Jedi Council Forums - Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/9/02 1:20pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Back in 1996, I had pretty much known that would eventually be the case. The record industry, I thought, would be doomed if they didn't embrace the new technology... but they're doomed anyway because, as it turns out, the technology advanced so far so fast that we don't really need them anywhere in the picture. This is a reality they failed to realize until it was already too late. Now they're just trying to prevent themselves from becoming completely obsolete and middlemen fileshares like Napster are actually helping maintain their archaic and unnecessary business model instead of helping natural market forces cull it out. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
tenorjedi Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 7/9/02 1:59pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	That article has some good info, and a glarring bias, but it's cool. He obviously has his opinions. But internet radio is a whole other debate. This seems more like a case where equal protection needs to be applied. It seems that someone is trying to get in on the good side with the "young crowd" and do the bad thing against the record companies The minute I surpassed Elvis and the Beatles, they called me a freak, a child molester. ... They said I bleached my skin. I know my race — I know I'm black." Preach on brother Mike. Tell the people how black you really are. Let me tell you, when Michael Jackson, Al Sharpton and Johnnie Cochran get together I want to be on their side for sure. I mean, can you find 3 more credible and trustworthy people to tell you the truth about something? These guys are the 3 tenors of truth! The whole story As for record companies, their days will only be numbered when panel selected bands are seen for the fakes they are, and musicians stop taking the quick and easy path to stardom. -----signature----- "Over here we have the same stereo, except all the numbers go to 11" "Does that mean it's any louder?" "Well it's one number higher. It's certainly not 10 is it?"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
BoboliFett Registered: Mar '02	Date Posted: 7/15/02 8:45pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Hollywood gets tough on copying ‘Takedown’ letter campaign targets movie swappers By Bob Sullivan MSNBC July 12 — Keith Tyler signed up for broadband Internet access three weeks ago, and did what many high-speed Net users do — he started swapping music and movies. But within days, the movie industry and his ISP tracked him down and told him to stop offering movies for download, or else. Such threats are now the weapon of choice for the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it’s slinging some 2,000 complaints a week toward alleged movie pirates. IT’S CALLED A “takedown” notice, and it comes with the eerie feeling of having been caught with your hand in the cookie jar — by a lawyer. The letters are flying fast and furious now, as the movie industry tries to pre-empt a Napster-sized outbreak of free content swapping. “Dear Customer,” a typical letter from one ISP, Cox Communications, says, “We have received a notification that you are using your Cox High Speed Internet service to post or transmit material that infringes the copyrights of a complainant’s members. ... Cox will suspend your account and disable your connection to the Internet within 24 hours of your receipt of this e-mail if the offending material is not removed.” The letter then goes on to cite the offending content. In Tyler’s case, it was three or four episodes of “The Simpsons” and part of the new movie “Windtalkers.” A bit shocked by the notice, he quickly removed the content. “I had high speed Internet access for just three weeks, it had not even been that long,” said the 24-year-old Tyler, an information technology specialist from Phoenix, Ariz. “It was just a couple of movies.” He had made them available for download on the Gnutella network. Tyler said he replied immediately to Cox saying he had deleted the files. “They wrote back and said that should be good enough.” Tyler was nabbed by an automated program developed by Ranger Online Inc. The software cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used. Soon after, the MPAA sends its form letter to the ISP. Under the Digital Copyright Millennium Act, Internet providers are compelled to stop distribution of copywrite materials when they are notified, so the ISP in turn forwards the note to the user, along with a threat of disconnection. Expect more threats as time goes by — in 2001, 54,000 letters went out. The rate has now doubled, with 50,534 takedown notices sent by June 30 of this year, keeping Internet service providers very busy chasing down copyright complaints. “We are continuing to fine-tune the system,” said Ken Jacobsen, senior vice president and director of worldwide antipiracy efforts at MPAA. While the