Posted on 08/10/2004 1:56:01 PM PDT by OESY
If you own a movie or record copyright, and someone else "induces" people to start infringing it, should you be able to sue the inducer? Senator Orrin Hatch thinks so, and it's possible his bad idea could become bad law.
Granted, he's trying to address a real copyright problem. Music labels and movie studios are playing a frustrating game of whack-a-mole, with new Internet file-sharing networks popping up faster than the recording industry can protest. The newest networks, including KaZaa and Morpheus, are run as for-profit piracy havens but have found ways to skirt copyright laws.
They display advertising on users' desktops but make sure that individual users, rather than anyone in corporate HQ, handle the actual dirty work of infringing copyright. The network operators then claim to be shocked by the illegal activity of individual file traders -- even though they're well aware that their users aren't swapping Shakespeare.
Trouble is, the facts don't support the idea that legal action against these network operators would help in the larger fight against piracy. Napster's court-ordered shutdown in 2001 might have been a symbolic triumph over intellectual property theft, but it caused only a minor hiccup in the supply chain for pirated media. The new firms that took its place (the ones that Mr. Hatch's bill targets) are housed outside the U.S., which makes it tough to make them pay a court judgment.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
CONCLUSION:
Mr. Hatch claims his bill would leave in place a Supreme Court ruling that protects the makers of general-purpose technologies from copyright liability. Even if he were right, the conceptual problem with criminalizing tools is inescapable. As long as the necessary legal umbrella protecting technology tools stays in place, the shadier network operators will find a way to shelter themselves under it.
The better legal tools to stop file traders are hidden in plain sight, in pre-Internet U.S. copyright law. "Willful" infringement -- when the copier knows, or should know, that he's over the line -- carries a statutory penalty of $150,000 per illegal copy. The content industry can also continue to sue individual pirates. With penalties this high, it doesn't take very many suits to substantially increase the expected cost of pirating an album or film.
These suits aren't popular with customers, which is why music and movie companies are asking Congress for other ways of stopping piracy. But it's high time providers and consumers alike bit the bullet and recognized that individual users who pirate content really do deserve steep punishment. That's a better solution than creating more causes of action for the trial bar.
If Orrin wants to go after the major pirate in the world, he should have a talk with the People's Republic of China.
So aren't the makers of CD & DVD burners "inducing" their customers to pirate? And aren't PC makers inducing people to use CD & DVD burners? And aren't electrical utility companies inducing people to use electrical appliances like PCs, CD & DVD burners? And isn't France ultimately responsible for this? I'm sure John Edwards is just SEETHING at the fact that he'll have to wait for Nov 3rd before he'll be free to jump in on the lawsuit opportunites presented.
Federal assistance could be provided to the truly needy for high priced albums and concerts, and the government could use its clout to negotiate down outrageous prices imposed by the entertainment media moguls.
After all, which is more important to the average American? Songs or pills? Although some might argue that pharmaceuticals do more to improve the health of Americans, obviously the study is biased.
For instance, many people I know have to confront the decision almost on a monthly basis as to whether to see a Bette Midler concert or to put food on their table for their starving families.
We must alleviate starvation within our own borders -- so often perpetrated by those who have rich musical backgrounds.
If Sen. Hatch would spend as much time trying to get Judicial nominees out of committee and on to a floor vote as he spends trying to blow up computers with illegal downloads, he might be more productive.
Evidence shows that the recording industry has had INCREASED sales, not declining sales.
IIRC, the similar 'concerns' arose when cassette tapes were first introduced. I read somewhere that blank cassettes have a surcharge attached to their sale that specifically goes to the recording industry to cover potential loses.
Well, I would write more but my download of the new Manchurian Candidate has just finished, so I'm going to go watch it.
What about those evil radio stations that play music knowing full well that somebody may be recording them? Or those evil TV stations that do the same with movies?
HATCH needs to be retired to Hollywood and Vine and sit there in his thongs smiling at the queens on parade.
He would love that.
Public libraries --- watch out!
So what is the "intellectual content" that these pirates are stealing? Is it the melody? Is it the lyrics? Is it the performance? Is it the recording? Is it the playback format. Since the rendition of a melody by someone other than the composer or some licensed performer is allowable, why is its rendering into another form, such as from analogue to digital, illegal? Is taping a song off of a radio broadcast illegal? If so, why aren't the record producers suing them? Should a garage band doing a cover of Lennon McCartney standard be liable to Michael Jackson? Are Elvis impersonators criminals? If an individual claims to be a musician and that his or her "piracy" is being done for professional or educational purposes, such as to learn the song so that his garage band can perform it that weekend at the local bar, his he or she not liable? Is it "content" or aesthetic enjoyment that is being stolen? Is aesthetic enjoyment "intellectual content?"
Consider some other forms of "intellectual content." If an architect designs a building, and then a photographer photographs the building, publishes the photograph and receives a fee, is the photographer liable to the architect? If the picture is compelling and aesthetically pleasing then it is certain that the architect contributed substantially. Moreover, others will see the picture and copy features of it into their designs, causing greater competition for the architect and suppressing market value of the architects creations. Suppose a man buys a picturesque piece of property, and another photographs it or paints a picture. Can the owner of the property assert legal rights and demand a usage fee for the artist's enjoyment and reproduction of that instance of aesthetic enjoyment? If aesthetic enjoyment is intellectual property, why not?
.....huh?......
I believe in free access to all information, nobody should be on the internet saying, "No, No, snookums, you can't go there." If I want to see the FBI's most wanted list, I should be able to. If I want to pirate movies or music, or if I have the desire to run naked through the streets of my hometown while smearing myself in green jello, I should be able to. Not because I would, but I might suddenly feel the need to, and the Government doesn't need to be protecting me from myself.
I saw an article that said that the "unauthorized" broadcast won't cost Axis Mikey his shot at an Oscar, but I never heard any outrage over the act.
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.