to start up nation or even world-wide recession. It would be calculated of course that how much would it cost taxpayers to prosecute and keep in jail millions of people for illegally downloading music.
At the end of the day, politicians, lawmakers and society would have to come to the conclusion that the interests of RIAA is behind the interest of the cities, states, and taxpayers and it is simply impossible to enforce the law.
The idea is not new and fully tested: Ghandi and the people of India did it very successfully.
The British had to realize in India, that they couldn't put and keep in jail an entire country for violation of laws.
So... who wants to start up organizing the world-wide civil disobedience movement to put some salt into the gears of RIAA?
you'll understand this issue when you realize that music is not an "Entertainment Option" it's a "Cultural/Spiritual Nescessity" and that most folks around here that want to stick it to the man aren't actually sooo desperate to get their hands on the latest crap; they are merely (merely?! maybe very!!) excited that, unexpectedly, joyously, there is now a way that future generations of americans (think of the children!) have a way to enjoy their cultural norms without fat business fucks acting like they are the priesthood of a new information age chapel.
In other words, most people are far more excited to see the monopoly/monoculture fall then we ever were with what is actually being shared/downloaded. We came *this* close to being sucker punched for *generations* by DRM. And it still might happen if you don't do your part.
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Better than that, why do you feel obligated to rescue artists from a situation they chose to put themselves in? How many of these artists do you see pleading with you to pirate their work?
Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?
Is it too much to ask that if you pay $50+ for a concert ticket that you get a free CD (free music)?
It is my thoughts that music is a service, not a product, and that artists should be payed to perform these services, not to create false products.
Read my Very Short "Stories"
RIAA?
Huh ?
riaa sells extravagantly priced products, with 50 cents cost per piece but $15 price per piece.
then giving out say, $5 every 2-3 days to a robber wouldnt hurt any people with $200 disposable income either. this way the money would get in circulation, physical assault during robbery cases would go down, and it would be a safer place. small price to pay for less violent crime dont you think ? it can even be made official and 'robbing' might be taken out of the scene altogether. just 'donate' $5 every 2 days to someone a local street commitee would decide. huh ? dont like it ?
robbery and what riaa does have little difference. thats why people are NOT paying, despite they can very well afford.
Read radical news here
Funny thing is, back in the day's of the original Napster, I purchased a lot more music. Someone could tell me about a group, and instead of saying "they might be good, but it's not worth $15 to find out," I could check them out before buying.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys" P. J. O'Rourke
How is running a p2p client and looking at who is making songs available immoral or illegal? They aren't doing anything different then the people committing copyright infringement.
You can purchase a copy of many Linux distributions in a store. You can purchase purchase a music cd there as well. You can also freely download a Linux distribution or you make a copy for a friend. Fair use laws says you can do same with a music recording or a recorded movie.
Using RIAA perspective and math, how much revenue is a given Linux distribution company losing over this due to distribution of unpurchased software? How much are the actual creators of the software losing?
At one time music stores provided a listening area for sampling recordings they sold, they also sometimes had a recording area where you could make your own record. They sold a lot of singles in those days, why buy an album when you only want one song from it? I wonder if music stores included these sampling areas these days and had a set up to "create your own cd with your choice of music" how many could they sell @ $1 or so per song? Maybe they could even create cds such as "The Most Popularly Downloaded Songs of 'artist x'" or "The Most Popularly Downloaded Songs of 'genre y'". With each sell a portion of it going to the artist and songwriter. This would be similar to creating your own GNU/Linux distro, except of course that the "artists" who created the code seldom get any money for each incorporation of their "art", but then they are quite happy with that and I suspect that huge numbers of recording artists are quite happy if people get a free copy of their music at some point and it inspires them to buy some more and/or show up at their concerts.
This is just Collateral damage. It sucks, but in the real world people only respond to severe efforts.
So, in other words, the ends justify the means?
I disagree. One of the central principles behind our system of justice is that the defendant is "innocent until proven guilty". The burden is on the RIAA to collect sufficient evidence in a legal fashion to show that I was sharing copyrighted material. It is not my responsibility to show that my computer is free of unauthorized content.
I don't agree with or like their methods, but they are working.
If their methods are working so well, then why has file sharing traffic, as a proportion of total internet traffic gone up consistently since the shutdown of the original Napster?
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
me too, but the sad fact is that honor systems never work. The vast majority of people got everything they could possible download and gave away copies to anyone who wanted it.
I even saw a guy post on a previous article that it was alright to copy (and listen to) an album because he would never buy it, so the artist/company didn't lose any money on it. The fact is that if buying were the only option, he might well have bought it. He has no way of knowing if he would have bought it, because he can rationalize to himself that it is ok to get a free copy.