firm began sending takedown notices in late 2000, efforts continue to ramp up, to keep pace with increased movie swapping online. A LIGHTER TOUCH So far, the MPAA seems to be using a slightly lighter hand than the Recording Industry Association of America. Along with the calamitous battle with Napster, followed by litigation against current file-swapping services KaZaa and Morpheus, the music industry has been behind several high-profile arrests of individuals involved in the online music trade. And just last week, The Wall Street Journal reported the industry is planning to step up such individual prosecutions. While Jacobsen says such drastic law enforcement measures would be appropriate in “extreme situations,” he says the movie industry is really hoping to have relatively civil exchanges with transgressors like Tyler, and sees takedown notices as an educational effort. “We are trying to notify people,” he said. “The person may not understand this is inappropriate behavior. Clearly our first approach would be to try to let them know.” THREATENED WITH DORM EXPULSION The MPAA’s exchange with Robert Sullivan, one of the first recipients of a takedown notice, was a bit more acrimonious. As a student at the University of Iowa last year, Sullivan said he was sharing files on Internet Relay chat for “10 minutes max.” Two weeks later, his dorm room Ethernet access was shut off, and he was hauled into the residence hall dean’s office for a discussion of “Ethernet abuse.” “They suspended my network rights for the rest of the year,” Sullivan said. “They said that it could have been worse and I could have been kicked out of the hall.” Sullivan is hardly alone. About 100 Iowa students received takedown notices last year — one of several college campuses targeted by anti-piracy efforts. With a combination of tech-savvy youth, plenty of bandwidth, and perhaps plenty of free time, colleges and universities are ripe for movie file swapping, Jacobsen said, so the MPAA has made efforts to focus on schools. In recent months, the MPAA has sent notices to Stanford and the University of Texas at Austin criticizing the schools’ efforts to stop file-swapping. In the letter to Stanford President John Hennessy, MPAA chairman Jack Valenti criticized Stanford’s “acceptance of theft which collides with moral and civic compact.” Stanford responded by saying it had taken steps to stop piracy by its students. The movie industry’s letter-writing campaign shows it’s trying to learn from the lesson of the music industry, which failed to address the Internet music piracy issue until it was almost overrun by it. Some estimates say more than a billion songs per day were flying around the Net in Napster’s heyday. Movie swapping is considerably less popular and more clunky, but some 400,000 to 600,000 movies are downloaded every day, according to the MPAA. And the number is steadily rising thanks to increased availability of broadband Internet access and new compression techniques. Even just two years ago, downloading a movie online was relatively complicated and time consuming, but now, an average movie can be downloaded over a broadband connection in about half its running time, the MPAA says. FALSE POSITIVES Needless to say, the letters aren’t popular. Some critics raise the possibility of “false positives,” suggesting Ranger’s software might falsely accuse a file swapper — perhaps someone sharing a home video that happened to be named “Simpsons,” for example. A Hawaii-based Web site named InternetMovies.com says this happened to them last year. It was temporarily knocked offline by its Internet provider after an MPAA takedown notice was received. InternetMovies.com, which claims it wasn’t offering copywrite material, filed suit against the MPAA on April 25 for causing a business disruption. But Jacbosen says InternetMovies was offering up pirated material, and furthermore, he claims Ranger is almost never wrong. “Of all the letters we have sent out, we only had 2 other people who corresponded back who said we were mistaken,” Jacobsen said. “And we didn’t think we were.” But while the cease-and-desist letters will continue, so will the cat-and-mouse game between copyright holders and Web users bent on sharing files. Just this week, a new file-swapping program was announced that promises more anonymity to file swappers —- making them harder for the industry to find and stop. Called “Flyster,” the program will allow downloading in complete anonymity, according to developer Louis-Eric Simard. However, those who host files for download could still be traced, he said. Meanwhile, other developers are working on technologies that would add anonymity to file sharing networks. Jacobsen acknowledges the MPAA is fighting an uphill battle while trying to shut off access to pirated films. He wouldn’t say if he felt the takedown letter campaign was successful. “It’s all relative,” he said. “Clearly we have a colossal problem out there ... and it doesn’t appear to be getting smaller.”
