Sorry for the delayed response on this. I have been distracted with other things and I sat down yesterday to reply, but my response turned out much longer than I expected. I am just now finishing it today. I hope it all makes sense and doesn't ramble on too much...
>i should let this conversation die...but it brings up so many good issues. >David is also a good sport. :) >I saw this video today: >http://waxy.org/random/video/shining_redux.mov >Its completely illegal and the creator should be jailed and sued >according to our current copyright law. >i think its brilliant and am glad it exists. I think it is funny and I am glad it exists as well. Funny how the right music can change the entire meaning of something, which is perhaps why the rights to it are so coveted, but I am probably getting ahead of myself. ;) For what it is worth, I am betting the piece isn't *completely* illegal, but probably raises enough of an eyebrow for a lawsuit (honestly, what doesn't nowadays). I would, however, guess that the litigation wouldn't come from the movie studio, as likely it would be seen as parody; rather the owners of the music might have a stronger claim. The music chosen was excellent. It definitely set the tone that allowed the parody to be successful. But creating the music that set the mood is difficult. That is why there is such a premium on the rights and part of why such strong protections exist. If we were to devalue the rights, one might expect that to create such a piece is easy. I think most of us know how wrong that is. However, if the person who made the parody was unable to secure the rights to the Peter Gabriel song Salsbury Hill, he/she would fully be within his/her rights to create an original music track from scratch. That right is *never* taken away from any of us. > > >do you believe the RIAA suing 12 year old girls is effective or a sign > > >of desperation? > > > > Both. Again, what choice do they have? If an increasing number of people >are > > costing you millions because they are illegally stealing your product, >what > > do you do? > > If you have a home and it has a termite infestation, wouldn't you call >an > > exterminator? > >and are you inferring that people using the web for file sharing are >like bugs that need exterminating? The analogy I was attempting to draw is that sometimes one must lash out and hurt someone to make them stop. Sometimes it has to be extreme. In the case of the insect infestation one would have to kill them all. As a rule I do my best not to kill things. I have a cup specifically set aside for catching spiders to set them free outside, for instance. I'm not mentioning this to show what a swell guy I am, but to set the backdrop for this: if my house was infested I would call the exterminator. Really, it is either that or lose the house. Sometimes extreme measures are called for. Now, I'm not suggesting we kill downloaders, but one of the tools the music industry has at its disposal right now is to sue to recoup lost revenues. I think most people would fight back if their rights were being taken away by others. It is the same for corporations. How the downloading issue differs from the termite one is that the bugs are killed to protect the house matter-of-factly, whereas the RIAA is motivated to move against online pirates with extreme prejudice to set an example for anyone else contemplating such behavior. Think of it as pest repellant. They are probably thinking that if they win some attention-grabbing cases now, there will hopefully be fewer for them to fight in the future. >this is the exact attitude that is killing the traditional media. I would agree that traditional media is dying/changing/evolving. I would disagree that it is necessarily because they are being too restrictive with their rights. I think it has more to do with the fact that most of it is crap. I agree that MSM is not meeting the needs of many users: a lack of interactivity, alternative programming, community building, etc. However, if the media decided to give away the store that would only hasten their demise. Here's why: First off, they make money selling the rights to things. To give them away would likely cost them billions in lost merchandising, syndication, DVD sales, archival footage, etc. Secondly, traditional media stays in existence because of advertisers. Advertisers pay premiums based on how much exposure a show/magazine/newspaper/etc. gets. If we put things into public domain too quickly who do they pay? Should you be able to run a Simpsons episode online and earn advertising revenue without giving any to the creators? Also, if you run an episode online, many of those who saw it won't in turn watch it on TV, thereby stripping the creators of an audience thay can charge advetisers for, meaning they have to charge less -- in other words, they will lose potential revenue. Thirdly, if things go into public domain too quickly, someone could drastically alter the branding. What if someone decides they want to make Simpsons porn? With a 15-year wait before things go into the public domain, that could be running at the same time as the original show. If the porn version gains too much notoriety it could keep potential advertisers