Two conditions.
1. All available money has been funneled into *IAA to cover 'lost sales' of shit we were never gonna buy, but were sued into paying for anyways.
2. There are no places on Earth where *IAA whims do not hold force of law.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I don't think the ends justify the means and I think they should be stopped. I am just saying that from my experience what they are doing is working.
I find it hard to believe that file sharing has increased. At least average Joe is no longer sharing his entire catalog like many people were a few years ago. I don't know how the traffic is measured our where to get any good stats. I am just going on the habits of the people I know that are average consumers.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Applying GPL copyright to software is NOT making it public domain.
>Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?
Because humans dont think that casual stealing is very wrong. Thats why we put very weak locks on all our stuff. The locks in my car, home, etc will absolutely not stop a determined person, but it stops all the 'social stealing.' Thats human nature. Everything else is rationalizations for theft.
Why is it too much to ask that if you like the CD, you pay the money?
0 02UAX
It's simple. I'm out of money. Instead of $15 for a 40 minute CD, I bought 4 120 minute DVDs for $20 at Blockbuster.
It is a matter of value. I don't have tons of money to buy both the value products and the expensive low value products. DRM on many CDs has lowered their value even further. If you can't put it on your MP3 player, it's useless. If you find this out ofter the sale, opened items are not returnable. I learned early on to not buy a pig in a poke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke
Many Jewel cases on retail shelves don't contain a real Phillips standard CD and are not clearly labeled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defective_by_Design
For a prime example of overpricing the easy to duplicate back catalog music is still at high prices as though they are still paying for production costs which were paid for long ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Beatles-White-Album/dp/B000
The outrageous price is simply from created shortage, not by any costs of production.
Instead of buying this overpriced item, I can buy 4 movies that took orders of magnitude more to produce.
Care to do a cost of production comparison for the Beatles White Album and the movies Monsters Inc, Cars, Toy Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Finding Nemo, and other large cast or high tech creations.
When comparing value, the White Album costs more and has a much less talent and production complexity. At the current value/price points, I'm simply buying movies instead of albums. They don't have the value.
The truth shall set you free!
I don't understand it either, but it's not relevant to the RIAA or this article. (Did you RTFA?) The RIAA is suing people who aren't sharing. Copyright infringement is not the topic at hand. Thuggery and abuse of the court system, abuse that is costing innocent people shitloads of money, is.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
But they only get an IP address from that client. From there they resort to other means to make that IP mean something. And not always does this lead to the correct person anway.
I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
Well, here's a very simple argument pro-file sharing. It creates wealth.
With modern technology copying and distribution are essentially free, and the cost of piracy is a nebulous 'lost sales' figure. Obviously there is some number of lost sales when things are pirated. Equally obvious, not every pirated copy is a lost sale. Everyone who pirates benefits, either by not paying or by getting something they otherwise wouldn't. If the piracy benefit is greater than the piracy cost, it's a net benefit to society. I'd argue that there are many, many times more pirated copies than lost sales and thus wealth is being created out of thin air.
Person A spends $100, gets a few games/cds/books
Person B spends $100, gets hundreds of games/cds/books
Anti file sharing arguments tend to assert that person B is destroying wealth by pirating when in fact he is creating wealth. Contrary to anti piracy arguments, he would not have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the absence of piracy, he would have consumed a greatly lesser amount of media at no benefit to anyone. Even if you argue he may have spent $200 in the absence of piracy, this comes at the cost of 95% of his media consumption.
Sharing information creates wealth, it always has, and with modern technology media is just information. The artificial concept of IP needs to be reinvented in light of the modern world - there's just no way to monetize things with are freely reproducible and that's a great thing because it creates wealth.
At least average Joe is no longer sharing his entire catalog like many people were a few years ago.
Joe User is not sharing his entire music collection on Kazaa anymore, but that does not mean that he is not uploading. As more file-sharing goes to bittorrent-like systems, Joe User will be sharing what he is currently downloading. It makes little difference in the eyes of the RIAA, if one is uploading pieces of the file that one has a full download of, or if one is uploading pieces from a partial download.
I find it hard to believe that file sharing has increased.
You don't need to believe anything. Bittorrent is already 35% of all internet traffic, and its share is climbing. While Bittorrent has legitimate uses (World of Warcraft patches, Linux distributions, etc.) a lot of bittorrent traffic is in copyrighted material.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
You would honestly equate a company stealing a programmers work to make a profit and grandma letting her grandkids use her computer and then getting the shit sued out of her when they download music?
