No problem, we'll just switch to gloating about how you pay a surcharge on books and stuff for no good reason now!
OK, but what we get for that is, nobody can sue me for using P2P (for music, anyway... Sorta... But not if I upload... Definitely probably certainly...).
At least from the label's point of view. But it's not about stopping piracy, it's about control.
At some point, the record labels realized that it's easier to be profitable by controlling the distribution channels than it is to find sign, and nurture actual talented artists. Oh, and as a side benefit, that way, you can rip off your artists. If you're the only game in town, it doesn't matter if the game is crooked, people will have to sign with you.
This point is the elephant in the room when talking about music and copyright (which IMO is distinctly different from issues around the MPAA and piracy).
Ever notice that (as someone above articulated nicely) it seems like the music labels would prefer 500 million in sales and moderate piracy to 2 billion in sales and rampant piracy? Some might attribute this to incompetence or a lack of understanding of modern technology, but I don't think that's true.
Since they've built their model on control of the distribution channels, if they lose that, then they're not the only game in town anymore.
Up here in Canada, we're having a similar auction this year.
40% of the spectrum to be auctioned will be open to bidding only by new players into the wireless market.
I don't know why nobody could figure this out in the USA. If the (quite reasonable) goal is to open up competition, then set a block of the spectrum aside that none of the existing Telcos/ISPs can bid on.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/28/auction.html
There's going to be a similar one in Canada this year.
The difference is, 40% of the spectrum will be open to bidding only by new players in the market, i.e., Rogers/Bell/Telus et al will not be able to even _bid_ on that part of it.
Up here in Canuckistan, there's a similar action coming up, I think next year (but please correct me if somebody knows different).
Still an auction, but the way it's going to work is, there's going to be ~2/3 of the spectrum that will only be available to new players in the market. So Rogers/Bell/Telus et. al. (AT &T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile for American readers) won't even be able to _bid_ on that range of the spectrum.
Still not perfect, but at least it keeps the current ISPs/Cell phone providers from combining to out-bid everybody else out of the game.
this is already covered by fuel tax. The more you drive (likely predominately on major roads), the more fuel you use, thus the more tax you pay. Also, the heaver your vehicle, the more fuel you are likely to use, thus the more tax you pay.
Up here in Canada, there was a study done by statistics Canada that found that all motorists underpay the actual cost of operating a car (road construction maintenance, etc).
So I don't have much info on the economics of this in the US, but given your fuel taxes are lower, I'd guess that it's even more so south of the 49th parallel.
So, yeah, you pay fuel taxes, but they don't come close to covering the costs.
Of course, before you start asking people to give up their cars, a _real_ public transit system has to be in place first. You can't ask people to give up their car if it means a 30 minute trip takes 90 minutes.
It is egalitarian if everyone is surcharged equally based on traffic peak times.
So I guess by that standard if I make 300 grand a year and you make 50 grand per year, you and I paying the same amount of taxes is 'egalitarian'?
Look, as it is, motorists aren't paying anywhere near the actual cost of road construction and maintenance. Or, you can think of it as a subsidy on driving. In an age of concerns about peak oil and CO2 emissions, maybe we shouldn't be subsidizing driving?
So, yes, I'd love to take public transoprtation. Too bad there's no such thing, practically speaking, where I live.
The trend I've seen in most north american cities is that the people making decisions about public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.
We need to change the way transit authorities think (and are funded) on this sort of thing. Instead of thinking of transit as an alternative to cars, think of transit as a service that the government can set up who's purpose is to get cars off the road. After all, the government's on the hook for road expansion and maintenance.
'Cause it turns out, private individual cars is a really lousy way to solve the problem of "moving things and people around" in a city. And it's probably easier to deal with this before some calamity like peak oil forces us to.
There are no buses or trains or any other mass transit anywhere near where I live and commute from. Give me the mass transit before you start charging me for not using it (and acting holier than thou.)
I don't know what the numbers look like in other countries, but up here in Canuckistan, Statistics Canada (basically neutral/non-partisan organization) did a study a couple years back showing that every single motorist underpays the true cost of operating a car. (i.e., gas taxes etc don't come close to paying for infrastructure) Given that we have way higher fuel taxes in Canada than in the US, I'd guess that in the USA it's even worse.
Another way of thinking about this is that the whole 'business of driving' means those who don't drive are heavily subsidizing those who do.
