[IP] The Web and the law
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 28, 2005 7:42:39 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The Web and the law
Reply-To: dewayne@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-
piracy28aug28,0,2328622.story?track=tothtml>
EDITORIAL
The Web and the law
August 28, 2005
HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS filed lawsuits last week accusing 286 people of
sharing movies online without permission. The point of the latest
claims, as with the hundreds that preceded them, was twofold: to
punish those who violate a copyright, and to educate the public at
large about the legal boundaries of downloading.
As an educational tool, this type of lawsuit leaves something to be
desired. Only a fraction of the people sharing songs and movies
online illegally are sued, dulling the deterrent effect. At the same
time, because so many claims have been filed (more than 13,000 by the
movie and music industries since September 2003), they no longer
attract much attention. Another problem is that studios and labels do
not know the identity of a defendant when they start pressing a
claim; the lawsuit eventually lands on the person whose Internet
account was linked to pirated files. As a result, defendants have
included such crowd-pleasers as a 12-year-old girl, several
grandparents and at least one dead person.
The resulting publicity hasn't garnered much sympathy for the labels
or their cause. And critics of the lawsuits are right to argue that
such actions aren't a long-term solution to the rampant piracy that
the Internet enables. (Their argument that content providers are
abusing copyright law to prevent fair use is a harder case to make,
but worth hearing.) Entertainment companies need to find more
effective ways to boost respect for copyrights while embracing the
new technology to satisfy demand.
Nevertheless, there are a couple of important principles that the
lawsuits advance, however fitfully.
First, they show that the right way to protect copyrights is to focus
on people who are violating them, not on the public at large. By
contrast, some of the major record companies are also trying to
combat piracy by switching to CD technology that resists copying even
for legal purposes. This approach forces restrictions on all CD
buyers in the name of stopping abuses by an unknown fraction of music
fans.
Second, the suits drive home the point that paying $40 a month for
high-speed Internet access does not entitle users to free copies of
everything they might want. Unfortunately, that point is still lost
on many people, especially young people. Numerous defendants have
been parents who either ignored or tolerated what their kids were
doing on file-sharing networks, only to find themselves paying a
premium for the hundreds of bootlegged songs stored on a family
computer. (The labels typically demand $3,750 to $4,500 to settle a
case, although copyright law allows them to seek up to $150,000 per
illegal copy.)
Clearly, these lawsuits inflict some collateral damage, not just on
the industry but on notions of fair play and the law. When huge media
conglomerates sue thousands of individual Internet users, they fuel
the argument that copyright law is just a tool for the powerful, not
a means to improve society by encouraging creativity and innovation.
But like anyone else, the studios are entitled to defend their
rights. You can lament how blunt the instrument is, but you can't
fault Hollywood for using it.
Weblog at: <http://weblog.warpspeed.com>
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/