It's only a point of contention for those who don't know what a copyright is. It's NEVER a sale, it's always a license to use. They're never selling the copyrighted material, they're only licensing its use. You can't buy a book and then copy it and start distributing to thousands of people. The purchase of a book gives you physical possession of the book itself, but only a license to fair use of its contents. Since there is no explicit geographic restriction on the use license for a printed book (nor anyway to enforce it anyways), fair use is global. However, if the book was in electronic form, the copyright owner would have the right to license it with specific access terms if they wanted to. Since the use license granted for a DVD has explicit geographic restrictions (and they're not a secret - they're printed on the box), then so does fair use per that license. Just as with a book, buying a DVD gives you physical possession of the disk, but only a license to use the copyrighted material per fair use relative to the specifics of the license terms. Your purchase and use of the DVD implies your acceptance of the terms of the use license and any access restrictions. Just as a rental DVD provided under a use license that lets you view the DVD for 7 days means that fair use also expires after 7 days. Just because you have the disk doesn't mean you have the right to keep using it after the prescribed time period. Restrictions imposed on the access to licensed copyrighted material carry through to what is and isn't "fair use". Re: term of patents vs. copyrights - I agree that very long term (e.g., 50 year) patents could clearly have negative effects on innovation and that was the primary concern in the Constitution. However, given the high cost and time it can take to develop and then try to exploit some patents, 20 years isn't an unrealistic time period. The more pressing issue on patents is that they've been granting them on things that have no business being patented in the first place - like naturally occuring genes. However, if the copyright on "Oops I did it again" or Charlie's Angels or Harry Potter NEVER expired - who cares? It would have no negative impact on innovation or creativity just as the expiration of their copyrights will not bolster innovation nor creativity. Is it terrible that some children's home still receives a small royalty payment every time Peter Pan is performed. And what societal benefit would it have been to have allowed some people to sell royalty free copies of old Disney cartoons and characters (had their older shorter copyright periods expired)? Can you think of ANY harm the current life of artist plus 70 years copyright term does or any impeding of the "useful arts" it causes? And with the current copyright terms, it IS unlikely that anyone will confront the issue of being unable to access material with expired copyrights. The example of the old Disney character copyrights almost expiring doesn't apply because the current copyright term is what matters. You'll only be confronting expirations over the next two decades of works that were copyrighted between 1908 and 1928 (and those might have already expired prior to the extension of term). So I'm unclear what the real argument is about expiring copyrights?
If you were starting a music group, would you rather go through the RIAA or upload your stuff to P2P and other venues?
Which one is likely to make the group the most money?? Getting a contract with a label would invariably make them more money. But in the absence of such a contract, self-marketing is an avenue. Although simply posting all their music on a P2P network wouldn't generate any money. Those with the "everything should be free" internet mentality will just take the posted music (if they like it of course) and either store it on their machines for playback or burn their own CDs. The group would have to only post samples of their music to encourage people to come to their site and buy their CD (and then hope some jerk doesn't rip it and start making it available for free). But of course if a group decided to post their own music on the internet, it's completely different than having a bunch of punks ripping their music from CDs and posting it without permission. The flaw with the "the music industry hasn't changed their model, so let's rip them off" argument is that its just a smoke and mirrors rationalization for stealing. Even if the music industry immediately made it possible for people to buy music electronically and even let them selectively pay for only the particular tracks that they liked, all those people who have no respect for other's property (i.e., everyone on Kazaa, et al posting ripped music) would still end up ripping off the music and posting it on the internet. Once you've rationalized that it's OK to steal some else's intellectual property, it doesn't matter how you acquire it - you'll just keep doing it.