So for all those people who claim this is a tax grab or a gouging of commuters or people who feel they have a right to drive wherever and whenever they want, how 'bout you table that sentiment 'til you actually pay for the cost of operating your car?
Actually, I'd draw a distinction between oil companies and RIAA members, (who I think are both dying industries in their own ways) and ISPs. ISPs should (or at least, could) be a long-term viable business model.
I think a problem that isn't discussed much is the constant chasing of the share price by senior management. Financial analysts exert enormous pressure to keep upping the share price, irrespective of the long-term consequences to the company.
So, right now, companies like ISPs should be looking down the road and seeing wiMax or something like it and the 700 Mhz spectrum and start planning for it. Y'know, like, invest in their infrastructure, put a lot of emphasis on keeping customers happy, even if it costs them money. But that would require a slight dip in profits next quarter or something, so CEOs see that sort of thing as out of the question.
This obsession with share price is keeping companies that should be taking a long-term view of what's coming in the next 5-10 years locked into a mindset where "long term" means "six months from now".
Where I live, I have a choice of paying ~40/month for service from company A or a nearly identical package from a nearly identical company for almost exactly the same price.
In a situation like this, never mind a free market, can it really be said that a market exists at all?
I think another problem is how corporations are run. Academic and author Henry Mintzberg has a great aricle here:
http://www.mintzberg.org/pdf/productivity2008.pdf
(apologies for the.pdf), where he talks about how chasing 'productivity' and 'shareholder value' are destroying American enterprise. Basically his point is that market analysts exert enormous pressure on senior management to keep increasing their share price, never mind the long-term effects on the company.
So, where companies like ISPs should see the eventual competition they'll face from WiMax or something similar and the 700 Mhz spectrum auction and start planning for it now, they're locked into this short-term, next-quarter outlook (as if you could measure a change in a large company's fortunes between October and December) that leads them to essentially 'liquidate' customer satisfaction and goodwill.
OK, calling a pooling-of-resources on the part of bloggers a union is probably not the right term.
I think what would be more appropriate would be something more like the AMA for doctors. A lobby group to pool resources to look out for their shared interests, what's wrong with that?
When bloggers get sued, or that guy in California where the feds wanted his video footage and held him on contempt of court to try to give up his sources, or when somebody gets fired because of what was on their blog, if there was an organization I could pay dues into and expect some help were I in a situation like that, I'd be for that kind of "Blogger's Association" or "blogger's guild"...
You can whine and snivel all you want, but the law is the law. You don't like the law? Then form a group, a coalition, raise money to hire the best K's streeters you can afford to lobby congress to get it changed, That is how the system works, use it.
Can somebody explain to me why so many people who support the status quo on copyright seem to feel the need to characterize anyone suggesting a change to the status quo or articulating the flaws in our current copyright system as "whining and sniveling"?
If I make the argument, for example, that copyright is fundamentally flawed, and suggest that we need a combination of de-criminalizing private non-commercial copyright infringement and a statutory license, does that make me a whiner? Or am I raising a legitimate point? If the point I raise is not valid, can't someone who feels differently simply point out the logical flaws in my argument, without having to start name-calling?
Maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I never see the EFF or Stallman or others on the far end of the anti-copyright spectrum engage in that sort of name-calling.
I can't remember the name of the stand-up comedian who said it, but it was something like "If the standard for impeachment is covering up/destroying evidence or lying to congress, then Bush should've been beaten to death on the white house lawn with Aerosmith playing in the background."
Seriously, I realize that there's something to the point that politics have become far to partisan, it's easy to blame the party you don't belong to and all that, but c'mon, Bush and co. are beyond any historical precedent. The NSA wiretapping scandal, extraordinary rendition, gitmo, destroying tapes of CIA interrogations, and an economic policy that amounts to "robin hood in reverse".
But, it's not fair to paint all republicans with the same brush. It's also fair to point out that at some point in the mid-90's, the GOP has been hijacked by a bunch of people who call themselves "conservatives", but really what they are is warmongers, kleptocrats, and evangelicals who have a genuinely transformative agenda. Any resemblance to actual conservatives is purely co-incidental.
How about this, for a start? Copyright doesn't apply to private, non-commercial copying or sharing.
There's probably some other stuff that I'm not informed enough to have a good opinion on regarding royalties and derivative works, but this would solve a lot of problems up-front.
If your business model depends on the RIAA/MPAA math where every single unauthorized copy == 1 lost sale, then you should get on the bus to obsolete-ville with that guy who keeps trying to get me to invest in his buggy whip company.
