Posted on 11/05/2010 9:27:54 PM PDT by JoeProBono
I dont get this.. you can go on youtube and listen to any song on the planet and pay nothing.. whats the difference between doing that and downloading?
I dont even understand how they even come up with that large of a fine.. for 24 songs? They probably wont get a dime from her and they probably spend more money pursuing these lawsuits and developping new ideas to combat illegal downloading than they would ever save from people not downloading.. Kids these days are much smarter than these computer security companies that combat piracy, they hack their software, which they probably spent millions of dollars creating, in a matter of minutes.
I'm an arch-conservative who doesn't own any patents (except indirectly, through my stock portfolio). But, by the same token, I've never violated any copyright laws.
Having said that, I think that it is legitimate to distinguish between material and immaterial property.
One's ownership of something is defined partly by the mere fact that one has stumbled across and/or found a previously ownerless object (think "pioneers") and "taken possession" of it, or has created something de novo (that "something" can be a material object like an iPod or an oceanliner, or something immaterial like a poem, a song, a novel, or an industrial process).
In the case of material goods, besides keeping paperwork (a "pink slip" to an automobile or a deed to land), one can also constantly re-assert one's ownership by maintaining physical possession (think "inhabiting land and defending it, if need be, with the force of arms") - but in the case of immaterial goods, unless one keeps them a secret (which may defeat their purpose - e.g., with music), as soon as they become disseminated, i.e., known to others, one can establish ownership only by referring to the paperwork (e.g., patent documents).
In regards to material things, the Law wisely limits ownership to things which one can actually control and maintain possession of (including even borderline cases like bees). In other words, property rights are limited to those things which one can, in actual practice, keep and defend. Thus, one cannot claim ownership of the air one exhales since it isn't practically possible to keep track of or corral the individual molecules of air. As soon as you bottle it in compressed air tanks, however, you can claim ownership.
In the case of intellectual property rights (some of which protect pretty piddling "inventions" like the use of a "clockface" or "hourglass" or "steaming cup of coffee" icon for the concept of "Be patient!" in computer program interfaces), the issue is even more complex since the "good" can be replicated trillions of times at virtually no cost (in the case of novels, at least, it used to be that they were bound to physical objects - i.e., books - which hampered unlimited reproduction, though bootleggers throve by printing on substandard paper).
I'm not really staking out a position in this debate except to say that, with the innovation of a distribution network like the Internet and the ability to reproduce "goods" even trillions of times at almost no cost, it may be necessary to re-think the concept of "private property" - at least with respect to intellectual property rights.
Regards,
I have never produced anything worthy of patent or copyright protection. I doubt that I ever will. But I DO listen to, read and watch material that others have produced, I am of the opinion that their efforts should not go unrewarded. One can argue about how long protection of these works ought to last—which should be a balance of a fair return on an inventor’s efforts and the “right” of the public to use that which has been made public.
Why do we buy/download/steal/borrow books and CDs? Is it not because we think they have value to us as entertainment or information? I have read arguments on threads such as these that the person who invents or creates loses nothing if his work is copied without attribution or payment. I see a certain logic there. But the other side of this argument is that the person who does the copying gets something he values without paying anything for it, which most conservatives (like myself) ought to think is unfair.
The only reason this woman downloaded the songs was because she found value in them, either because she wanted to hear them herself (and arguably lacked the talent to create music that she wanted to listen to) or thought others would want to listen to them (if she made them available for others to download from her). She got (before the judgment was entered) something for nothing. Was that fair or right?
From the inventor/songwriter’s perspective, he has invested time and effort, or has given from a fruitful and talented mind, something that belonged to him, and something that did not exist before he created it. The results of that effort/talent should not be taken from him to be freely used by others who made no effort to create it.
The mechanisms and formulas for determing how to fairly compensate people who create can be argued, but I don’t see how the concept of allowing someone to benefit from the fruits of his labors without having others treat his work as their own property can be countenanced by anyone, and especially conservatives, who value the rights of the individual.
W
One should further differentiate between 1) someone who copies something for his own, personal enjoyment and entertainment, and 2) someone who copies something with the intention of disseminating it for personal gain (including making it available to others free of charge, but, e.g., while collecting advertising fees, increasing the traffic of his site, or otherwise obtaining a monetary benefit). The Law also views denying someone else their legitimate profits as equivalent to making a profit, oneself.
While both "1" and "2" are examples of Copyright Infringement and/or Theft of Intellectual Property, I don't believe that Law Enforcement is currently prosecuting people for case "1" - but that is only for reasons of practicality.
Regards,
Thanks for such an interesting post.
I think about these issues on a daily basis. I completely understand what you’re saying, but to bottom-line it, when it comes to the examples you site, there is such a significant difference between the clockface design you’re talking about and a novel that is the transcription of an author’s created-from-scratch interior world that we’re talking about two completely different topics, really.
One has to define the difference you touch on here. The difference between the situation I responded to and the woman in this case is simply this: This woman did not make any claims that watered-down the copyright-holder’s claim to first-authorship. She did not take the songs and put her name on them, claiming she sang them. By NOT suing this one woman, the copyright holders would not have been hurting their own protection of their copyrighted material.