1. Company KNOWS it is illegal and is intentionally violating the law. Frequently does any number of actions to hide the fact they are stealing code, which further acknowledges that they are breaking the law. When legal issues do come out of this it usually boils down to "you hafta give the code away!"
2. Dumb kid with kazaa more often than not doesn't even know the files are being shared, he went to a website that said "download music!" and assumed it was legal. When legal action comes here its you must pay us thousands of dollars for tens of dollars in "stolen" music and thousands more in legal fees.
Sure there are asshats that just assume they won't get caught, but look at who they are sueing and what they are doing. This is not even REMOTELY the same thing. If you notice most people don't cheer on the downloaders, in fact, most that I have seen agree they should be busted and fined A FAIR AMMOUNT. The RIAA nonsense is not about fairness, it is not about justice, it is about fear, intimidation, price fixing, racketeering, AND THEFT. Because we can go all day back and forth about the "theft" of IP, but I will tell you point fucking blank that when that organization collects royalties on music that they don't own the copyright for...THAT IS THEFT.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
DRM would be even more prevalent and probably more effective, it would be seen as the only way to make money from any idea (software, artistic work etc..), Oh and that GPL material that had been closed sourced? that would be sat under layers of DRM too. Arguing for the total abolition of copyright is not a good and positive thing, not unless you could provide some other legislative or social mechanism to address the damage done.
The problem with current copyright legislation is the length of copyright and the terms associated with it - see one of my previous posts for more,
"Do I get sued for giving a friend of mine a copy of a CD that he was never going to buy, anyway"
What a stupid argument. How do you know if he was going to buy it? Once you give him a copy it is impossible to know if he would ever have bought it.
At points they undercut their markets like the Mafia - break legs, etc. - and then moved more towards monetary. They've always corned out people they didn't want, and promoted those they did. Didn't like their game? Ok - but you won't get a record out, and you won't make any money. Don't like their prices? Ok - but we're not changing them.
The only difference is that the Internet has allowed the black-market of music[1] that has always been there to thrive large enough to actually start affecting them and force them into this position. They don't like it (of course), but there isn't anything they can do to stop it. Providers will just move to where the RIAA can't touch them, and then they'll have to go after their own customers - eventually undercutting themselves so badly they'll put themselves out of business.
The SCO Group has already shown us what happens when you sue your own customers. RIAA started the practice, but SCO shows the outcome. It's just a matter of time before the RIAA follows suit - either because they did it to themselves or a court orders their breakup, due to their monopolistic & anti-trust behaviors.
[1]Though to note, this "black-market of music" also has quite a big foundation in fair-use. Some parts of it are truly black-market, others aren't. For example - it's easier to get a high-quality MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc of an track to a CD I already own using such a black-market; I could just generate the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc myself since I have the media (e.g CD, etc.) and equipment necessary, but either don't want to take the time, or find that someone else can do the same thing a little better. At the same time, I'm not necessarily going to pay for it. (Sure, I'll buy it if I don't already own in; but if I do already own it, then I'm not going to pay again. Anyone basing their business on such a model needs to re-evaluate their business because it is a very short term model that will eventually lead to high customer attrition rates.) Incidentally, as long as I don't use the MP3/AAC/MP4/OGG/etc and the CD at the same time, I am completely within my Fair Use rights.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
[...] from my experience [...] I find it hard to believe [...] I don't know how the traffic is measured our where to get any good stats [...] I am just going on the habits of the people I know
You just admitted repeatedly that your entire argument that the RIAA lawsuits are reducing copyright infringement from filesharing is based wholly on nothing more than observation of a few friends' actions. Do any of your friends sky dive? No? Then I guess no one else must either.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Back in the days of napster I totally quit paying for any music. Have not done so since. It sounds a lot sweeter when it's free.
In this day an age, though, I don't purchase OR download it. I don't download it because it's illegal and since it's just music I'd rather not take the chance on getting in trouble over it. When it was easy and I didn't stand to get caught of course I did it.
My "stand" is that I just live without it and don't purchase. it's not like air, water, food, or anything else important that I have to have to live.
The case at hand, Andersen v. Atlantic, is about an innocent person who the RIAA attempted to extort through an illegal investigation, negligent legal practices, etc. There's no claim that sharing of copyright files is OK. It's about the illegal practices of the RIAA in how they pursue these lawsuits.
There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
The black market actually offers a superior product right now, ignoring price.
I could probably think of a few more, but the DRM is a big one. Basically, I might buy or rent DVDs, but I pirate HD stuff, because there's nothing to rent that has the DRM sufficiently cracked.