Pirate's Bay is making money off of other peoples work. They Sell ads on their website they are not the good guys. I don't like the RIAA or the MPAA going after grandmothers, little kids, and college students and they are also not the good guys for sure.
I don't know, couldn't you make a case that TPB is engaged in a form of civil disobedience?
They are quite clearly stating that several things need to change on the copyright front.
And, they're serving as an example to the world that the US system of copyright is not a "natural law" like gravity or something, there could in fact be other ways of operating or thinking about this issue.
So they're making money off it? When did that become a sin? What, if somebody doesn't take a vow of poverty they can't advocate for social change?
Besides, I have yet to have anyone rebut my point that copyright law was never intended to apply to private, non-commercial copying. I can say that conclusively because private non-commercial copying didn't exist when copyright law was written (or, at least, it was just cheaper to buy your own copy of the book/CD/Record/whatever).
So when people talk about "control of their creation", well, I don't see that anybody ever intended to give creators "control" over their creation at all. Copyright was most likely only ever intended to keep publishers from reproducing works and paying the creator nothing.
This idea that copyright laws (and things like 5-6 figure penalties for copyright violation) should apply to private, non-commercial copying instead of only to commercial operations is an idea that needs to be challenged.
Well, judging from your sig, I'm inclined to take you at your word when you talk about up-front costs of making a low-budget flick.
While I completely agree with you, the same lowering of the barrier to entry that's happened with music will eventually happen with movies, too. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter.
The MPAA types don't actually have a piracy problem, and never will. There's no way to pirate the "seeing it on the big screen" experience. Even with ass-hats with cell phones and kids who won't shut up, there's still some movies I'd rather see on the big screen.
So, when MPAA types talk about "if you keep pirating, how are they gonna pay for the next 'Spiderman' movie?" (or the next 'Fight Club', or 'Blade Runner', or whatever...) they're making, at best, a highly mendacious argument. They're in a totally different position than the RIAA, who I think really DOES have a reason to be worried about P2P.
If your business model depends on end users not copying your product, you might as well save everyone a lot of trouble and move on to another project. Copyright/Patent/Trademark may protect you a bit against some commercial competition. But you can't do much about end users violating them.
Here, here.
This line of reasoning is what leads me to my conclusion that a solution to this mess is to basically disregard private, non-commercial copyright infringement.
And to make the observation that copyright laws didn't intend to address private non-commercial copyright infringement anyway, since it basically didn't exist when copyright laws.
People spend a lot of time talking about "control over my creation", but I'm not convinced that was the intention of copyright laws. I don't see any evidence that copyright was supposed to do anything beyond protect authors/creators from publishers/producers.
The RIAA wants to hang on to high per-track prices, but they should be thinking about sacrificing per-track profits to drastically increase volume. For example, if someone hears a track they really like on the radio or elsewhere, they're likely to buy the entire album at $3. But at $10+ for the entire album, they'll probably just buy only that track at $1, given the tendency for albums to have a lot of "filler crap".
While I think you're basically right, that's a pretty, um, generous, description of the RIAA goals.
What I find so baffling and infuriating about this type of content middleman is that they not just wantthe per-track price that they had in 1990, they believe they're entitled to it!
Besides, one thing that has to be said here, is, can anybody as of yet demonstrate that private non-commercial copyright infringement is actually a problem? I mean, the MPAA's fine. The only times historically that ticket sales have been stronger is when the economy's doing a lot better. I haven't seen any movie studios or TV stations or production companies file for bankruptcy protection saying "those dirty internet pirates finally put us out of business".
Of course, before we can have that discussion, we need to agree on the definition of "a problem". Some people think "a piracy problem" means "we failed to make > 20% return-on-investment for our shareholders last year", and is sufficient grounds to justify government intervention.
Funny how the guys who are such strong free market evangelists when we're talking about tax policy or health care or something all of a sudden want the government to protect them from any and all risk when the chips are down, eh?
Actors... writers... everyone in hollywood is in for a wakeup call. Multi-million dollar salaries are going to be unsupportable very soon
Here, Here.
Before the 20th century, entertainers (musicians/actors/playwriters/etc) were somewhere around prostitutes on the status and income scales.