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Saint_of_Killers Registered: Feb '01	Date Posted: 7/15/02 9:08pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	"The minute I surpassed Elvis and the Beatles" What a retard! -----signature----- We enter into life naked and howling, covered with blood. The fun doesn't have to end there. Who to himself is law, no law does need, offends no law and is a king indeed Abraham failed the test. TAKE A BOW MISTER BUNNY!!!
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediStocky Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 7/17/02 3:45pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Is it morally right to download (for free) the music of dead artists? If the artist is dead, then those who own the rights, are only making money by doing no work at all, so are freeloading. I'm of the opinion that you should feel no guilt at all for grabbing tunes by Elvis and Sinatra for nothing. I hope someone reads this. -----signature----- "Daddy! Daddy! Look! Jedi!" - Our daughter "Throw yourself at failure. You might miss." http://www.myspace.com/jedi_stocky
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KnightWriter Title: Administrator Emeritus Registered: Nov '01	Date Posted: 7/17/02 3:57pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Unfortunately, the record companies keep those rights for a near-eternity. It doesn't matter whether to artist dies or not, as I understand it. -----signature----- "May you live all the days of your life"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JediStocky Registered: Dec '01	Date Posted: 7/17/02 4:08pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	Yeah, I know they hang onto them forever, but would you feel bad for doing it? Personally I would have next to no problem doing it. If they person is dead, they are making no more money for their work! Simple! Cut out the parasite! -----signature----- "Daddy! Daddy! Look! Jedi!" - Our daughter "Throw yourself at failure. You might miss." http://www.myspace.com/jedi_stocky
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/17/02 4:28pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/17/02 4:31pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Kimball_Kinnison
	I will admit to having swapped files before. I mostly use the various services to acquire copies of television programs I can no longer get (because our reception is lousy). I see nothing wrong with this usage because it is akin to recording them digitally or borrowing a recording (from the airwaves) from a friend. That said, I also believe that copyright law needs some changes made. Here is what I propose: Change the term of copyright to 20 years, renewable once for an additional 20 year. This would replace the current term of 95 years or life of the author plus 20 (which ever is longer). This would be in keeping with the original intent of copyright, to allow the author an exclusive monopoly for a limited time so they can profit from their work. Eliminate "work for hire", the principle that says that if you are hired to write something, the copyright is transfered to the person who hired you. I would make copyrights non-transferable (except to the heirs of the author). I place of this, I would make a new "work for hire" condition: mandatory, non-revokable licensing of the work to those who hire an author/artist. After a period of time (decided by the artist's contract with their employer), they would be allowed to license it to others under their own terms. I feel that these changes, along with the provision that once a work enters the public domain, it cannot be recopyrighted, would restore copyright to its original intent. This sort of plan would return control of the works to the authors, those who actually created the content. It would allow companies to make use of the works, but it would protect the authors/artists as well. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
tenorjedi Registered: Aug '00	Date Posted: 7/18/02 5:27am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	I'm actually in favor of changing the copywrite lengths for music and for software. Software should be 10 with an option to renew for an extra 5 years (because of it's shorter life) and music would be acceptable at 20 with an additional 10-20 option. -----signature----- "Over here we have the same stereo, except all the numbers go to 11" "Does that mean it's any louder?" "Well it's one number higher. It's certainly not 10 is it?"