I also think that surely Hollywood and the RIAA have enough money to provide an even better experience than pirated stuff, but so far, they refuse to do it. Instead, they'd rather sue people.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Well, for one thing, the $15 CD cost $.50 to physically produce and $2 are "reasonable" profits.
The purpose of copyright is to encourage artists to produce work which will fall into public domain. Not to "make artists (and everyone associated with them) richer than the queen of england for a few years work.
Let me put it this way..
The minimum wage person has about $50 "free" money. Is it fairer to have a system where that money goes to make one or two artists (and their distributers) rich or to make 100 artists a decent annual living for one year? With a market of 3 billion people, songs could be sold for 1 cent profit for each person fairly involved and those people would still be incredibly wealthy. Selling the songs (especially 30 year old songs) for $1 each is absurd.
---
Secondly, you are conflating pro-GPL people with anti-copyright people. There is probably overlap but they are not the same people. Some GPL folks hate copyright. Some GPL folks love copyright. Some GPL folks religiously buy every thing. Some anti-GPL folks secretly p2p and infringe constantly. I watched people recently who are strongly anti-pirating, pro-copyright, none the less accept an offer for a DVD of songs (corrupted by the dark side!) and then still be pro-copyright later the same weekend (illogical- yes).
---
Many of us would say some IP rights are entirely reasonable. Hell, I think a band should be able to make $500k to $1 million off of a huge monster hit as well as the company backing them. I don't agree with the Disney eternal copyright, the travesty of the happy birthday song, or the rumors of attempts to change copyright to extend the copyrights on beatles songs (after two of the guys are dead and buried and will not benefit).
I especially despise the two bands that sued people for 'stealing their melodies' when I would bet dollars to donuts you could find very similar note sequences in old songs in the public domain.
Copyright today is about raw greed.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Do i still have to pay if i didn't enjoy it?
...and it should be known by now
fwiw. (
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I'm curious, would this not open that lawyer up to a contempt of court or perjury charge for lying to the judge?
Walk with Music;
The RIAA's investigators and attorneys ought to be doing jail time over this one.
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
They would fail because all the code that is currently GPL would be taken up by companies, modified, improved (or just re-branded) and redistributed, in closed source form.
And all the code that is closed source would be leaked, modified, and redistributed in 'free form', and be nearly impossible to sell because everyone wanted a copy would just make one. DRM and encryption would be toothless deterrents, because it would be hacked put up on a torrent, and there is nothing anyone could do about it.
But, I agree with you. The problem isn't that copyright exists. The problem is that:
1) the length is too long. 20 years is plenty long enough.
2) All proprietary/protected/withheld source code should be placed in trust that it is automatically released when the term expires.
3) Fair use rights need to be properly enumerated and protected instead of being the existing 'well we the rich megacorp can sue you for the smallest perceived breach, and then you have to convince a court it was actually fair use - so even if we lose we still fucked you over!'.
4) And penalties need to be updated to reflect the reality that a mandatory 750$ fine per work violated is absurd when applied to a 10 year old with an 30GB ipod with 10,000 infringing songs. At worst, he should be fined a few thousand, and probably considerably less for a first offense... not the current legal minimum of $750,000. (10,000 songs x $750 per song)
Please post your bank account details, passwords etc so that you may share.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
In many places you can already reverse engineer software and re-implement what you wish, (patents being the only issue, but many places that allow reverse engineering do not have software patents). The problem is that reverse engineering is hard, this would in effect lock out the little guy who just wants to modify something, or port something from one OS revision to another.
As for DRM, no its not likely to become perfect, but once again you end up with the hassle of having to break it.
Your last paragraph is pretty much what I think, basically copyright is useful if it is implemented in a sensible manner, that means no excessive terms and overreaching terms. I'm not sure about a requirement to file (unless filing is free, in which case it is a brilliant idea).
I replied to your sibling poster in a similar them so this is redundant but hey.
Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.
Your other points are essentially sound and are similar to what I would advocate, although I think 20 years is too long a copyright in certain areas (like software) because society has become much better at production and dissemination, software doesn't hold its value for 20 years (5 or 6 maybe) and therefore doesn't need protection.
Generally I don't have anything against copyright laws, but if there has to be a decision between copyright and civil rights...bye bye copyright.
Ever heard of the fallacy of the broken window
Cracking DRM, and having to wade through reverse engineered code (when have you seen source code leaked for a major application (Windows source code rumours excepted as I haven't actually seen any of it)) is a hassle, abolishing copyright would be a disaster for the open source community, maybe not from a continuation perspective, but certainly in terms of future expansion.
By leaked, I meant the application leaked to torrent sites already hacked (not leaked). My editing was not so good there.
