Comments on: Entertainment Industry Crisis https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814 2002-2015 Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:10:02 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2 By: jcn50 https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7818 Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:10:02 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7818 Why a(nother) tax isn’t a good idea:

money given to the governement (or the copyright organization, or another organization) goes round, decrease a bit (so called “functionning fees”), then after all the trip, money goes to the authors…so it’s another system to give privilege to some well-known authors only! “And the winner is…a bureaucracy”! It’s the same nowadays: If I could choose between a life-employment in the Copyright Office in the US, and being an artist, which life would you think I would pick up?…

let’s imagine this compulsory tax exists: great, you just shut down “data haven” that would profit from copyright infringement (since you would legalize all internet users with this tax), but you would just create another “tax haven” or “tax evasion” where tricks could be used to escape for paying such tax…(there is always one). Moreover, it will get more people to make more web sites to publish more and more copyrighted works, since this won’t be infringement: “Oh Mr Fisher, I’ve put your book entirely available on the internet, but don’t worry, there is the compulsory tax! Just wait for the royalties”….

how about worldwide author: let’s imagine an african guy living in Sierre Leone make a super music song, downloaded millions of times over the Internet, franckly, do you think such guy will be rewarded properly with your tax system (instaured in the US)? The answer is: No, because governement just love taxes… An example of this: the French governement voted a tax on blank CD media, the money was set to the big french music industrials (not the small author, again). Another reality is: the tax is collected, nobody knows where it goes, it is not traced….(bureaucracy, I love you). AND: buying CDs from neighbors countries (Italy, Spain, Switzerland, etc) is the trick to tax-evade this french-made great idea…

Please, just forget about it….

]]>
By: fishpatrol https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7817 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 13:52:51 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7817 The free-software-movement comments are interesting, but I wonder if they’re truly applicable? I don’t see many artists releasing works that find their utility in a single situation (like, say, an open-source PIM app) or that find utility when played concurrently with another’s works (like a contribution to an open-source OS). The assumption seems to be that an artist’s only interests are business-related, and I don’t think that’s the case.

If I’ve written and recorded a song, I’d like to be rewarded for my effort, whether that’s by someone buying a CD or coming to a live show. I would like proper attribution for the work because it represents my time, my effort. But it also represents a part of me. I am in the songs I write, just like a painter is represented in his paintings.

That’s what, for me, drives attribution and payment alike. Lyrics aren’t like code. Two different sets of code could produce the same result to the user, but can any two songs written about the same specific viewpoint/feeling/event be called “the same” by a listener? If so, why haven’t computers taken over songwriting for mainstream hits? They are certainly formulaic enough in nature. Is the only differentiation between hits and failures proper marketing and luck?

No, artistic expression inherently contains a part of the creator in the work. We aren’t talking about science, where separate parties may make the same discoveries. In art, the same person may make the same discovery over and over again, all in different ways. This discussion needs to include the nature of the “product”. Is a song the same as a baseball card, a likeness? Or does it represent something more complex?

]]>
By: Farmer's Knife https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7816 Wed, 27 Oct 2004 10:38:06 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7816 tbm, what it boils down to is that some people don’t care if they’re stealing. whether they’re on the other side of the world in a cave or in the house next to the artist doesn’t particularly matter anymore in terms of anonymity. in that mode, external, socially-dependent morals break down and you have to confront their internal morals (“Total ****wad,” as Penny-Arcade put it, for your quote fetish). they’ve got the knife, and it’s on the label’s throats. now what can the music industry do to convince them to put it down?

]]>
By: Mike Weston https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7815 Tue, 26 Oct 2004 18:04:30 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7815 But if denied similar control, the film industry, at least as we know it, probably would �grind to a halt.�

I actually agree with you in general, but the film industry as we know it is pretty insane. The average Hollywood film costs 10’s of millions of dollars, but 2 of the last 4 fiilms I saw in theaters cost less than $10,000 each (Primer and Tarnation). And they were good. So maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the film industry as we know it… changed a little.

]]>
By: Tito Villalobos https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7814 Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:00:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7814 “copyright is virtual ownership of all copies. this has ALWAYS been the case, the fact the material in question has been recorded in digital form changes nothing. “

Actually this has NEVER been the case. Copyright is nothing more than the restriction of the ability to legally make additional copies. It does not grant the copyright owner “control” over the work. Thus the “first sale” doctrine, by which I can sell my legally acquired copy or do whatever else I choose to with it.

Second, Copyright is a form of monopoly and one that has been looked upon with suspicion in the US’s history. The original founder specifically wanted very limited copyrights, and realized it was a temporary monopoly right.
(http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/timeline.html)

While I agree that making illegal copies is stealing (though much more from the record companies that the artists), I also believe that extending copyright term to 70+ years, as has been done recently, is also stealing.

However, I am a strong believer in the “utilitarian” view of copyright, and the US Constitution supports that view. It specifically says that copyright shall be granted “to promote the progress of science and useful arts”.