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/18/02 10:27am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/18/02 10:54am (5 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	What will shortening the length of copyrights do? Companies will just shift the increased costs of renewal (labor, processing and fees) to the enduser through higher prices. The answer is simply to eliminate the middleman... reduce unecessary distribution costs! Record companies, as long as we keep feeding their coffers, whether buying their works or trading Mp3s of their material, thus giving them a reason to gain interest in partnering with internet distribution schemes like Napster, will not elect to eliminate works for hire. They will simply not finance something from which they are denied control and profit... what would be the point for them? Their entire business model rests on their ability to control channels of music distribution, and decide on the basis of marketability, because they are a business, what ventures they deem worth financing. If you invest in stock, are you not expecting a gain? If you lease a car, who holds the title? Likewise, if a record company loans you $300,000, what makes you think you own the rights to something they financed? If you're willing to sign a deal with a label in the first place, and you weren't paying attention to the terms of the contract, that's your problem to deal with. Besides, the difference between Copyrights and Phonorecord rights already covers this ground by creating a distinction between the copyright on the song and lyrics vs. the phonorecord rights associated with a particular collection/arrangement of songs on an album release. Some artists are able to negotiate deals wherein they retain full copyrights over the original material, but the record company retains phonorecord rights. In some instances, artists such as Madonna have made distribution deals with record labels... whereby they receive financing for a fully-functional record label subsidiary ($60 million is what Time-Warner contributed to Maverick, her record label) with rights to sign artists, in exchange for exclusive distribution rights. Granted, she's perhaps the highest paid female solo artist in the recording business (in terms of royalty percentage points), but smaller artists can strike similar deals as well, if they are marketable. The 1992 Audio Home Recording Act already establishes that the individual copying of prerecorded material exclusively for personal use and not distribution (whether free or profitable) is legal. Essentially, the copyright law protects the little guy far more often than it protects the big ones... because it establishes copyright infringement as a crime, and not just a tort. If copyright law were abolished, let's say, huge record companies would have the advantage... because their legal defense teams are far more likely to win every tort lawsuit brought against them by Joe Blow, and if an independent artist's material were stolen and they did not receive credit... they would not have any guaranteed protection and, most likely in the case of major labels, couldn't afford as many top-notch lawyers to defend themselves in a tort case. Furthermore, even if copyright registration changes, common law copyrights could be substantiated far more easily by companies with big law firms and lots of documentation... and they're still entitled to civil damages, aside from the criminal penalties that Title 17 establishes. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/18/02 2:10pm Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	That is part of why I suggest making copyrights non-transferable in addition to shortening the length of copyrights. By doing that, it removes the power that the current middlemen have (by forcing artists to assign the copyright to them) and places it back with the artists. The only exception I would give to this would be that it can be transfered to the legal heirs of a person upon their death. My proposal would give a person/company up to 40 years to profit from their work (considering that most profit on music is made within the first 1-2 years). Beyond that point, it should fall into the public domain. (I will point out that the term I suggest is still longer than the original term of copyrights, 14 years.) I would also add the requirement to be able to remove all Digital Rights Management restrictions when the copyright term ends and the work falls into the public domain. This guarantees that the work will actually be available to the public (who would become the owners of the work). Otherwise, it is like owning the safe but not having the combination. A funny thing to notice is that copyright terms have been constantly extended over the past several years, always just before Mickey Mouse would fall into the public domain. Add to that that Disney is a major campaigner for extended copyrights and I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 6:34am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	While I understand your motives, I think that the elimination of works for hire doesn't solve the problem of the recording industry juggernaut. First off, it may give ignorant artists and bands more incentive to sign record deals without being forced to be accountable for what contracts they enter. If a revolution in music distribution is going to occur, it has to come from the consumer... ultimately our demand is what drives everything these companies do. Secondly, artists shouldn't be incented to sign with record labels by the elimination of "works for hire"... artists should be encouraged to record, produce and distribute material independently of any record label. We simply don't need them. So the trick is to make it entirely unprofitable for a company with enormous manufacturing, logistics, marketing and promotions expenses to