Corporations would not be able to pull code out of the public domain that had already been released. However, yeah they'd be able to violate the GPL in that they could modify and release their own versions.
To you comment about reverse engineering and whatnot, I think that activity would become a lot more mainstream if disassembly were legal. I mean, you dissassemble Java, C, or C# and you get uncommented assembler, java byte codes,
ESPECIALLY because in a world like that the tools to do it would be far more sophisticated than they are now because the stuff people would be doing with them would be entirely legal - driving demand up. Right now all these tools are a bit of a grey area - we can't publish dissaembled application source anyway so tools to dissaemble, distribute, and collaboratively re-comment would be of limited legal use. Generally in the current world if you have permission to dissaessmble and publish you already have the source anyway.
--
As for the 20 year term; I was thinking broader than just software. 5 or 6 is unreasonably short for a Book or Movie in my opinion.
And even software is a grey area. A six year term would mean office 2000 is public domain. Granted Office XP and Office 2003 have largely taken its place today, and microsoft certainly doesn't sell Office 2000 anymore -- but would they be able to sell Office 2003 if 2000 was public domain? Not to mention Windows 2000 Pro, Windows 2000 Server. SQL Server 2000, etc...
Same goes for software from Oracle, or SAP, or Adobe -- if we had a situation where the versions that were available in 2000 were in the public domain now -- well that would be one hell of a shakeup. And I'm not convicned its justifiable.
With regard to the term, its quite interesting that you think 5 or 6 years is unreasonable for a book or a Movie. 100 years ago I would have agreed with you, but in this wonderfully modern world communication is so rapid that the exploitation of any work of art seems to happen fairly quickly (assuming copyright starts at the point of publishing rather than at the end of production). Hit films, books and music will make their outlay back in a short time and leave the owner a tidy profit over a period of a few years, so I see no reason to continue to protect their monopoly after a period of say 5-10 years (I almost agree that 5 is probably too short for that kind of work), Crap films books and music may not make their outlay back at all, well that's the case now, copyright doesn't help. The in between segment are the most important and it is that segment that should be used to determine a reasonable time frame. For the arts it is more difficult to determine a time frame because it is not easy to see at what point the work is still relevant culturally and the owner has had sufficient time to exploit it is.
For software I'd stick to 5 years, sure Office 200 is still out there and older than the period I am suggesting, the question would be has MS had enough time to recoup their outlay? probably yes. So Would it benefit society if it was not under copyright? Yes, it would force Microsoft to try an produce something so much better that it is worth paying for (boosting innovation) and also ensure that the cultural benefits of Office2k (whatever they may be) are available to everyone.
(OK I may have over stepped the mark with the cultural benefits bits)
Contempt? Yes.
Rule 11 sanctions? Yes.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
All of this news about the RIAA... I've read it all, comments included (on, you got me, I never RTFA, I'm not that new here). I'm surprised this hasn't been said yet:
Rape you
In the
Ass
Association
Still karma to spare. I'll regret all of this, someday.
Kind of reminds me of how I signed a going-away card for a coworker who said "fuck" a lot:
First, he came
Unto us as a
Child. He leaves us as a
King.
He framed the card, after highlighting the first letter of each of my four lines.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
but in this wonderfully modern world communication is so rapid that the exploitation of any work of art seems to happen fairly quickly (assuming copyright starts at the point of publishing rather than at the end of production).
5 years is enough to get past the hey-its-new-hype but consider what it will do to derivative product:
Sure, maybe the nutjob writing Harry Potter books will get paid for the rights to the movie, but most of the time they'll just get the shaft as the studio will wait out the 5 years to release the movie. (Given that it takes a year plus to make a movie, and a year before the book is an established best seller (given that most books aren't book 7 in a best selling series...) they can start production in year two or three, get the hype for the movie going while the book is still in its heyday, and then pop out the movie the moment the book goes public domain.
Maybe even 2 or three studios will have a go at it; a couple them releasing decidedly low quality releases. Hell, even the Porn industry can release a version, without having to keep it below the radar by changing the names and story and using parody. And since The Fellowship of the Ring would already be public domain the porn version of that could cut and mix in scenes from the actual movie.
Similarly the movie version of Doom, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc would have to pay nothing, and again we'd be inundated with low quality knockoffs looking to leech off the brand.
Mucisions would have to put up with their song being the new jingle for everything from Tampax to the theme song for the Republican Presidential candidate. I don't know what artists you care about, but anything from 2001 backwards is fair game.
The simpson's, futurama, family guy, calvin and hobbes - all of it would be public domain. Any jackass who wanted to make episodes, t-shirts, movies, porn, using their images could do so.