]]>
By: three blind mice https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7813 Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:15:40 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7813 and you said �what Napster facilitated was illegal copying�. that, �simple and plain,� is not true. i admit that i never used Napster, but from what i have read Napster did not come bundled with an mp3 codec. it played no part whatsoever in the copying of any material. it was a system for �exchanging� files, nothing more.

fourleggedant, when you “download” a file from a server you are making a copy. actually, you are making many temporary copies if you consider the mechanics of routing but let’s focus on the one you burn and keep.

we know it is difficult for downloaders to grasp the concept of virtual property – that burning a CD with a copy of a copyrighted file without the permission of the owner is theft, but so it is.

copyright is virtual ownership of all copies. this has ALWAYS been the case, the fact the material in question has been recorded in digital form changes nothing.

if you print a copy of professor fisher’s book, you have not deprived him of any copies he owns, but you have stolen from him all the same. you have a copy of a professor fisher’s book and professor fisher’s money is still in your pocket.

it’s “dollars that switched wallets,” as emimen put it.

when you download an copyrighted song without the permission of the owner, the same theft occurs. you have a copy and the artist’s money is still in your pocket.

thus using words like “exchange” when there is a more precise and accurate english word (i.e., “copy”) at best obfuscates the issue, and – at worst – purposefully misleads the reader.

it is indeed a pity that copyright laws make your internet less fun to play with, but just because a new technology comes along does not mean that artists and creative people should have their property subjected to theft, capricous confiscation, or – worst of all nationalization – according to professor fisher’s stalinist proposal.

on preview, rob meyers, we are fully aware of chuck d’s proclivity for profanity. it was unnecessary to spell it out in a public forum. for god’s sake man, think of the children.

]]>
By: Anonymous https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7812 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 22:24:52 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7812 A good read about the “alternative compensation system” proposals:
http://copyriot.blogspot.com/2004/07/content-flatrate-and-social-democracy.html

]]>
By: John S. https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7811 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:59:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7811 But in Europe, the competing tradition of �moral rights� has long has greater sway. Briefly, that tradition sees the identities of artists as intimately bound up with their creations. In the core case, it�s thought to be an affront to the �personality interest� of a painter for a purchaser of one of her paintings to deface it, destroy it, or remove the name of the painter. This basic attitude has been gradually gaining strength in the United States and today finds expression in the federal Visual Artists Rights Act and many state art preservation statutes.

This seems to me to be at the core of the difference of opinion about copyright. Someone who does not believe one iota in any “moral right” or natural right of the author in his work will probably never have much common starting ground with someone who does believe in this.

Can believers in utilitarian-based copyright and believers in moral-right-based copyright ever reach the same conclusions about what is best?

]]>
By: David Truog https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7810 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 12:13:56 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7810 Terry,

Please allow me to begin by saying I am in the process of reading right now and thus this is quick reaction containing my earliest opinion. I wish to pose a few arguments I have heard and dealt with in the past.

The first would be that the media industries you are arguing for are more accurately described as “medium” industries. As Jack Valenti once said (paraphrased), if you want a backup of a DVD, buy another. The issue at hand would become that the medium is no longer as important or controllable as it was in the past, and this was their main source of profit — for a �good� copy, you had to buy it. These days, it is no so (just look at iTunes)

Secondly, the breakdown of the money per item (in terms of CDs at least) is discouraging people from caring about the moral affects of �stealing� the music. When the musician gets 5-10% of the $15.99 CD price whereas the industry earns ~30%, why should I be concerned? With this, also consider the opinion of the �common people.� This could best be seen as summarized by South Park (again paraphrased). Because of us, these artists won�t be able to buy a bigger mansion, sports car, private jet, etc. Nice, but because of the outrageous prices, I might have to skip a meal? This is one of the biggest arguments for piracy in Russia and other places where the cost of a CD or DVD might account for 10-20% of their monthly salary.

Finally, in regards to saving the industries, I would as if a) we as a global society need it and b) if as a monopoly they deserve it.

]]>
By: Rob Myers https://archives.lessig.org/?p=2814#comment-7809 Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:16:37 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2004/10/entertainment_industry_crisis.html#comment-7809 “we ask ourselves? is the author dealing honestly with this issue, or is he just another shill for the anti-property movement?”

Do you have an answer?

And what’s an “anti-property movement”? What property are you not talking about? If nothing was exchanged on Napster, that can’t have been property, never mind anti-property.

“””3BM in ‘napster isn’t theft’ shock”””

?exchange,? according to webster?s new world dictionary (the 1967 book version) means ?to give, to hand over, to transfer.? in law, a contract by which parties agree to exchange one thing for another.?”

So no property changed ownership using Napster. If nothing was taken, where’s the theft?

no one who posted an (a?) MP3 file to Napster gave up their original. there was never any ?exchange? any ?sharing? or any ?lending? going on.

Amusingly, those people did exchange something, albeit implicitly. They paid to buy a PC, they paid for electricity, they paid for broadband. They exchanged this value. Before hacking was ever a crime, it was theoretically possible to charge a hacker with stealing the electricity they used to run a program on a server. But I digress.

what Napster facilitated was illegal copying – ?simple and plain,? to quote chuck d.

This would be the pro-napster Chuck D of Public Enemy, who started their career sampling and now can’t afford to because of the Intellectual “Property” ideology you are an unreflective shill for?

You argue at length that no exchange, no loss, occurred on Napster. Then you miscontextualise an eloquent quote from someone who based their culturally and economically productive career on “illegal copying” to support a radical ideology that they themselves opposed.

Again, you are on the wrong side of yourselves.

Here’s the full quote that you stole from to try to add value to your argument:

“Elvis was a hero to most/But he never meant shit to me you see/Straight up racist that sucker was/Simple and plain/ Motherfuck him and John Wayne.” –Chuck D and Flavor Flav, “Fight the Power”

]]>