away the original who wouldn't want to be even remotely associated with that kind of content. Also, with 15-year limit, it is conceivable that the original show could end up competing against more legitimate knock-offs. With no copyright protection, the knockoff artists (literally) could draw the characters exactly as they were created and retain their names, but they could make them do whatever they wanted. Each version would compete for the advertisers that would have stayed with the original. Isn't it unfair to have someone use Groening and crew's hard work, risk, creativity, financial investment, etc. against them? >first, a good case has never been made that these industries are >losing millions from filesharing. The RIAA estimates the recording industry loses about $4.2 billion worldwide to piracy each year. <URL: http://www.riaa.com/issues/piracy/default.asp > Jamaica Observer: Jamaican music industry loses US$ millions through intellectual property piracy <URL: http://tinyurl.com/9edy9 > Music piracy costs billions: 35% of all music discs sold worldwide are pirated copies <URL: http://www.enn.ie/news.html?code=9545022> Group: Piracy Costs Software Industry $29 Billion <URL: http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6295> Piracy costs film industry Rs 1700 crore: piracy rates in India are as high as 80% <URL: http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/dec012004/n11.asp > A crore=10,000,000 <URL: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+crore > It works out to about $382,290,934.65 currency conversion here <URL: http://www.bm.com.np/bm/web_tools/currency.php > Movie Group Targets TV-Show Pirates: movie industry loses $3.5 billion from street pirates, study estimates online file sharing costs an additional $858 million annually < URL: http://www.crmbuyer.com/story/43106.html > **Here's a couple of sites you might like. I question their methodology (it looks like the sample size of their unscientific study is only 43, for instance), but applaud their initiative. Obviously I am not mentioning them to prove my point, but I thought you might find them interesting. I did: Shake <URL: http://shake.humans.cc/index.cfm?mode=add > (on a side note, they claim filesharing is costing the media industry $48 million/month Break (the sister site) <URL: http://break.humans.cc/ > Claims the RIAA and MPAA costs the media industry $188 million/month >a better case is their lack of good >product. You and I agree that most of what is out there is crap. What I don't get is, with so much crap, what are people stealing? :) >there is the famous quote from jack valenti in the 1970's about VCR's. >usually, once these new technologies are embraced...the media >companies make out like bandits. Ah, that's the story of a bygone day. The worry was that the VCR would make the movie theatre obsolete, as TV was supposed to do to radio. But that didn't happen. Well, not exactly. Some people still maintain that there was a dropoff in movie-going due to VCRs and cable networks, but mostly the VCR didn't bankrupt the studios because they used analog tape. Analog tape erodes. It is lossy. There was no easy way to "fileshare" -- dub movies off and give them to complete strangers around the world. Digital makes everything different. Digital is an exact duplicate of the source. Filesharing networks allow me to share various files with multiple people halfway around the world -- see, even the word "share" is sort of an unfair euphamism, isn't it? Share sounds so benign, so friendly. Are we sharing? Or are we doing something a little more sinister? And, in all honesty, online pirating doesn't really feel like stealing, does it? It's too easy. There is practically nothing one has to do. Just click and wait. It isn't like you have to connect two VCRs together, buy a blank tape and hit play and record. Now, with broadband saturation above 50% in this country and the pipes and processors getting faster every day, this is a reality those who make money selling media cannot ignore. Maybe they used to make out like bandits, but they aren't the bandits anymore. > > I believe to some extent that everyone should do what they want. In a >sense > > things are only illegal if you get caught. However, if you are caught >you > > should be willing to pay the price. (snip) >If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. But until it > > changes that is our reality. To pretend otherwise is at one's own >expense. > >no one is pretending. >people are making the choice. Then, I suppose, no one should be upset or surprised when they are caught. > > Yes, we disagree. Yes, the creator has by far the most protection. Yes, >I > > believe this is fair compensation for the person who made something. > > > > I see it similar to patents. If anyone can copy your patent, why go >through > > the trouble of creating and testing it? Why invest money, when after you >get > > it working someone can benefit from your blood, sweat, and tears by >using > > part of it in their product? > >patents and copyrights were only supposed to be for a short period of time. >i believe 15 years. Juts enough time to let you make your nut...and >then your ideas went into public domain. >over