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.
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,
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."