I agree, content creators do have a right be protected. We do already have DMCA. My issue is that this law isn’t really about content creators and protecting their ability to make a living at what they do. That’s the justification being used by the larger music companies and movie distributors – this push is largely about protecting THEIR pocketbooks.
When artists like Louis C.K. show they can produce content and offer it to the public as a DRM-free product and actually make money doing it, I think that speaks volumes about the need for protection. He’s sold first access to his show and he’s not worried about what others do with his product after the fact and he’s still able to make enough money on the project to have made it worth doing.
Dave Grohl, frontman for the Foo Fighters recently said in a Slate.com interview that downloading music from file sharing sites is, for him, simply an extension of those home-made mix-tapes. “To me, the most important thing is that people come and sing along when we pull into town on tour,” he says. “Sharing music is not a crime. It shouldn’t be. There should be a deeper meaning to making music than just selling downloads.”
What this is really about is large media distribution companies becoming dinosaurs and struggling to prevent their own extinction through government mandate and control. Is actually stealing the work of others and profiting from it unfairly wrong? Yes. Are there already laws against this in place? Yes. Is there, perhaps a need to create some additional controls to combat new advances in technology that make it easier to steal? Probably. Does that mean we need new laws that allow the ability to shut down Internet sites without due process – therefore abandoning our 5th Amendment rights under the Constitution? Uh, no.
Let me ask this: what’s the solution? There’s plenty of copyrighted content that’s being infringed online. As we know, “everybody does it” is not a valid legal excuse for breaking the law, and copyright holders DO have a right to protect their property. So how do we protect copyright holders who don’t want their material infringed upon without giving the government too much control?
Much of this argument does depend upon a “worst case scenario,” but if we want to prevent both copyright infringement and a level of government control that could lead to this “worst case,” what do we do? Catherine Jones recently posted..Better Jobs
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree, content creators do have a right be protected. We do already have DMCA. My issue is that this law isn’t really about content creators and protecting their ability to make a living at what they do. That’s the justification being used by the larger music companies and movie distributors – this push is largely about protecting THEIR pocketbooks.
When artists like Louis C.K. show they can produce content and offer it to the public as a DRM-free product and actually make money doing it, I think that speaks volumes about the need for protection. He’s sold first access to his show and he’s not worried about what others do with his product after the fact and he’s still able to make enough money on the project to have made it worth doing.
Dave Grohl, frontman for the Foo Fighters recently said in a Slate.com interview that downloading music from file sharing sites is, for him, simply an extension of those home-made mix-tapes. “To me, the most important thing is that people come and sing along when we pull into town on tour,” he says. “Sharing music is not a crime. It shouldn’t be. There should be a deeper meaning to making music than just selling downloads.”
What this is really about is large media distribution companies becoming dinosaurs and struggling to prevent their own extinction through government mandate and control. Is actually stealing the work of others and profiting from it unfairly wrong? Yes. Are there already laws against this in place? Yes. Is there, perhaps a need to create some additional controls to combat new advances in technology that make it easier to steal? Probably. Does that mean we need new laws that allow the ability to shut down Internet sites without due process – therefore abandoning our 5th Amendment rights under the Constitution? Uh, no.
Let me ask this: what’s the solution? There’s plenty of copyrighted content that’s being infringed online. As we know, “everybody does it” is not a valid legal excuse for breaking the law, and copyright holders DO have a right to protect their property. So how do we protect copyright holders who don’t want their material infringed upon without giving the government too much control?
Much of this argument does depend upon a “worst case scenario,” but if we want to prevent both copyright infringement and a level of government control that could lead to this “worst case,” what do we do?
Catherine Jones recently posted..Better Jobs