It appears that Canada is working on a treaty that that will allow customs agents to search computer and iPods at the boarders looking for copyright infringing content. I was shocked when I first heard this. I know that I am crossing a boarder, but this sounds like a violation of basic rights. They do not need to be looking at my computer. I think this is outrageous. I understand that they can look through my luggage. My data feels more private. I do not want them looking at my files. It is like looking in my head.
This is really a reason for me to not go to Canada. How do they know what infringing data is? Are they going to use a search program? Are they going to have tools for this? What is going to happen if my disk is encrypted? Are they going to erase my disk. It just is a bad idea.
I was thinking about the Harry Potter Lexicon Lawsuit. I come down on the side of the person who runs the website. I think that JK Rowling comes off as the big guy picking on the little guy here. I know in court she said, "Do your book, but please, change it so it does not take as much of my work." It still does not sit well for me. If she did not block the website she should not block the book. It feel like she is just trying to keep the door open for to releaser her own guide book. Maybe this is because of this:
Rowling’s lawyer, Dale M Cendali, concentrated on marketing, saying the guide could hurt Rowling’s ability to sell books and Warner Brothers’ interest in marketing movies
The industry's lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" of copyrighted recordings.
You got to be kidding me. This is the stupidest thing I have heard the RIAA ever do and they have done some stupid things. This crosses the line. Right now nobody is going to be buying music if they cannot listen to it. If you cut off the iPod you cut off every chance people will buy music at all. People might get away from commercial music all together. You might see the death of the album all together.
Sony BMG's chief of litigation, Jennifer Pariser, testified that "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Copying a song you bought is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy,' " she said.
This is over the line. Either the music industry is selling me an individual product which I purchase and can do whatever I want to, like play that product in front of other people without paying a license, or they are selling me an intellectually property and I get to move it from device to device. I can only play one copy at a time, let me do it wherever I am. That is all people are asking for. Until you let people play the content wherever they are, you are not going to see sales improve.
Today I find out that all this might be out of context. The problem is that with everything the RIAA does, no one would put this beyond them.
Lane Hartwell is pissed off at people stealing her photos, or at least infringing on the copyright. (Yes I am one of those people who think theft and copyright infringement are two different things.) There are items on Scott Beal's Liquid Squid and Like it Matters. I wonder if people like me make it harder on people like her. I know that I am not a great photographer. I am no where near Lane Hartwell in skill or talent. I am the kind of person who does not police his photos. I am the kind of person who does not know if people use my photos. Only once have I ever dinged a website for using a photo of mine without telling me. I had them add my name because I wanted to help the person who was in the photo.
I wonder if the web has made photography less valued. I wonder if so many people are willing to give it away for free, does it make it easier for other people to take? I am wondering if it is something that cannot be avoided because of the way other copyright holders act.
People are taking about the data embedded in the new DRMless iTunes. People do not have to worry about DRM, but they do have to worry about their e-mail address going with the file. That means if you give your DRM free file to anyone, you have to trust that they will not share it with the world.
This will be interesting to see what happens. I wonder how well people have to protect their files. If I leave my network unprotected and my files get shared every where, will I be responsible? Lets say my computer gets stolen, can I get sued if those files end up on the net? What if someone is being vindictive and shares my files without me knowing? In none of these cases did I share the file. I did not take action with malice of forethought. What would the copyright cops do to me in those situations?
I know that including the email address along with the file is a good idea. I know that this is a reasonable thing for copyright holders to ask for. I just want to make sure that a signal song from one person is going to get out into the open. It is just going to happen. The people who own the copyrights should only go after people who do this all the time.
The key point here is that in pretending (or simply ignorantly claiming) that intellectual property is the same as tangible property, Helprin completely misunderstands what rights copyright law gives him. It is not the same right as he has over his own property -- which, after he sells it, he no longer has control over it. Instead of "property rights," copyright gives him a monopoly right (which is what Jefferson preferred to call it) to control how his output is used even after it's sold. That's completely different than a property right -- and, again, the reasoning is simply as an incentive for creation, not to guarantee control. Apparently, Helprin needs quite a history and economics lesson -- but if he had his way, that would be much more difficult since such ideas would be locked up forever.
A monopoly is a good point. If I own money it does not stop other people from using their money in the same way I use my money. If I own Mickey Mouse, I can stop other people from creating a cartoon mouse that has the same characteristics as Mickey Mouse. I can make a cartoon mouse that is different, but if I get too close I will have to fight off a Disney lawsuit.