Then this gravy train came along at some point in the 20th century, where we gave away the "bandwidth" of radio and tv channels to a handful of companies, they spend the next 50-70 years getting rich beyond their wildest dreams on a scarcity of "bandwidth" (if you think of 'bandwidth' as # of tv channels or shelf space in the record store etc).
Now everybody knows you can get rich on selling any scarce commodity. But now, not only is the scarcity disappearing, but it's going away faster than any of the content middlemen ever foresaw.
One way or the other, the economics of the content industries is in for a shakeup. Besides, can somebody explain to me why people who work in the entertainment society get to work for a year or 5 years or 10 then be idle for the rest of their lives on royalties? I missed the section of the constitution where it guarantees anybody who works in the entertainment industry a mansion and a private plane.
If we are truly to be intellectually honest, then we must address the problem of supply versus demand. Rampant piracy suggests that the demand for content delivered over the Internet is obvious. Yet digital content has traditionally been held hostage by physical media. In many of the instances that content is provided digitally, it is further held hostage behind walls of incompatibilities, digital restrictions, overpricing, poor terms of services, and other devaluing options. All in the name of "protecting" digital content.
Here, here.
While we're all busy being intellectually honest, let's make another observation. Content middlemen like TV stations and the MPAA/RIAA have been making a killing through most of the 20th century on a shortage of "bandwith", that is, bandwith was limited by # of tv channels or amount of shelf space at the record store or a finite number of theaters where a movie could be shown.
These days, bandwidth gets cheaper every year. So that means an era of declining return-on-investment for the content middlemen. Scarcity is good for the seller but pretty crappy for the consumer or citizen. This is the 'elephant in the room' on this issue. The plain fact is, as bandwidth gets very cheap (as it has in the last 15 years or so), the content middlemen will see a declining ROE.
If this guy was concerned about being 'intellectually honest' he'd admit that our current copyright scheme is completely unsuitable to an age of networked computers, and that what he's doing is trying to stretch out the lifespan of the copyright gravy train he and his employers have been riding for almost 100 years now.
3. Those who suggest that technological protections are not needed must, if they are intellectually honest, acknowledge, confront and speak to the tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content that is currently occurring in the digital world on the broadband internet. This indefensible massive trafficking simply must be reduced in any kind of law abiding society.
So, he's asking us to concede, before we even start the debate, that private, non-commercial copyright infringement is a big problem and is just wrong because it's illegal? The unspoken assertion here is that there's no such thing as an unjust law? Where the fuck did this guy go to law school? I guess wherever it was, they didn't spend a lot of time focusing on history classes...
4. Another feature of this debate that should change is technologists disingenuously trashing technology. Too often, the same people who enthusiastically and unreservedly sing the praises of the infinite and wondrous capabilities of digital technology in virtually every other respect pretend that technology has nothing to offer and no ability to reduce the massive trafficking in wholesale infringements of entire works (certainly in the area of video, film, TV, games and software). It is categorically and demonstratively untrue and unworthy of tech champions.
Translation: Hey, all you guys who know way more than I do about this computer stuff, could you please stop pointing out the inherent flaws in implementing DRM technology? See, I need lawmakers and average joes to believe that my goal of stopping privacy with DRM technology is at least possible before I can convince anybody it's a good idea. When you guys point out that it's might not ever be possible (Doctorow, I'm looking in your direction!), it really makes this a hard sell.
Look, you know what was a golden age for us in the TV and movie business? Back in the days when movies only showed in theaters. You wanna see it, you pay us per viewing. We'd like to have the cash cow of home video sales, but we'd like to go back to the pay-per-viewing model.
So pretty much it sounds as though you are crying "sour grapes" that you were not ____________ ( inset the appropriate adjective) enough to create such a work and now you have to be a wage slave for the rest of your life. Well guess what so do about 99.9% of the rest of the population of the planet.
Yeah, well, one man's sour grapes is another man's questioning the validity of our current arrangement.
Here's my problem with copyright right now: I don't see a way to stop piracy short of a very draconian trusted-computing-type regime. (And, I'm not 100% convinced that piracy is that much of a problem right now anyway, but that's a separate issue)
So, I figure, the genie's out of the bottle on P2P etc. Therefore this seems like a choice between intrusive government or corporate control over your computer or allowing/turning a blind eye to private, non-commercial copyright infringement. I don't think we can appeal to people's 'better nature' in hopes of stopping copyright infringement. We can't even stop drunk driving with that kind of approach.