An interesting event in "file sharing" (note I agree sharing files violates copyright) is looking at the events surrounding the release of Radiohead's new Album, "Hail to the Thief" . Copies of the album were "leaked", some think deliberately to hype sales, to the 'Net about a month before the album's official release. The impact on sales is interesting, it is the #1 album in the UK and close to the top in the USA. Good groups making good music still sell even though widely available for download. DS
In a perfect society, I'd possibly find a way to agree with you. Having said that, I do not subscribe to the, "If they can, EVERYBODY would steal it" concept. There will always be an element of society who will try to get something for nothing. If it was totally free, they'd still look to find a way to get even more. Thankfully that is not the majority of us. But I am also not an advocate for get as much as you can, make as much as you can, and screw everybody else either. There was a time when personal morals would be a compass for decisions for us all. Now, we have been convinced/conditioned that we should get the most of whatever we can at whatever the expense. And now some of those ideals are coming home to roost in areas that we are very uncomfortable with. We just had a porch collapse here in Chicago and tragedy is hurting again. Eighty plus people on a third floor back porch celebrating and having a good time. It collapsed and the attorneys are circling and waiting for the declaration liability and guilt so they can determine who they can sue for how much. Will those multi-million dollar lawsuits have you clamoring for a change? Hopefully you're just as concerned about that type of theft as well and with as much vigor.
canyonman - unclear what your point is. Didn't say "everybody" would steal it. I said that everyone on Kazaa and other such nets who are already ripping music would most likely continue to do the same regardless of how the music industry morphed their availability/publishing/distribution methods. It's never "everybody", but there are literally millions currently engaging in it at some level. The availability of so much free stuff on the internet has bred a subculture of "EVERYTHING on the internet should be free" and those subscribing to that mantra (which is a very significant number) see no problem with ripping off others property in the process. As far as attorneys (a well known subspecies of the reptile family) and people looking to sue for a quick buck - that game's been around since well before Al Gore invented the internet You'll only stop it with meaningful tort reform and/or empanelling juries with collective IQs greater than 50 so they stop awarding some dumb ass millions of dollars because she was stupid enough to stick a hot cup of coffee between her legs while driving down the street. There needs to be recognition that some acts are just Darwinian in nature. How about a free fourth of July party cruise on the Oddessey for all personal injury attornies in the city - then Titanic the boat? OK, a bit (just a tiny bit though) severe. They could at least outlaw TV commercials by attornies - "Have you tripped over your own fat feet and hurt yourself? Did you wonder if someone else was to blame - or at least could be sued? We will get you money. You pay nothing unless we get you money. Call 312-SHYSTER now."
Is there a filesharing site that only deals in non-copyrighted material? Considering how few performers can get record label deals, I would think there would be both supply and demand for such a site. I'm not a music nut, so I'm not going to spend hours checking out alternative or independent groups, but if a site had "aphie's top 10" or whatever, it might be worth it to take the time to download them and check them out.
Very simply, we need to understand that even though this might amount to several millions of violations, it is in a universe of a few billions of instances. Slippage! I heartily agree that we do need to keep it to a minimum. Bust it if you can but not by using unlimited amounts of energy, efforts, oversight, and monies. I am not advocating tuning a blind eye in that direction. But I would say that it ain't worth a congressional investigation or an amendment to the constitution.
Agree - they don't need a congressional investigation (those guys already don't do their jobs) or a constitutional amendment. Existing laws should be sufficient - they just need to aggressively prosecute those obviously and rampantly infringing on copyrighted material. The guy with a few music clips isn't worth the effort. But those people with literally thousands of copyrighted works posted for anyone to download need a wake up call. In addition to the civil litigation, there are also misdemeanor and felony copyright infringement criminal charges that could be brought - the felony charge carries up to 3 years in prison and a fine of $250K. Although it's doubtful there will be any criminal charges levied anytime soon over this. They'll go the civil litigation route first. It would definitely be a rude awakening for some parents to find out that their teen has a library of a thousand pirated music tracks posted on Kazaa and they now have a multi-million dollar civil suit hanging over them because they didn't do a good enough job educating Tommy Teenager that's it's wrong to rip off other people's property - even if it's "just bits and bytes".