[IP] more on The Web and the law
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: August 29, 2005 10:19:27 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] The Web and the law
Dave [for IP, if you wish]
The LA Times editorial on copyright cases and file sharing is right
on point. The massive attempts to prosecute downloaders shows that
copyright truly is a very blunt and very ineffective instrument for
enforcing the rights of content producers against unrestricted file
sharing by consumers.
In my view, the only sensible approach is a "relaxed DRM" method,
such as iTunes uses. The Fairplay DRM scheme permits limited copying
to a number of devices that is more than ample for individuals
exercising their fair use rights, but restrict the ability to file
share via P2P. Not sure whether there exists a similar CD solution
(in contrast to digital download), but this is what we need to strike
a balance between producers' and consumers' interests. Clearly,
copyright and its enforcement on final consumers is not going to do it.
Some have argued that P2P gives unknown artists a chance to become
known, but again, this is a blunt instrument. A far better way to do
this is to have one or more central distributors who will permit
listeners/viewers to download music/entertainment for free...but only
the music of those artists who have given permission for free
downloading would be available. This could be a very popular (and
very lucrative) service, and one that does not compromise the rights
of artists/labels that don't wish to participate. And the
distributors would not be subject to copyright penalties.
You may not like the fact that the producers and distributors have
exclusive rights to their creations, or you may not like the length
of their period of exclusivity. But the appropriate forum for that
issue is Congress or even the courts. Simply because the new
technology makes it easy to be a cheesy sneak-thief doesn't make it
OK to be one, despite the lame excuses we hear from the sneak-
thiefs. We should regard illegal downloading the same as we regard
stealing towels from hotels.
Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ip Ip" <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 7:24 AM
Subject: [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 gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-
people/
-------------------------------------
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/