It’s a long, complex discussion, but I have strong feelings about this. There is aworld of difference between allowing others to build on the innovations of, say, the makers of a new technology, but just as no one can now say “I’M now the creator of the Mac or ipod because it’s been X number of years” (though they can build on the technology), no one has the right to say, “Sorry, DW, that you wrote that book which I had nothing to do with—it’s MINE now.” That’s a world of difference from liking something someone wrote and then building on it.
Wasn’t it Disney that pushed Congress to change the laws a few years back, to protect their classic movies?
Wasn’t it the RIAA who sued a mom & pop antique store because they played a radio?
They really do reach.
By pointing out the quantitative difference between, e.g., a novel and, e.g., a "clockface" icon - both of which are fully patentable/copyrightable and both of which enjoy the full protection of Intellectual Property Rights - you bring up an additional, interesting issue.
An "invention" can consist of just a single "innovation" - e.g., "when an e-mail arrives in the in-box, an electronic tone is emitted, signalling to the user its arrival" - while, e.g., a novel typically represents/embodies tens of thousands of individual artistic choices. Yet both are equally protected.
Also, we can recognize the similarity of an original song and a "rip-off" only because the human brain is "hardwired" to do so - just as we are hardwired to recognize human faces (even when they aren't really there, for example: in photographs of the surface of Mars). A judge being asked to decide in a plagiarism suit doesn't rely on word-counts, he/she makes a subjective judgement - but one which we, as humans who are hardwired to compare and correlate narratives, are eminently qualified to make.
This problem (Internet music downloads) has been around for approx. 15 years, and yet I think that we are still far from reaching a (new) consensus on what constitutes "Fair Use," what are commensurate penalties, and what can be practicably enforced.
Regards,
I say keep those D/L's humming and F the recording industry.
I am a songwriter and screenwriter.
Those who trash these cases should Google Title 17 of the United States Code.
You will see that there are statutory penalties in place for copyright infringement. The juries are told about these penalties in their instructions. Willful copyright infringement carries statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work infringed. If these penalties were not so severe, the protections against infringement would be meaningless and enforcement would be hopeless.
You can ask for actual damages which have to be proven or you can ask for statutory damages as stated in the law.
It is very difficult to prove actual damages for copyrighted works which have never been marketed, thus the statutory damages.
I am aware of songs written which have languished for years before finally being recorded by a major label artist so the songwriters can finally receive some compensation for sales and airplay.
I have songs I have written more than 20 years ago which have never been commercially released but are still viable as commercial works. Why should these be fair game for theft?
Forty per cent of the GDP of the United States derives from intellectual property. Every invention, every piece of software and every trademark has been created and worked on by the creators and developers.
Why do so many people think the fruits of creativity do not or should not belong to the creators?
The RIAA makes a convenient target to trash but keep in mind that mass-marketed music is the source of payments to the creators. RIAA members distribute and sell the product from which the creators reap their monetary benefits.
The trashing of copyright rights on a conservative web site is disgusting because this is supposed to be where property rights mean something.
Copyright is so important, it was mentioned in the Constitution and copyright laws were some of the first enacted by Congress after the founding of this nation.
Under the worldwide Berne Convention ( an international copyright agreement), countries of the world have agreed to the protection of copyrights.
A lot of countries have even more stringent protections than exist in the United States.
It is the argument of communists that the property of others belongs to the collective.
I don't write songs for my comrade communists to freely use and share without permission or compensation.
If you want a free song or movie, write and produce the damn thing yourself.
Then watch as others steal YOUR work. Then you'll experience for yourself "what goes around comes around."
Please - cases like this completely undermine the legal system and any respect for it.
Got to love America these days -
Steal billions and billions - nothing happens.
Steal $60 worth of songs - $1.2 Million dollar fine.
If anyone doesnt see the absuridty of this, well . . . . ..
If you are going to make an example of someone you should pick on someone less sympathetic. This just makes them look like evil sons without fathers.
That’s a great point. “Yeah, I can see where this poor woman is the cause of Britney Spears’ being out on the street, and I just noticed Radiohead with a ‘Will whine for food’ sign down by the freeway...”
Very weak hands control the music industry. Expect to see a turn over soon.
I’m not a musician but have known many over the years—no one you’d have heard of, but folks way off the top 40 who have put out albums and CDs on minor and mini-major labels. I’ve followed folks like Aimee Mann, who basically gave up on goign the major label route.
I’ve also read the “The industry is about to collapse any second, and it’ll all be done privately” (or online) pieces for decades now.
I keep waiting for the revolution to come, but it hasn’t. In the past year or two I’ve seen downloads becoming more and more popular, and small CD labels turning to limited editions because of the difference in RIAA-delegated payments.
I think when the revolution comes it’ll be because the music publishers and the labels will be unable to offer anything of value to the artists. Supposedly this has been about to happen for twenty years. Maybe that just means we’re closer to that day than ever, but I don’t know if we’ll ever actually see such a turnover, or it’ll be more about the majors having fewer and fewer artists, all of them the mega-sellers. The rest will be on their own, and the revolution will happen because the monied interests just don’t care anymore.
The whole copyright question is fascinating and complex. All of the many many sides have valid but conflicting points. It may be one case where law is just not a useful tool.
Either the RIAA are idiots, or the writer and editor need to be fired.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.