Hollywood Appeals Grokster, Morpheus Decision
from the as-expected dept
The only surprise here is that it took them so long. Hollywood has now officially appealed the legal ruling that said Morpheus and Grokster were legal. The Hollywood lawyers claim that the ruling "dramatically departed from well-established copyright law." Of course, that's not true, since the ruling was much more in-line with rulings like the Sony Betamax ruling that said tools with substantial non-infringing uses are legal. They even try to claim that the "real loss" in this case is to consumers who will "never get to hear" the music that won't get created because of file sharing (follow the logic?). This is a bit amusing, since it's the music industry that's trying to throw people in jail for actually trying to listen to music they like.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Control
Specifically, much of what we are seeing with respect to the RIAA and MPAA, going after their customers and any new technology that may further remove control from their domain, is directed at disabling the consumers ability to command and control the media they want to consume.
This isn't to say that people have less of an appetite for media, quite the opposite is what I have seen. It's more that people want entertainment media (music and film) on their own terms. This is an evolution that is well documented by anyone who has looked long and hard at the trends of media consumption domestically (US). It's commonly referred to as command and control. Why are these businesses doing everything within their ability to buck this trend?
Now, when I say "out of control", I mean that literally. As in these industries have lost their collective control over how media is consumed. Historically this has been a key component of the marketing efforts used to put mew product out to consumers. Today this strategy is directly at odds with rapidly forming consumer habits in regards to command and control.
This shift is evidenced by the popularity of activities like filesharing, time shifting, and word of mouth campaigns that are an order of magnitude more effective than any industry spend. You don't have to look too far to find that many credible people have written on the subject of how the internet (and other new technologies) has fueled this shift in consumer habits. Try the Cluetrain Manifesto or Next.
In the music world distribution has had a most amazing disruption in the form of "file sharing". Distribution is a major component of control in the record industry. They employ an almost draconian level of control in this regard, e.g. when something is released and more importantly what is released, and in which markets. One could deduce this is how they draw 80 percent out of the 20 they get behind from a marketing standpoint. Who suffers? Consumers, artists and the members of the RIAA and MPAA.
In the Film world we are seeing a similar trend as the MPAA lines up behind the RIAA (or maybe got out in front of the RIAA, I can't remember who sued first), in regards to stifling technology and aggressively prosecuting customers who run afoul of the industries inability to adapt to new technologies.
I often wonder at the fact that these businesses have spent almost equally on marketing and litigation for most of recent history. Why would you choose to litigate instead of innovate? I am sympathetic to the fact that filesharing represented a disruptive shift in their business, but how many millions of dollars would it take to adapt to this disruption? It's beginning to look like the film and music industries may not ever adapt. It's troubling that these businesses have deep pockets and can keep up the fight for a long time to come. Further complicated by the fact that both the RIAA and the MPAA are significant influences on capitol hill. Their respective lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington today. Who suffers? Consumers, artists and the members of the RIAA and MPAA.
If you want to extrapolate this argument a little further, you could ask yourself how culture is transmitted in our modern society. I've heard many pundits talk of how the Film is the book of the new generation. To paraphrase Lawrence Lessig, the control they (big media) seek is of "culture". The RIAA and MPAA have evolved beyond regaining control of their respective businesses and are engaged in an attempt to control certain aspects of the transmission of culture in our society.
They all talk about how damaging file sharing is to their business, it looks more like they are trying to blow a smokescreen over the fact that it's time for these businesses to adapt. In the end, my conclusion is that their products stink. It's time to get with the program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]