time...these patents have been extended into several generations. >this is neither fair nor logical for the community. How is it neither fair nor logical? Back when the copyright was only 15 years, who benefitted? I am unaware of any stories where the community benefitted from a shorter period or was really harmed by it being extended. I just recently ordered two older movies from Amazon.com: Meet John Doe and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Great movies. Frank Capra. Good stuff. I've seen the movies before, but haven't watched these DVDs yet. The Mr. Smith DVD is the Columbia Classics version, I don't think there is another version available. It is supposed to be high-quality and has extras like trailers and interviews with Frank Capra's son and subtitles, etc. As for Meet John Doe, have you ever try to order a copy of Meet John Doe? It wasn't easy. There are several versions put out by different companies, many I am unfamiliar with. None of the versions seemed to offer much in the way of extras, and I read online reviews by people claiming that some versions had murky video and lousy sound. Did you know Capra supposedly shot five different endings to the movie? Sure would be great to put those on a DVD, I'd think. So why such a difference between the seemingly pristine Mr. Smith DVD and the roughshod John Doe one? Well, sometime after Frank Capra sold the rights to Doe, the company missed the deadline for copyright extension and it went into the public domain. The movie is a classic -- if you haven't seen it, I strongly urge you to. It's good stuff. But with no financial incentive to maintain the film, it wasn't taken care of. And sure, you can pick up copies of the film cheaply, but there's no guarantee of quality, you really don't know what you're getting. It is a shame really. And I would disagree that having it in the public domain 65 years after it was made benefits the community. > > If you are talking about fair use, the problem with that is it is too >vague. > > Consult an attorney and be sure it is worth it and is defendable. If it >is > > something small they likely won't go after you, but it is their right to >do > > so if they choose. I think you and I would agree that fair use needs to >be > > defined better. > >if a law is arbitrarily applied...is it a real law? Sure. The vagueness of Fair Use is similar to the nebulous laws against indecency. What is indecency? Nowadays, with our global connectiveness, how do you define a "community" standard? But there are still rulings based on it. Also, the seemingly arbitrary enforcement of copyright law is mostly the result of the kindness/laziness/ignorance of the holder of the rights not the weakness of the law. > > That is akin to stealing a Ferrari because you want one, but think they >cost > > too much. The twist in that is companies have to raise prices to offset >the > > amount of product that has been stolen. Sort of a vicious cycle. But >still > > doesn't adequately justify stealing. And nowadys it is so easy to get >stuff > > for free that a lot of people wouldn't pay for it even if it was >cheaper. > >this is an important point to make. >if you have a car..and i steal your car...you are missing something. >if you have a digital file..and i make a copy of it...nothing is lost. >this is the paradigm shift... If I sell cars and you steal one of my cars, then I am missing a car, though probably insurance will cover it. If I make or sell music/movies/software and you copy it from someone instead of paying for it, I have lost that potential revenue. I think the important point is that something *is* lost. Let's say a professional photographer has an incredible picture for sale. It's absolute genius. I come along and, with a high-end digital camera, take a picture of it. With that digital file I create an exact copy that I frame and hang in my house. My friend sees it and likes it, so I print and frame one for him as well. Some relatives see his and I print more. And that keeps going until virtually everyone has one of my copies. Meanwhile, the photographer hasn't sold his picture, which he has had to mark down repeatedly. He sells all his photo equipment so he can pay rent, then gets a job in a department store (not that there's anything wrong with working in a department store -- but he wants to be a professional photographer). All his hard work was for nothing. Now, let's take it further. I create an empire: prints, T-shirts, postcards, mugs, etc. The photographer still hasn't sold his picture, meanwhile I've bought a rocket car and a solid gold house. <URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_J._Lampwick > side note: check the trivia entry :) >as we have learned in the past...companies make more money when they >embrace emerging technologies. >if they fight it....their loss is their own fault. >bad business. Generally, business that embace technology and can predict trends have a better chance of succeeding, but any business that gives away its product is doomed to fail. Either way, whether they embrace or fight a technological advancement that is their choice. It is still no excuse to steal. >you say that if i copy a song that i should be willing to pay the >punsihment. >fine. >if a company refuses to allow people to use the media the way they >want with new technology, they should be willing to pay the price for >their porr business choices. The price for their poor business choices should be customers patronizing an alternative business, not stealing. Just because something is technologically possible doesn't make it inherently good or right. And, if it is their property it is their choice how they sell it. >no one should be allowed to twist the laws to fit their paranoia. You are advocating theft. In all respect, twisting the law seems very much what you are condoning. >this is the issue. >unfair lobbying influence due to the million of dollars at their >fingertips. I honestly don't mean to sound patronizing, but life isn't fair. It never was. It never will be. There will always be the haves and the have nots -- with money, with power, with looks, with intelligence, with health. Some of us will have very easy lives. Some of us will know hardship well. That is reality. I am not a big fan of lobbies or corrupt politicians, but that is how the government works. Look at funding for health care. AIDS research gets more government funding per patient than any other disease. Breast cancer is up there too. But it should be noted that among diseases, those are not the leading killers. Neither are in the top 5 and AIDS isn't even in the top 15. <URL: http://www.fairfoundation.org > Why do they get so much? It's because they have powerful lobbies. Part of the problem is that we do not live in a democracy. Not a true democracy. Our government is a republic, despite what many claim (well, technically it is a democratic government, but it isn't a true democracy). Even the pledge of alliegence goes something like: "... and to the republic for which it stands... " In a true democracy we would all be the lobby. One voice, one vote. But in a republic, we only elect our representatives. After they go to Washington, they are free to do what they would like. Naturally, seeking reelection many do what they think will please their constituents, but of course not all the time. And of course it is easier for a lobbyist to sway one representative than to sway all of those whom he represents. I guess I am taking the long way around saying that they might have an unfair competitive advantage, but that is how it is. And it is 100% legal. If you don't like it, I would suggest working to change it. But as you implied before no one should be above the law and that includes stealing. Two wrongs don't make a right. >we all have our weapons. Everything is a weapon if it is wielded right, the question is whether or not it should be used as such. > > Post on forums how you don't like the taste of Coke and think there >isn't > > any nutritional value to it. All within your rights. But it is where >your > > commentary impacts their business that you'll have problems. And just as >you > > are allowed to comment, Coke is allowed to sue and I am sure they have > > deeper pockets. > >correct...and this is an important point to make. >Suing is a form a censorship. >if coke sues me...they know i cant fight them in courst becasue they >have more money. >this is censorship. plain and simple. It is a little more complicated than you make it out to be, but I agree with you. Technically what you are referring to is self-censorship out of fear of litigation. Coke can't censor you themselves - though they might be able to get a judge to make you stop. However, it is the fear of a lengthy trial that would make someone choose to be quiet. It probably isn't worth the risk. Even if you fight them and win, you could be out a whole lot of money in court costs. I have heard that in England (someone please correct me if I am wrong) the courts work diferently. If a person sues you and loses, he/she has to cover your court costs. That seems like a better system than ours. Here, Coke could be very wrong but take you to court anyway, just to bankrupt you. > > I would say technology is creating a generation of pirates. Ease of use >and > > the cost of legally obtaining material are motivating them. Though I >wonder > > which motivates more as I know people who could easily afford the stuff >they > > are downloading for free. > >http://blogumentary.typepad.com/vlog/2005/03/videoblog_week__2.html >again, chuck's great video. >companies dont get it. Some would say companies do get it, but the people who want content for free do not. There are bills to be paid and at every step along the path from songwriting through selling the final product there are people, not unlike you or me who struggle. They pour their blood, sweat, and tears into their work and they probably don't make what they should. They aren't important people you'd recognize on the street: a collection of secretaries and factory workers and technicians, who have hopes and dreams and lives and maybe other mouths to feed. It makes it very easy to think that technology has made us David and the mean 'ol recording industry into Goliath. And, well, the least we can do is destroy that faceless corporation for the betterment of society, right? But what gets lost is that there are human beings -- from the guy onstage