Given that choice, I pick the latter, hands down. You wanna go after commercial pirating shops with the full force of law? Go for it. But controlling non-commercial private copying requires too much of an infringement on the rights of ordinary citizens.
And I'll point out a small detail for you: Copyright law is not a natural law or a human right. It's a social contract, at best, a balance of interests within a social context.
So, when I say, (for example) that an easy solution would be to make all private, non-commercial copying to be 100% legal, I'm not saying we start "taking something away" from creative producers. It's me saying "Hi, remember that free ride/monopoly we gave you back when we passed copyright laws that give you a monopoly on reproduction of your work? Well, due to changing needs in society, we're going to change the way that freebie we gave you works."
AFAIK, no one has a guarantee of their revenue stream in the constitution.
I don't get to have one hugely successful project I work on when I'm 25 years old and then live off the results of that for the rest of my life, so why should authors/artists get to do that?
Let me ask you the same question that I ask anybody who asserts that position:
Given that, in economics, something only has value if it has scarcity and utility, how do we make sense of a situation where the marginal cost of production approaches zero? If your software/movie/album that I'm about to buy costs you effectively zero to produce another copy of it, what should be the appropriate price?
I'm not saying this to troll or pick a fight, I really am curious as to what copyright
Personally, the only way I see out of this mess is a statutory license. An extra charge per month on your ISP bill, distributed to artists, using the royalty system for radio airplay as a guide/model. As far as I can see, the only alternative is to allow a truly draconian intrusion into all of my internet traffic...
Slashdot Mirror
At least from the label's point of view. But it's not about stopping piracy, it's about control.
At some point, the record labels realized that it's easier to be profitable by controlling the distribution channels than it is to find sign, and nurture actual talented artists. Oh, and as a side benefit, that way, you can rip off your artists. If you're the only game in town, it doesn't matter if the game is crooked, people will have to sign with you.
This point is the elephant in the room when talking about music and copyright (which IMO is distinctly different from issues around the MPAA and piracy).
Ever notice that (as someone above articulated nicely) it seems like the music labels would prefer 500 million in sales and moderate piracy to 2 billion in sales and rampant piracy? Some might attribute this to incompetence or a lack of understanding of modern technology, but I don't think that's true.
Since they've built their model on control of the distribution channels, if they lose that, then they're not the only game in town anymore.
Up here in Canada, we're having a similar auction this year. 40% of the spectrum to be auctioned will be open to bidding only by new players into the wireless market. I don't know why nobody could figure this out in the USA. If the (quite reasonable) goal is to open up competition, then set a block of the spectrum aside that none of the existing Telcos/ISPs can bid on. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/28/auction.html
There's going to be a similar one in Canada this year.
The difference is, 40% of the spectrum will be open to bidding only by new players in the market, i.e., Rogers/Bell/Telus et al will not be able to even _bid_ on that part of it.
Not perfect, but at least it keeps the current ISPs/Telcos from combining to out-bid the others.
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/11/28/auction.html
Up here in Canuckistan, there's a similar action coming up, I think next year (but please correct me if somebody knows different).
Still an auction, but the way it's going to work is, there's going to be ~2/3 of the spectrum that will only be available to new players in the market. So Rogers/Bell/Telus et. al. (AT &T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile for American readers) won't even be able to _bid_ on that range of the spectrum.
Still not perfect, but at least it keeps the current ISPs/Cell phone providers from combining to out-bid everybody else out of the game.
Up here in Canada, there was a study done by statistics Canada that found that all motorists underpay the actual cost of operating a car (road construction maintenance, etc).
So I don't have much info on the economics of this in the US, but given your fuel taxes are lower, I'd guess that it's even more so south of the 49th parallel.
So, yeah, you pay fuel taxes, but they don't come close to covering the costs.
Of course, before you start asking people to give up their cars, a _real_ public transit system has to be in place first. You can't ask people to give up their car if it means a 30 minute trip takes 90 minutes.
So I guess by that standard if I make 300 grand a year and you make 50 grand per year, you and I paying the same amount of taxes is 'egalitarian'?
Look, as it is, motorists aren't paying anywhere near the actual cost of road construction and maintenance. Or, you can think of it as a subsidy on driving. In an age of concerns about peak oil and CO2 emissions, maybe we shouldn't be subsidizing driving?
The trend I've seen in most north american cities is that the people making decisions about public transit wouldn't be caught dead on a bus.
