Discussion: The intellectual property war

by Hugh Bicheno on 17 June 2008, 10:21

Shutting the stable door

As Rasmus Fleischer points out in a recent Cato Institute essay on The Future of Copyright, even if illegal internet file sharing is stamped out, the technology already exists to convert radio and TV streaming into digital files at the receiving end. So, what’s next? A ban on digital radio and TV?

“Believers in copyright keep dreaming about building a digital simulation of a 20th-century copyright economy, based on scarcity and with distinct limits between broadcasting and unit sales,” Fleischer wrote. “I don’t believe such a stabilization will ever occur, but I fear this vision of copyright utopia is triggering an escalation of technology regulations running out of control and ruining civil liberties.”

Meanwhile, another well known web commentator – Mike Masnick – points out that file-sharers tend also to be the people that spend most on music, so targeting them could well be self-defeating.

Lastly, if there’s any doubt that organisations like the PRS are swimming against the current, take a look at this image of a page from Cosmopolitan magazine currently featuring prominently on digg.

Why it matters

We think the hole the music and movie industries wish to blow in the hull of net neutrality may well sink the ship, and with it the greatest burst of industry creativity in human history.

· Because, as highlighted in the opening paragraphs of this article, DMCA/EUCD is encouraging IP holders to claim ever more restrictive legal rights.

· Because it has encouraged extortionist “patent trolls” who stake out speculative technology patents and wait for someone to make a success of it before suing them for a piece of the action.

· Because it has weighed the scales of justice even more lopsidedly in favour of individuals and companies with deep pockets, who can ruin competitive start-ups by throwing lawsuits at them.

· Because even in the narrow case of illegal file-sharing, the methodology used by the RIAA/BPI to identify alleged copyright infringement has been demonstrated to be extremely fallible.

· Because even the BBC, which is not supposed to be driven by a profit motive, supports the greediest, most suffocating interpretation of copyright law.

But that’s just our take and you will have yours. Please share it with us in the HEXUS.community.

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!

I get quite upset by people who insist that they have a “right” to get something for free but at the same time, many of the steps being taken to enforce copyright are ignoring one key fact. They've already been paid in many of the cases and shouldn't have a right to ask for more money once their product has been sold.

For example, radio stations pay music companies for their music, what does it matter if a company is playing the radio to people? Even if a company has setup a store where people can come and pay to listen to the radio in a comfortable environment, the music got paid for. To say that you have a “right” to dictate a product that has already been sold is crazy.

Imagine that Tesco's tried this on their food and tried to sue a resteraunt for buying their tomatoes to go into tomato puree, it makes no sense!

Im alittle confused, you are effectivly trying to start a discussion about piracy however you do not allow any disscussion on the boards regarding the actual act of piracy. If there is to be a balanced discussion then both sides need to be addressed by people for and against both.

Im of the opinion that it really dosnt matter what legislation is brought in to protect intelectual proterty if you dont infringe upon it.

On the contrary, we have never prevented discussion of the notion of piracy. It has happened many times, and as often as not, I take part.

What we don't allow is assisting people to pirate things.

If you want to discuss or debate piracy, go right ahead. But if you want to tell people how to do it, or where to get what you need to do it, we'll delete that kind of material. The reason is that there are a number of areas where that runs into the realm of a criminal act, and as a publisher, Hexus could be held liable for “publishing” such material.

Hexus has no problem at all with discussing issue of piracy, but don't want to end up with criminal convictions because people “publish” things that will aid it.

Lucio
I get quite upset by people who insist that they have a “right” to get something for free but at the same time, many of the steps being taken to enforce copyright are ignoring one key fact. They've already been paid in many of the cases and shouldn't have a right to ask for more money once their product has been sold.

For example, radio stations pay music companies for their music, what does it matter if a company is playing the radio to people? Even if a company has setup a store where people can come and pay to listen to the radio in a comfortable environment, the music got paid for. To say that you have a “right” to dictate a product that has already been sold is crazy.

Imagine that Tesco's tried this on their food and tried to sue a resteraunt for buying their tomatoes to go into tomato puree, it makes no sense!

I think you're missing the point. It isn't whether someone has been paid, but what they were paid FOR.

For example - I write an article, and sell it to the Daily Telegraph to publish, and the rights they've bought are “First British Serial Rights”. That gives them, basically, “first” rights, but in Britain only. It does not give them the rights to republish, and it does not give them the rights to publish in a journal in the USA,OR France, or Australia, etc. Nor does it give them the right to include the material on a CD database that they sell.

If they wanted the rights to include, for instance, the USA, they'd pay a higher price for those rights. Why? Because, as the creator, I have the right to exploit any rights that I haven't licenced away, including publishing in the USA. And if someone that doesn't have that right published anyway, they preclude me from benefiting from the fruits of my Labours by selling “first” rights to a US publication.

That's the principle being used in the case of radio rights …. though some cases do seem a little extreme.

The same argument could be made about a book. Just because you've bought a copy of, oh I don't know, Harry Potter or the Da Vinci code, doesn't mean you have the right to type the text into your computer and either uploads it to your website or to print and sell copies. You don't even have the right to write tour own Harry Potter story if it uses the Harry Potter characters or world. Why? Because the author (or copyright owner) owns the right to control the exploitation of their creation, and the “creation” is not just the actual stories but the concept and world. If 1000 other people were writing Harry Potter stories, it'd quite possibly kill off much of JKRs potential market for new books.

As I say, when you buy rights, you buy specific rights, and if you wanted other rights, it would very likely cost you more because it affects the way the owner can otherwise use those rights.

I think what the music industry needs to stop viewing piracy and a problem but as an opportunity. It also need to stop treating all of it's customers as thieves. a number of studies have shown that piracy in alot of cases have increased the sales of records and pirates tend to be bigger music fans . and that people who tend to download in the absence of piracy would not have bought the record in the first place . Rather the music industry needs to change its business model. piracy is here to stay and is not going to go away.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1027_3-5181562.html

I'll write more later but i have to go now

Discussion: The intellectual property war

Shutting the stable door

Related Reading

HEXUS Forums :: 13 Comments

Login with Forum Account

User Name
Password