Slashdot Mirror
RIAA President Says Copyright Law "Isn't Working"
Kilrah_il writes "Apperantly not satisfied with the current scope of the DMCA, RIAA President Cary Sherman wants to broaden the scope of the law to have content providers such as YouTube and Rapidshare liable for illegal content found on their sites. 'The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries ... We're working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we'd like to extend that kind of relationship — not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers ... [But], if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.' Notice the update at the end of the article pointing out that Sherman is seeking for voluntary agreements with said partners and not to enact broader laws without their cooperation."
If somebody spray paints the text to a copyrighted poem on the side of a building, shouldn't the building owner be held responsible for copyright infringement?
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
It isn't working. Amendment __: Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Replace with "To enrich the sciences, arts, and culture of the People, by securing for fourteen years* to Authors and Inventors the temporary Privilege of monopoly to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself. But the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
"Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine...
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Jefferson
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Youtube et al are not responsible for uploads.
They can take down material you identify as infringing, identify infringing users to you under court order, and you can sue the users.
That's how civil law works. You don't punish people who aren't doing anything wrong.
And if it's too expensive for you to make money with your business model, you shut down your business and let life go on.
Copyright will work fine in those instances where it matters, and in those instances where it doesn't, well, you can't squeeze blood from a stone.
I'm sure they taught you that at B-school.
If you're willing to put forth the effort, there's a lot of really good indie music out there, it's just a bit of a challenge to find. Personally, it's been years since I bought anything from the RIAA since I find there behavior to be beyond disgusting. I'm sure they've chalked that small drop in sales up to pirates and are using it as justification to further erode my rights as we speak.
I'm just waiting for them to demand the right to break into people's houses and force them to buy the latest album by whomever it is they say is good.
The problem with your position is the assumption that nobody would pay for music if they could get it for free. That ignores decades of legally recording off the radio. It ignores the fact that you can legally read books for free and legally get copyable CDs for free; they're at the public library. It ignores the fact that Cory Doctorow is on the New York Times best seller list despite the fact (he says "because of" in his book Little Brother) that his books are on his website for free download.
Copyright is (or should be) for commercial publishing; my noncommercial use of media should not be against any law.
Creating quality content takes money
Hogwash, especially when it comes to music. It used to be true that it cost a fortune to record an album, but digital media has driven the price of creating most content down to almost zero. Any band that can afford instruments can affored to record these days.
The more people pirate, the less there are quality products, because there is no money to make them.
Again, you make the mistaken assumption that nobody will buy anything they can get for free. The fact is, "free" sells. The fact that you used to be able to get free matches at about any bar or restaraunt back when everybody smoked, yet they still sold tons of matches disproves your assumption. Bottled water disproves your assumption. Libraries disprove your assumption. You're parroting the RIAA line, which has no basis in fact whatever.
In fact, every study not funded by an RIAA label has demonstrated that music pirates spend more on music than non-pirates.
Free Martian Whores!
I know your comment was tongue-in-cheek, but if you've ever watched the documentary The Corporation, they do a very interesting comparison between incorporated business (as a legal "person") and the technical DSM-IV definition of psycopathy, with some disturbing results. I know it's not the most unbiased documentary ever, but it does at least raise some poignant questions about the mental health of these "people" we have created in the name of progress (and... ?? profit!!)
As someone with a degree in Music History, I can assure you you're wrong. "Works for hire" are actually fairly rare in the history of music. More often (at least for the past 300 years or so) musicians had a patron who supported them financially so that they could create their art. In this model, the composer isn't selling their work; they are driven to create, and a rich patron who appreciates that work has made it easier by supporting them. There is no modern equivalent in pop music.
In Bach's case, he was just a craftsman who was hired to practice his craft by the church (among others). But he vastly surpassed what he was actually remunerated for. Chopin also often wrote music without expectation of remuneration.
So it's a vast simplification to call music throughout history a "commercial endeavor". Historically, it's been an artistic endeavor that is occasionally profitable, or a craft no different than glass-blowing or shoe-fixing. A job, yes. But one with very little in common with today's "job." Certainly the idea of becoming wealthy for an hour's worth of music that's basically aping what everyone else is doing would never have occurred to any composer you can name.