We need to change the way transit authorities think (and are funded) on this sort of thing. Instead of thinking of transit as an alternative to cars, think of transit as a service that the government can set up who's purpose is to get cars off the road. After all, the government's on the hook for road expansion and maintenance.
'Cause it turns out, private individual cars is a really lousy way to solve the problem of "moving things and people around" in a city. And it's probably easier to deal with this before some calamity like peak oil forces us to.
I don't know what the numbers look like in other countries, but up here in Canuckistan, Statistics Canada (basically neutral/non-partisan organization) did a study a couple years back showing that every single motorist underpays the true cost of operating a car. (i.e., gas taxes etc don't come close to paying for infrastructure) Given that we have way higher fuel taxes in Canada than in the US, I'd guess that in the USA it's even worse.
Another way of thinking about this is that the whole 'business of driving' means those who don't drive are heavily subsidizing those who do.
So for all those people who claim this is a tax grab or a gouging of commuters or people who feel they have a right to drive wherever and whenever they want, how 'bout you table that sentiment 'til you actually pay for the cost of operating your car?
Actually, I'd draw a distinction between oil companies and RIAA members, (who I think are both dying industries in their own ways) and ISPs. ISPs should (or at least, could) be a long-term viable business model.
I think a problem that isn't discussed much is the constant chasing of the share price by senior management. Financial analysts exert enormous pressure to keep upping the share price, irrespective of the long-term consequences to the company.
So, right now, companies like ISPs should be looking down the road and seeing wiMax or something like it and the 700 Mhz spectrum and start planning for it. Y'know, like, invest in their infrastructure, put a lot of emphasis on keeping customers happy, even if it costs them money. But that would require a slight dip in profits next quarter or something, so CEOs see that sort of thing as out of the question.
This obsession with share price is keeping companies that should be taking a long-term view of what's coming in the next 5-10 years locked into a mindset where "long term" means "six months from now".
Damn right, it's lack of competition.
.pdf), where he talks about how chasing 'productivity' and 'shareholder value' are destroying American enterprise. Basically his point is that market analysts exert enormous pressure on senior management to keep increasing their share price, never mind the long-term effects on the company.
Where I live, I have a choice of paying ~40/month for service from company A or a nearly identical package from a nearly identical company for almost exactly the same price.
In a situation like this, never mind a free market, can it really be said that a market exists at all?
I think another problem is how corporations are run. Academic and author Henry Mintzberg has a great aricle here: http://www.mintzberg.org/pdf/productivity2008.pdf (apologies for the
So, where companies like ISPs should see the eventual competition they'll face from WiMax or something similar and the 700 Mhz spectrum auction and start planning for it now, they're locked into this short-term, next-quarter outlook (as if you could measure a change in a large company's fortunes between October and December) that leads them to essentially 'liquidate' customer satisfaction and goodwill.
OK, calling a pooling-of-resources on the part of bloggers a union is probably not the right term.
I think what would be more appropriate would be something more like the AMA for doctors. A lobby group to pool resources to look out for their shared interests, what's wrong with that?
When bloggers get sued, or that guy in California where the feds wanted his video footage and held him on contempt of court to try to give up his sources, or when somebody gets fired because of what was on their blog, if there was an organization I could pay dues into and expect some help were I in a situation like that, I'd be for that kind of "Blogger's Association" or "blogger's guild"...
Can somebody explain to me why so many people who support the status quo on copyright seem to feel the need to characterize anyone suggesting a change to the status quo or articulating the flaws in our current copyright system as "whining and sniveling"?
If I make the argument, for example, that copyright is fundamentally flawed, and suggest that we need a combination of de-criminalizing private non-commercial copyright infringement and a statutory license, does that make me a whiner? Or am I raising a legitimate point? If the point I raise is not valid, can't someone who feels differently simply point out the logical flaws in my argument, without having to start name-calling?
Maybe I'm just not paying attention, but I never see the EFF or Stallman or others on the far end of the anti-copyright spectrum engage in that sort of name-calling.
I can't remember the name of the stand-up comedian who said it, but it was something like "If the standard for impeachment is covering up/destroying evidence or lying to congress, then Bush should've been beaten to death on the white house lawn with Aerosmith playing in the background."
Seriously, I realize that there's something to the point that politics have become far to partisan, it's easy to blame the party you don't belong to and all that, but c'mon, Bush and co. are beyond any historical precedent. The NSA wiretapping scandal, extraordinary rendition, gitmo, destroying tapes of CIA interrogations, and an economic policy that amounts to "robin hood in reverse".