cover such that they depart the business model entirely. The computer and the internet are the artist and consumer's primary weapons in this regard. Then the artist retains rights, the consumer has direct transactions with the producers of these goods... and the distribution of control, wealth, information and intellectual property is decentralized... creating the most efficient supply-on-demand system there can be, given that we have the technology to make it far more efficient than the record industry's distribution model... and far more diverse a platform. -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 9:23am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	If a revolution in music distribution is going to occur, it has to come from the consumer... ultimately our demand is what drives everything these companies do. Secondly, artists shouldn't be incented to sign with record labels by the elimination of "works for hire"... artists should be encouraged to record, produce and distribute material independently of any record label. Making copyrights non-transferable would help do that. By making it so that only the original creator (or their legal heirs) can hold the copyright, it would return the recording studios to what they should have been: a resource for the artists for recording and promoting their music. It returns the power to the artist. Yes, you would have some artists who would still be taken advantage of by the labels. If they have to negotiate the exclusive license (that I mentioned in my replacement for "work for hire") with each individual, then each artist would be able to set their own limits. I would also add that I would make that license limited (i.e. the maximum possible time) to the first copyright term (or 20 years undser my plan). The artist (or his/her heirs) could then renew the copyright for another 20 years and license it to whomever they want. Keep in mind, though, that there would be no requirement to provide that exclusive license for the full 20 years. That would be up to the artist, their lawyer and the label in question. I think we can all agree that copyright laws need to be reformed. Originally, (this is a correction to what I said earlier) they were for 1 years, renewable for another 14 years (I had said a total of 14 years). Now, if I copyrighted something today, my great-great-grandchildren could still be recieving royalties (and I don't have any kids). Thanks to the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act (1998), no works will enter the public domain (except those specifically given to it by their authors) until 2019! That is a far cry from the "securing for limited times to authors..." mentioned in the Constitution. Keep in mind that most of the money from a certain book/CD/movie is made in the first 1-2 years. For software, that time is even shorter. The problem with your suggestion of using the internet for distribution is that not everyone is online yet. Even fewer people have the broadband access needed to receive large quantities of digital content (like music or movies). It is not feasible to topple the recording industry's model just through the internet at this time. Even then, the laws would still need reform. They have far surpassed the intent of copyright as described in the Constitution. So, how would you recommend reforming copyright law to help correct for its abuses? Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Darth_SnowDog Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 10:25am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both? - Date Edited: 7/19/02 11:15am (4 edits total) Edited By: Darth_SnowDog
	Making copyrights non-transferable would help do that. By making it so that only the original creator (or their legal heirs) can hold the copyright, it would return the recording studios to what they should have been: a resource for the artists for recording and promoting their music. It returns the power to the artist. Why "should" they have been a "resource"? What do these enterprises, conceived with every intention of making a profit, owe to recording artists? I have no suggestions in particular at this time for reforming copyright law... If I review Title 17 and think of any, I will certainl let you know. However, why not reform the industry that is abusing the law and influencing the lawmakers? Reforming the law won't by any means declaw them permanently, nor will it eliminate the unnecessary burden their presence places on the supply-demand chain of entertainment. I'm not talking about legislative-imposed reform, either. I'm talking about consumer- and producer-imposed reform (producers of goods being the artists in this case). It took less than ten years for CDs to surpass cassettes and vinyl as the dominant format... It should take less than that for the internet to dominate distribution. Still, one doesn't need to rely on the internet alone. It's far better for me as an artist to produce my own recording, manufacture and distribute it through consignment with record stores. I also consider it better for my audience to have direct access to my work... if word of mouth gets out and people like it, more albums will sell and I can order more CDs to be pressed... It will cost me a LOT less than the debt I will encumber if I sign a record deal, and profit me a lot more... at a lower price to the enduser than the record labels could manage. Lastly, in an AC Nielsen survey of the greatest internet populations the US ranked #1 for Q1, 2002, with 166 million online. That is approximately 60 percent of the population. In 1991, the World Wide Web was released by CERN. By 1993, 130 websites were registered. As of March 2002, there are 38,118,962 websites... less than 11 years after the inception of the WWW. By contrast, CD technology was first announced by Philips in 1978, first marketed in 1982 and by 1990, 28 percent of households had CDs and worldwide sales reached 1 billion. By 1999, combined sales of DVDs and CDs totalled 9.2 billion. So, for roughly a ten year period, optical media sales have grown 820 percent, maturing to 4 percent annual growth in the last year. By comparison, the internet by measure of internet sites has grown 29.3 million percent during that same period. Some other relevant internet statistics (Source: internetindicators.com): 1. 