And as for software; i think the real effect would be to shift them all to SAAS models immediately. You don't buy software. You subsbribe to it where it runs on their server; and you just pay access to their server. That's already where they want to go. This would just make sure it happened.
I agree with you in principle that 20 years of copyright on software doesn't reflect the reality that the hardware will be utterly obsolete by then, and thus the software may well be useless to the public by the time it becomes available. But a 5 year term isn't going to motivate innovation; its going to motivate them to not publish their software, and instead publish access to it.
"Yes, and before you give him the copy, it's also impossible to know if he would ever have bought it."
:) I fix computers, networks, etc., for people, and I get paid fairly well to do so.
:)
:)
:)
Sure, but the point is moot afterward.
"The numbers they quote are based on the assumption that every single download corresponds to a lost sale"
But, they are correct: Every single illegal download corresponds directly to lost revenue for the copyright holder, whoever that may be - whether or not the person that did so *would* have purchased it beforehand doesn't matter any longer, since they now have the benefit of it after having done so without having paid the copyright holder for it, thus depriving the copyright holder of the remuneration to which they are entitled.
The fact that the person might never have bought it anyway doesn't enter into it at all, so far as I can see, not after the fact.
Now, lest I get modbombed into the nether regions for having said all of the previous, let me state my personal stance on this:
I don't believe in copyright infringement for my own personal gain/entertainment: If I want something, I buy it under the terms offered. If I can't afford it, then I wait until I can, or, if I don't think that it is worth it, I give up on it, and look elsewhere for something else - there's no shortage of "stuff" by which to be entertained, after all.
Now, *why* I do this: I'm a competent computer technician, more or less
However, I have next to *no* artistic talent, in general. I enjoy music, movies, books, etc., and appreciate and admire the skill, knowledge, talent, intelligence and effort that must go into their creation, all the more because I cannot do so myself.
If I were to obtain that illegally, I'd be cheating those that can, and I equate it to someone refusing to pay me for a service call on their computer, after I fixed it, when they themselves could not do so: It's unfair, and wrong.
But, that's just me
The 'net has made many things possible which were not before. With regards to copyrighted works, it has created much conflict, and that conflict is all about money, as most things are when dealing with things of value, because money is the way (for better or worse), that such is measured.
I'd say that it will all work out in time, and it *will*, only I understand something that hampers that, being someone that "grew up" (as much as I ever did so) with the growth of the Internet, and the technology that it encompasses: Time is different on the Internet. Internet time is fast-paced, almost frenetic, while "real life" passes at almost glacial speeds by comparison, especially to those that have grown up with access to it, and are used to its pace.
Those that are not, for whatever reason, resist it: It's a natural reaction, I think, though it frustrates and angers those that don't understand it.
I was going to go on and finish this, tie up the loose ends, etc., but, I don't have the time *grin* - I want to go, play my favorite MMORPG for awhile, as *my* time is what matters most to me, always, both here and in the real world
Maybe later
Regards,
dj
The real question would be has illegal file sharing traffic gone up consistently since then, although you're probably still exactly correct. I sure do not have any sources to cite though that differentiate between illegal and legal file sharing.
Ice Cream has no bones.
Nothing wrong with most of that as far as I am concerned. The creator has a period to exploit the work and then it is available for anyone to work with. A film about a book is a derivative work anyway unless you are copying everything word for word, and derivative works, extensions and improvements should be encouraged. I am not quite sure that I need to modify my point to include using a book as the basis for a porn film as that is just another way to exploit a work.
I am not saying that works would be leached as they came out of copyright, but what I would say is that there would at least be a hell of a lot of choice, plus scope to take a work that is still fairly relevant in a direction other than that intended by the original creator. That is a benefit in my book.
I don't think you can "break up" the RIAA ... they're just the front organization (industry trade group, or some such) for a cartel (and a largely foreign-owned one at that), and the whole point of a cartel is to avoid attracting antitrust lightning. Even if the RIAA disappeared tomorrow, the price-fixing bastards that run the major studios would still be playing golf.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
These days a $15 CD is also 3 hours work for the artist, they just sing some songs and then the rest is reworked digitally, but for pete's sakes, let's say the CD costs 3 weeks of full-time (40h/week) work to create. That is 120 hours of work, in my eyes, I can do a lot of things in 3 weeks. Say you need the artists (avg band of 3 persons), 2 sound technicians (which is a lot), 1 editor and 2 aux. people that do something: that is 8 people x 120 x $55 (my current rate as a consultant which is rather high, divided among the artist (higher) and the technicians (lower)) = $52800 + rent the studio etc, let's say that's about $1000/week + other stuff that needs to be done like marketing, printing and packaging = $100,000/cd (and that is a high budget since I HAVE been involved in creating music CD's professionally).