But, it's not fair to paint all republicans with the same brush. It's also fair to point out that at some point in the mid-90's, the GOP has been hijacked by a bunch of people who call themselves "conservatives", but really what they are is warmongers, kleptocrats, and evangelicals who have a genuinely transformative agenda. Any resemblance to actual conservatives is purely co-incidental.
How about this, for a start? Copyright doesn't apply to private, non-commercial copying or sharing.
There's probably some other stuff that I'm not informed enough to have a good opinion on regarding royalties and derivative works, but this would solve a lot of problems up-front.
If your business model depends on the RIAA/MPAA math where every single unauthorized copy == 1 lost sale, then you should get on the bus to obsolete-ville with that guy who keeps trying to get me to invest in his buggy whip company.
I don't know, couldn't you make a case that TPB is engaged in a form of civil disobedience?
They are quite clearly stating that several things need to change on the copyright front.
And, they're serving as an example to the world that the US system of copyright is not a "natural law" like gravity or something, there could in fact be other ways of operating or thinking about this issue.
So they're making money off it? When did that become a sin? What, if somebody doesn't take a vow of poverty they can't advocate for social change?
Besides, I have yet to have anyone rebut my point that copyright law was never intended to apply to private, non-commercial copying. I can say that conclusively because private non-commercial copying didn't exist when copyright law was written (or, at least, it was just cheaper to buy your own copy of the book/CD/Record/whatever).
So when people talk about "control of their creation", well, I don't see that anybody ever intended to give creators "control" over their creation at all. Copyright was most likely only ever intended to keep publishers from reproducing works and paying the creator nothing.
This idea that copyright laws (and things like 5-6 figure penalties for copyright violation) should apply to private, non-commercial copying instead of only to commercial operations is an idea that needs to be challenged.
Well, judging from your sig, I'm inclined to take you at your word when you talk about up-front costs of making a low-budget flick.
While I completely agree with you, the same lowering of the barrier to entry that's happened with music will eventually happen with movies, too. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter.
The MPAA types don't actually have a piracy problem, and never will. There's no way to pirate the "seeing it on the big screen" experience. Even with ass-hats with cell phones and kids who won't shut up, there's still some movies I'd rather see on the big screen.
So, when MPAA types talk about "if you keep pirating, how are they gonna pay for the next 'Spiderman' movie?" (or the next 'Fight Club', or 'Blade Runner', or whatever...) they're making, at best, a highly mendacious argument. They're in a totally different position than the RIAA, who I think really DOES have a reason to be worried about P2P.
Here, here.
This line of reasoning is what leads me to my conclusion that a solution to this mess is to basically disregard private, non-commercial copyright infringement.
And to make the observation that copyright laws didn't intend to address private non-commercial copyright infringement anyway, since it basically didn't exist when copyright laws.
People spend a lot of time talking about "control over my creation", but I'm not convinced that was the intention of copyright laws. I don't see any evidence that copyright was supposed to do anything beyond protect authors/creators from publishers/producers.
While I think you're basically right, that's a pretty, um, generous, description of the RIAA goals.
What I find so baffling and infuriating about this type of content middleman is that they not just wantthe per-track price that they had in 1990, they believe they're entitled to it!
Besides, one thing that has to be said here, is, can anybody as of yet demonstrate that private non-commercial copyright infringement is actually a problem? I mean, the MPAA's fine. The only times historically that ticket sales have been stronger is when the economy's doing a lot better. I haven't seen any movie studios or TV stations or production companies file for bankruptcy protection saying "those dirty internet pirates finally put us out of business".
Of course, before we can have that discussion, we need to agree on the definition of "a problem". Some people think "a piracy problem" means "we failed to make > 20% return-on-investment for our shareholders last year", and is sufficient grounds to justify government intervention.
Funny how the guys who are such strong free market evangelists when we're talking about tax policy or health care or something all of a sudden want the government to protect them from any and all risk when the chips are down, eh?
Here, Here.
Before the 20th century, entertainers (musicians/actors/playwriters/etc) were somewhere around prostitutes on the status and income scales.
Then this gravy train came along at some point in the 20th century, where we gave away the "bandwidth" of radio and tv channels to a handful of companies, they spend the next 50-70 years getting rich beyond their wildest dreams on a scarcity of "bandwidth" (if you think of 'bandwidth' as # of tv channels or shelf space in the record store etc).