17 million US households shopping online by 1999. 2. 10 million networked homes in the US by 2003. 3. 64 million US adults are regular internet users. 4. 56 percent of US companies will sell their products online by 2004. Economic Impact Information technology sectors are growing at double the rate of the overall economy and have jumped as a share of the economy from 6.4% in 1993 to 8.2% in 1998. (U.S. Department of Commerce) High-tech has driven more than a quarter of all economic growth since 1993. (U.S. Department of Commerce) In 1965, high-tech's share of business spending was 3%. In 1996, it was 45%. (U.S. Department of Commerce) In 1996, 7.4 million people worked in high-tech jobs, earning an average salary of $46,000, more than fifty percent more than the average wage of $28,000. (U.S. Department of Commerce) Internet Usage 1 in 6 people use the Internet in North America and Europe. (NUA) The number of women using the Internet worldwide will pass 96 million, or 45 percent of the world's Internet users in 2001. (Computer Economics) In 1993, there were 26,000 domain names in use. In 1999, there are 5 million web sites. (U.S. Department of Commerce/Netcraft) In 1993, 3 million people were connected to the Internet. In 1999, 80 million Americans are connected and approximately 200 million people worldwide. (U.S. Department of Commerce) 364 million PCs were in use in 1998. (Computer Almanac Industry) The Internet and Businesses Small businesses who use the Internet have grown 46% faster than those that do not. (American City Business Journals) Forty-four percent of U.S. companies are selling online; 36% more say they will do so by the end of the year. (Association of National Advertisers) Internet Advertising generated $1.92 billion in 1998, double the 1997 figure. (Internet Advertising Bureau) Small and home offices spent $51.1 billion on high-tech goods in 1998. (IDC) -----signature----- I am boycotting theforce.net because of their homophobic, bigoted policy concerning fanfic romance. Others who believe this is bigotry should boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Kimball_Kinnison Registered: Oct '01	Date Posted: 7/19/02 11:22am Subject: RE: Suing individual file traders. Right, wrong, or both?
	However, why not reform the industry that is abusing the law and influencing the lawmakers? ... I'm not talking about legislative-imposed reform, either. I'm talking about consumer- and producer-imposed reform (producers of goods being the artists in this case). I am not saying that you are wrong to reform the industry. However, reforming the copyright laws is a vital first step in that. It is the copyright laws that have given the recording industry its teeth. By forcing artists to assign the copyrights to them, they gain the control over the music, regardless of what the artist might wish (hence the danger in work for hire). Without the legislative reform, the consumer and producer reform will be largely ineffective. Why "should" they have been a "resource"? What do these enterprises, conceived with every intention of making a profit, owe to recording artists? I used should from the ethical standpoint. No matter what Capitalism says, it is unethical to exploit others for your own personal gain. Let me provide an analogy of a model the recording industry could use. My Dad and I enjoy woodworking. Over the last several years, we have built up a large supply of tools and (recently) added a workshop to the back of our house. In all, (including the cost of remodeling to include the shop and the master bedroom over it) we have spent over $100,000 on supplies (adding about that much value to the house at the same time). The power tools are expensive to buy (for the higher-quality ones we want) and the supply of wood can get pricey as well. However, in that workshop, we can create works of art (right now we are working on a walnut and maple crib for my new nephew, born last week). We are lucky that we have been able to accumulate the resources to do it in our own home. However, there are places in our area that will rent you time in their shops to work there, on their tools. Their tools are higher-quality than what we can afford. They have experts on hand to help those who need it. They are a valuable resource for us (and others) when we need it. Some places will even help market your work, if that is what you want (and it meets their standards). In the same way, the recording studios have access to high-quality equipment. They have marketing experts and recording experts who can help artists who may want those services. You can build up a nice home studio (I know people who have done this), but not everyone has those resources available. You can do your own marketing, but you could also hire them to market it for you. In other words, the recording industry could try following the same model as woodworking shops do. It could become a resource for artists, not a requirement (like it almost is today). Many of the woodworking shops (especially those that help sell pieces) are quite profitable, taking a fair portion of the sales (often negotiated on an individual basis). Kimball Kinnison -----signature----- You deserve the wrath of Kimball...- OWM Why, Kimball... I didn't know you had it in you.- KW I think that Kimball just made a joke, and a funny joke at that.- Raven Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » JC Community » The Senate Floor »