From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Fri Mar 29 2002 - 00:45:09 MST
Robert Bradbury writes:
> An excellent commentary (IMO) on some of the stupidity with
> regard to copyrights, digital protection, the distortion of
> the political process, etc.
>
> When Elephants Dance
> http://www.farces.com/stories/storyReader$414
It's red meat for the masses, but I can't agree that this is excellent
commentary. It's inflammatory: "The entertainment industry hates authors
almost as much as they hate customers." This rhetoric does nothing but
stir up the emotions, meaning that it quells rational thought.
There are non sequiturs and inconsistencies, starting with the title:
"When elephants dance, it's best to get out of the way." This would
mean we should get out of the way and let the industrial behemoths set
the rules, exactly the opposite of what the author intends.`
The author promotes a "moral rights" framework, but never explains why
in Europe, where these rights are enshrined in law, copy protection is
much more advanced than in the U.S.
The internet radio problem is not explained clearly. A section of the
DMCA provides for something called "compulsory licensing", where copyright
owners can be compelled to license their materials. The CARP group set
the rates for compulsory licenses at a high level. Many internet radio
stations are instead going to try to negotiate individual licenses at
more favorable rates.
Fair use is mentioned and it is implied that it is a threat to the
copyright holders. But this doesn't make sense. The article even
hints that current file sharing systems would fall under fair use,
which is absurd.
The author's solution is threefold:
"1. Revert the term of copyright to 14 years, immediately and
retroactive to all existing works.
2. Recognize moral rights in the works authors create, like every
other civilized country on the planet. Make it immediate and
retroactive to all existing works.
3. Prohibit any corporation from owning a copyright. Corporations
create nothing; they're consensual hallucinations and exist at
our pleasure. I don't know about you, but I'm not much pleased
any more."
I think you'd have most artists up in arms against the first idea. They
would hate losing their rights after such a short time. The second idea
is off base, since Europe has moral rights and is worse off than the U.S..
The third idea is impossible; who would own the copyright on a movie
that is made by thousands of people?
In my opinion, the situation we face is very clear. If unlimited
free reproduction of information goods continues to be possible on
the Internet, then the profitability of those goods is going to fall
drastically, and people are going to stop creating them. In a nutshell,
we are not going to have much new music and movies, if no one has to
pay for them.
Some people deny this and point to alternative ways for these products
to be funded, but none are convincing to me. Most people prefer to
just bury their heads in the sand and not face up to these uncomfortable
facts. They are like Alex in the Doonesbury cartoons running this week.
They think there is an inexhaustable fountain of information goods and
that they can drink from it forever for free. I hope that around here
we can expect a little more rigor in our discussions of this problem.
Foaming about the evil corporations is a distraction from the real issues.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:08 MST