Now everybody knows you can get rich on selling any scarce commodity. But now, not only is the scarcity disappearing, but it's going away faster than any of the content middlemen ever foresaw.
One way or the other, the economics of the content industries is in for a shakeup. Besides, can somebody explain to me why people who work in the entertainment society get to work for a year or 5 years or 10 then be idle for the rest of their lives on royalties? I missed the section of the constitution where it guarantees anybody who works in the entertainment industry a mansion and a private plane.
Here, here.
While we're all busy being intellectually honest, let's make another observation. Content middlemen like TV stations and the MPAA/RIAA have been making a killing through most of the 20th century on a shortage of "bandwith", that is, bandwith was limited by # of tv channels or amount of shelf space at the record store or a finite number of theaters where a movie could be shown.
These days, bandwidth gets cheaper every year. So that means an era of declining return-on-investment for the content middlemen. Scarcity is good for the seller but pretty crappy for the consumer or citizen. This is the 'elephant in the room' on this issue. The plain fact is, as bandwidth gets very cheap (as it has in the last 15 years or so), the content middlemen will see a declining ROE.
If this guy was concerned about being 'intellectually honest' he'd admit that our current copyright scheme is completely unsuitable to an age of networked computers, and that what he's doing is trying to stretch out the lifespan of the copyright gravy train he and his employers have been riding for almost 100 years now.
So, he's asking us to concede, before we even start the debate, that private, non-commercial copyright infringement is a big problem and is just wrong because it's illegal? The unspoken assertion here is that there's no such thing as an unjust law? Where the fuck did this guy go to law school? I guess wherever it was, they didn't spend a lot of time focusing on history classes...
Translation: Hey, all you guys who know way more than I do about this computer stuff, could you please stop pointing out the inherent flaws in implementing DRM technology? See, I need lawmakers and average joes to believe that my goal of stopping privacy with DRM technology is at least possible before I can convince anybody it's a good idea. When you guys point out that it's might not ever be possible (Doctorow, I'm looking in your direction!), it really makes this a hard sell.
Look, you know what was a golden age for us in the TV and movie business? Back in the days when movies only showed in theaters. You wanna see it, you pay us per viewing. We'd like to have the cash cow of home video sales, but we'd like to go back to the pay-per-viewing model.
Yeah, well, one man's sour grapes is another man's questioning the validity of our current arrangement.
Here's my problem with copyright right now: I don't see a way to stop piracy short of a very draconian trusted-computing-type regime. (And, I'm not 100% convinced that piracy is that much of a problem right now anyway, but that's a separate issue)
So, I figure, the genie's out of the bottle on P2P etc. Therefore this seems like a choice between intrusive government or corporate control over your computer or allowing/turning a blind eye to private, non-commercial copyright infringement. I don't think we can appeal to people's 'better nature' in hopes of stopping copyright infringement. We can't even stop drunk driving with that kind of approach.
Given that choice, I pick the latter, hands down. You wanna go after commercial pirating shops with the full force of law? Go for it. But controlling non-commercial private copying requires too much of an infringement on the rights of ordinary citizens.
Am I missing something here?
And I'll point out a small detail for you: Copyright law is not a natural law or a human right. It's a social contract, at best, a balance of interests within a social context.
So, when I say, (for example) that an easy solution would be to make all private, non-commercial copying to be 100% legal, I'm not saying we start "taking something away" from creative producers. It's me saying "Hi, remember that free ride/monopoly we gave you back when we passed copyright laws that give you a monopoly on reproduction of your work? Well, due to changing needs in society, we're going to change the way that freebie we gave you works."
AFAIK, no one has a guarantee of their revenue stream in the constitution.
I don't get to have one hugely successful project I work on when I'm 25 years old and then live off the results of that for the rest of my life, so why should authors/artists get to do that?
Let me ask you the same question that I ask anybody who asserts that position:
Given that, in economics, something only has value if it has scarcity and utility, how do we make sense of a situation where the marginal cost of production approaches zero? If your software/movie/album that I'm about to buy costs you effectively zero to produce another copy of it, what should be the appropriate price?
I'm not saying this to troll or pick a fight, I really am curious as to what copyright
Personally, the only way I see out of this mess is a statutory license. An extra charge per month on your ISP bill, distributed to artists, using the royalty system for radio airplay as a guide/model. As far as I can see, the only alternative is to allow a truly draconian intrusion into all of my internet traffic...