Copyright has two useful purposes. The first is to assure that Authors get paid for their works. The idea was so that the publishers at the time did not ripoff writers. Just owning a press at the time the constitution was written gave someone a lot of power. It is not like now where the average person can afford to desktop publish.
The second useful purpose is to encourage the creation of new works. What some people would say is that having the copyright forever would encourage artist to create as many works as they can. This is taken care of by having the copyright last the author's life. If copyright lasted for ever Shakespeare's' decedents would never need to create anything. They could live off the work of Shakespeare forever. That would not encourage the creation of anything.
Helprin is only seeing one aspect of the Public Domain. He is only seeing the part where stores can publish their over copies of books in the Public Domain. The other part of copyright is control. Once a work is in the Public Domain anyone can create their own version of the same story. Right now I cannot create a version of Gone with the Wind that takes place in World War II, because I would need to get the rights from the copyright holders. I can do a version of Oliver Twist that takes place in the 60s San Francisco.
Some ideas get so big, they go beyond of the person who thought of them. If we never let any new ideas go into the public domain we are robbing the world and robbing artist of a way to see the world.
I read today that the Bush administration would like to make 'Attempted' copyright infringement a crime. Reading this makes me red with anger. This is not the way to treat consumers. This is not the way to treat intellectual properties. This is not the way to treat free speech.
I really hope this law does not pass. I do not want it to pass because I know it will be miss used. I know that these laws will not be used against organized criminals who are running large scale pirating rings. The RIAA has already shown us they are going to abuse these laws. They will use laws will be used against college students and single mothers. They are going to use these laws to make examples of people. It just is not right.
These laws are promoted as protecting American workers and American business. In the end they will hurt American companies. They will limit the kinds of products that can be made. They will limit the ways people can use content. They will limit innovation. They will be a drag on American business as companies have to spend time protecting other companies copyrighted properties. Time to start contacting our congress people.
I have been thinking about the new internet radio fee structure. I think the Copyright Royalty Board is making a mistake by change. I am not saying that the fees cannot go up, but I think it is really early in the life of internet radio for the fee structure to change to radically. This is not the case where there are internet radio companies that are just raking in the revenue and the copyright royalty holder and being left out in the cold.
I am not sure who is lobbying for this change, but my guess is that there will be few winners here. I think that the record companies might win, but individual royalty holder might lose. Increasing the fee structure is likely to send small internet broadcasters out of business. There is a good chance that the increase payment from the other broadcasters will not make up for the revenue that will be lost by sending smaller companies out of business. It will be bad for smaller record labels and smaller artists. They will be losing the venue to be heard and the revenue from being played on smaller internet broadcasters.
If internet radio stations go away, I think this will encourage people to pirate music. A lot of these internet radio stations free to listen to. If they are not around many of those listeners will find other no cost ways to find music. What little money is going the the royalty holder would go away.
I find this to be a little funny in the light of the XM and Sirius merger. One of the arguments for why the merger would be fine is because there is so much internet broadcasting out there. My guess is the XM/Sirius will not change their stance.
I do not listen to much internet radio. I have way too much music to listen to already. I want there to be internet radio to be out there. The promise of the internet is that size does not matter. I will be able to find very specific niches out there. This change is designed to kill off some of those niches out there. That is a bad thing. In the end internet broadcasters will set up outside the US. In the US there is no door on the internet to block them. It is bad for business. That is reason enough for the US not to make this mistake.
It should not suprise you that YouTube/Google and Copyright holders have diffenet views on the Value of content. People might wonder why a company would walk away from something like YouTube. A fraction of a cent per stream is a lot more than nothing, but you need to think like a copyright holder.
Principles matter - Copyright holders don't engage in logical debates about the 'value' of their content. They own it and they establish the value. They have the law on their side and they want their money. It is the principle of getting paid for their work, for every use, that matters. Dick Parsons of Time Warner said "If you let one thing ignore your rights as an owner it makes it much more difficult to defend those rights when the next guy comes along."
The question is can one or two fo the big eight break away and change the dynamic. I am not sure if that would change the world or not.
I think of the reasons that YouTube has taken off so much is because the users have so much freedom. I am not sure what will happen to a site like this if the customers do not have that level of freedom.