Let's say that there are about 1,000 CD's that are brought out each year (and I don't think that amount is excreted in music stores) for the audience (students and young adults) your quote = $100,000,000 (that is $100M or $0,1B), let's even up the ante and say it's 10x that amount ($1B) for creating more marketing and pressing more CD's (yes, that is $1M/cd, a budget almost no artist has for complete sing -> sale) and as you say the expended money for that group is $200B, I think someone is lining their pockets...
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Or I can download it in less than 5 minutes and pay nothing more than I'm already paying. Which is the better option for me?
The song has no financial value to me. I download and listen to it because it costs me nothing extra than what I already pay. If I couldn't get access to the content with out paying I wouldn't bother. That's my perspective.
But what about the recording artist - how do they make a living? I don't really know (or care). If your working in an industry where the business model no longer works, then find another job or adapt your business model - that capitalism. Ok - this is me being a cold hearted bastard.
A better business model? Instead of 'recording artists' going to recording companies - why no sign up with an ISP. They've got a much cheaper and more effective distribution system in place - plus they have fixed, predictable, recurring revenue.
I can't afford it due to recent legal expenses. I'm being sued by the RIAA.
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Those Linux distributions and Warcraft patches are copyrighted material too. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm trying to point out that mischaracterizing what is happening clouds the issues. That's the same reason so many people rant about the misapplication of the words theft and steal.
A film about a book is a derivative work anyway unless you are copying everything word for word,
A film adaptation of a book is a derivative work, yes, and the author should benefit from its creation while the book is copyprotected. And that protection should last more than a couple years. (Which is all a 5 year term effectively does, as by year 4 the product is virtually unsellable anyway because everyone knows it will free in just a few more months.
and derivative works, extensions and improvements should be encouraged.
Of GPL software sure.
Given that say, the first harry potter novel was release in 97, a great deal of harry potter would now be public domain, and anyone could exploit the franchise by flooding the market with harry potter books, set in hogwarts or whatever. Because it was all Public domain. Is that really a 'good thing'? What is the benefit to anyone from that? The series is half finished in 2002; the original author is still writing sequels, and suddenly its public domain?
Further, the FIRST harry potter movie, was released in November 2001. (that would be the 5th year after initial publication. In your world, they would have pushed the movie r
elease back a few more months and not paid Rowling a dime.)
Not to mention the crapflood of other Harry potter movies that would have been released simultaneously by any other studio who wanted in on the hype.
Personally; it doesn't really bother me that Disney wants to hang onto Mickey Mouse forever, or that CocaCola doesn't want generic cola to taste exactly like 'the real thing'. I dont' have a problem with that.
It does bother me that in order to do it they have locked EVERYTHING up for 100 years and are seeking to lock it up longer. What I'd like to see is renewable copyright on specific works; so if something like Mickey mouse is that valuable the copyright holder can hang onto it and pay hefty annual fees (where proceeds go to fund the arts). But if they don't pay the fee it becomes public domain and that's the end of it. Hell, I'd agree to just giving them the first 5 years free, and making them pay after that. Then most stuff which isn't worth anything to the copyright holder after 5 years can slide into the public domain very quickly; while stuff that the rights holder doesn't want to release can be extended.
I'd anticipate that a lot of stuff, like software would slide into the public domain after the 5 years, as would most one-hit-wonder music and small artists, movies and so forth. Rights holders that go bankrupt or die will automatically roll into the public domain as they won't renew. And the fees would be hefty enough to keep most stuff from being held much beyond its commercial viability. Make them slide; so they gradually go up the longer you hang onto stuff; or for the more stuff you hang onto.
Let the Coca-Cola's and the Disney's hang onto their flagship products until they tire of them, while getting most stuff into the public domain as fast as possible.
-cheers.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Your main point is the potential loss of revenue for the author, whilst I understand that wouldn't you agree (regardless of a copyright length of term) that the ability for society to make use of a work previously under copyright is an essential part of the copyright bargain? If you do agree do you not further agree that a work should leave copyright whilst it is still to some degree useful as a work from which further works can be derived, moreover shouldn't the work lose its copyright status whilst it is still relevant?
If you find that you do agree then surely you would also agree that any relevant work leaving copyright and then being improved upon or redistributed would be a work that would still have potential value to the original author. (For example the author could sell or license the work (if it were still under copyright) they would see financial gain but society would not get the benefit of a freely exploitable work.) A reduction in the term of copyright *would* take potential revenue from the author and allow any one else to exploit that work, but that would be a potential benefit to society as a whole and therefore forms the cost to the author for the benefit of any copyright protection in the first place.