to the man who cleans the toilets -- who derive their income from what people purchase. What I find interesting is that -- in my experience -- it is often those claiming to have the largest concern for society -- those who believe they care about the little guy more than anybody who are the ones who "stick it to the man" so often that the little guy gets crapped on. Maybe the company has to raise prices, maybe there isn't enough profit for raises, maybe there isn't enough profit to support everyone's jobs. There is a complete lack of understanding that the cause and effect scenario of costing the media industry billions each year is going to impact the lives of very real people. This isn't directed at you, necessarily. I certainly don't know you well enough, though there seems to me that your focus is very heavy on the consumer end and relatively light on the parts that come before that. >just let it flow. >people spend in different ways. Most companies prefer they spend with money. :) >this is becoming a conversation about good vs bad business strategy. >suing and incarcerating your customers is not a good strategy. Perhaps, but then people who take your stuff without paying and erode your sales opportunities aren't really good customers. Let's say you own a convenience store. I come in and spend $1.50 to buy a pack of Twinkies. On my way out I grab two 6-packs of Budweiser and walk out. What do you do? Should I be punished? Should you call the cops? should I be allowed back in your store? Hey, I'm a paying customer and If you let me get away with stealing some Budweiser, I'll come back to your store and spend more money (I'll steal more stuff, too, of course). This isn't that far off from what it seems to me you are saying. But it's different because beer is not like a digital file, you might say. Let's say you lost too much money on the convenience store and open a record store instead. I come in and grab CDs off your shelf. I open them and rip them with the laptop I bring with me. Afterward, I do a really great job of repackaging the discs. No one would know they were opened. Then I start burning CDs. I give them to my friends, who would have had to go to your store to buy them. I stand outside your front door and give one to anyone who walks by. Now, many fewer people are going into your store. The inventory you paid thousands of dollars for isn't moving. New inventory arrives. But people aren't buying. You have to lay off staff, you can't afford your rent, etc. etc. etc. You go out of business and declare bankruptcy. > > However, you yourself said laws change to meet the times and perhaps >this is > > one of those instances. Really, before our modern age there wasn't much > > reason to have such long copyright privileges. In this case, Mickey >Mouse is > > the image of Disney. If he went into public domain they'd lose a ton of > > money. Billions. And they would no longer have control of their image. I > > could make and sell Mickey Mouse t-shirts and dolls and make Mickey >Mouse > > porn and Walt and company couldn't say a damn thing. > >but the point is...at some point...Disney cannot own the images that >are part of our history. Why not? Honestly. What is the damage that is being done by allowing Disney to maintain a longer period of copyright? >they must let go....and let it feed the culture. Aren't they feeding the culture? Their movies are part of our common histories, like you have said. You just can't duplicate their stuff is all. >this was the original intent of copyright and patent laws. Again, laws change to reflect what makes most sense for the times (or at least, I suppose that is the hope). In our modern age people live longer and created works have further use than before. Music has a revenue potential in movies not really seen before the last half of the last century, for instance. Books, music, and movies all make more money now than they did in the past. Industries have grown around those creations, and those industries are beneficial to the economy and the general population, therefore they are worthy of protection. It also used to be that a work would make most of its money in the first few years, but now with computers and modern archival equipment, a work can continue to be profitable far into the future. ====== I hope you do not mistake my strong stance on this to mean that I have never pirated anything. I have (not much and not often, but really maybe that's just making excuses and trying to justify myself). I will say, if it ever became legal, I would never pay for any media again. Who would, really? It would be free and easy to get. I suspect many who are pirating media feel the same way: this isn't a protest, it is a way to get stuff without having to pay for it. One last disclaimer: As I have mentioned before, I am most definitely *not* a lawyer This email (c) copyright 2005, -David ;) >jay > >-- >Adventures in Videoblogging ><URL: http://www.momentshowing.net> ><http://feeds.feedburner.com/Momentshowing> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income households are not online. Help bridge the digital divide today! http://us.click.yahoo.com/cd_AJB/QnQLAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