Yes we can discuss the best length of copyright for any particular type of work, but the line must be drawn at a point where the author has had a chance to recoup their outlay and gain a benefit, and society would still gain from the works release. In short, for works like Star Wars, or Harry Potter, that time frame would be quite long, for works such as From Justin to Kelly or Showgirls the author would never benefit (they lost money) and the societal benefit would be immediate (if there could be aid to be one). We need a halfway point, after all it is not possible to assess the value of a work before it is published, and it is hardly fair to apply legislation ex post facto. Thereby Society benefits, (consumers get more choice, the arts should benefit as there is both an incentive to create original works and an incentive to improve upon existing work).
The more important element in my view would probably be some form of requirement to ensure that attribution to the original author is maintained so that they may benefit from any fame that is associated with later adaptations or derivatives of their work, fot that I would look to enact legislation similar to current law concerning "passing off"
wouldn't you agree that the ability for society to make use of a work previously under copyright is an essential part of the copyright bargain?
yes.
If you do agree do you not further agree that a work should leave copyright whilst it is still to some degree useful as a work from which further works can be derived, moreover shouldn't the work lose its copyright status whilst it is still relevant?
on the former yes (but I think even a 100 year term satisfies that for most works). on the latter 'relevancy' is undefined. If by 'relevant' you mean it should become public domain while a lot of people would be willing to pay for it -- that seems perverse.
If you find that you do agree then surely you would also agree that any relevant work leaving copyright and then being improved upon or redistributed would be a work that would still have potential value to the original author.
A potential value? yes.
A likely value? no.
A potential negative value? yes.
A likely negative value? yes.
If my 5 year old painting/song/work shows up in a commercial supporting a product or cause I oppose, or presented in a manner I find undignified such as printed on toilet paper or as a jingle for fried chicken - I don't see that having value to me; quite the opposite.
(For example the author could sell or license the work (if it were still under copyright) they would see financial gain but society would not get the benefit of a freely exploitable work.) A reduction in the term of copyright *would* take potential revenue from the author and allow any one else to exploit that work, but that would be a potential benefit to society as a whole and therefore forms the cost to the author for the benefit of any copyright protection in the first place.
One of my main issues is that a too-short term makes it too tempting/easy to dodge the "copyright bargain". The idea that I may profit from a short monopoly of control is undermined if the time is short enough that society will choose to simply wait me out. The movie industry will drag out releasing their movie adaptations for 5 years to dodge paying for rights.
Or they will approach the author in year 3 and say we'll give you a pittance for the rights, and you better take it, because if you don't we'll just release after it becomes public domain and you'll get nothing. Knowing that its going to be PD that quickly seriously weakens the negotiating position of the author.
They are effectively holding a rotting fruit; if its not an instant success they've got to dump it for whatever they can get for it, before its worthless.
We need a halfway point, after all it is not possible to assess the value of a work before it is published, and it is hardly fair to apply legislation ex post facto.
I suggested a solution to that. Short copyright, but extendable by the author, per work, for a price.
Thereby Society benefits, (consumers get more choice, the arts should benefit as there is both an incentive to create original works and an incentive to improve upon existing work).
You are an optimist. In my opinion, most 'improvements' to works of fiction, for example, are quite the opposite. In China for example there are tons of Harry Potter books written by third parties; most of them are beyond dismal. But the author has no control over the situation at all. I think an author should be allowed to restrict access longer. I don't think it is an overall benefit to society or the author to allow a crapflood of knockoffs into the market. The only ones who benefit from that are the lowest common denominators - the purveyers of the crap.
However I have a problem with: I suggested a solution to that. Short copyright, but extendable by the author, per work, for a price. Primarily as it leads to people without capital being left out, or worse having to sell all or part of their rights on order to get funding to secure their rights for a longer period.
Not sure how to address that though, maybe a single extension should be possible based upon some sort of criteria being met.
Anyway, thanks.
Primarily as it leads to people without capital being left out, or worse having to sell all or part of their rights on order to get funding to secure their rights for a longer period.
Well, the presumption was largely that people making money from their work wouldn't have to release it so quickly if they didn't want to. So the capital to protect the work is coming from selling/licensing the work itself.
I agree that leaves a gap where an author with an unprofitable work can't prevent it from becoming public domain... but really this was to give CocaCola and Disney a solution, while still having most property end up in the public domain quickly.
I'm not sure that unprofitable work needs to be protected from the public doman. If the author wasn't making any money from it, why would he really need/want to keep it?
That is actually an excellent idea. If what the RIAA is already doing doesn't qualify as prior art....