Does The Entertainment Industry Understand Legitimate Use?
from the our-lawyers-are-better-than-your-lawyers dept
The music and movie businesses have long had a problem of separating the technology that's used for file-sharing from what they view as the criminal act of file-sharing itself. The recent Grokster decision has created a huge legal gray area where file-sharing networks can be held liable for copyright infringement if they take "affirmative steps" to encourage infringement, opening up what's likely to be a long, protracted and messy battle as copyright holders go after other technologies and concepts they don't like, such as fair use. Central to this whole affair has been the entertainment industry's refusal to accept that programs used for file-sharing could have significant, non-infringing uses -- the test established by the Betamax decision. Now, Om Malik reports on how BitTorrent is going "legit", even potentially seeking VC investment. But the most surprising aspect of all this is that the MPAA, RIAA and a couple movie studios are talking to BitTorrent, not about suing it, but how to use it -- yes, how to use it legitimately in a non-infringing way. These are the same groups that about two months ago were trying to figure out just how they could sue BitTorrent and its creator, Bram Cohen. Cohen says the Grokster decision separated piracy from technology, legitimizing programs with non-infringing uses. But as far as Hollywood's concerned, all it legitimized were their legal tactics, giving them the green light to go after people who they think encouraged piracy. So now, with those semantics in place, they can publicly recognize that technologies like BitTorrent have legitimate, non-infringing uses and act like it's not hypocritical. But, of course, that's because they think they've now got the right to determine what is or isn't a non-infringing use -- a decision that's decidedly not theirs to make.
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
That isn't bad, per se.
You act as if Hollywood doesn't have the right to go after companies and people who encouraged piracy. Well, if they are actively encouraging piracy, then they have every right to!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
You really think that their idea of fair use is going to allow for anything remotely close to fair for the consumer? If more copy protection was the actual solution to this problem then maybe. But it's not. That's their only answer though. More copy protection and less rights to what we rightfully paid for and thus own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
btw, has anyone considered a class action against the music industry for fraud? For the lie about how long CD's would last even if they are perfectly maintaned ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
As for backing and copying legit CDs, I think it's amazing how little the consumer has to say. Are you guys aware of the TCPA? Windows Vista has this little virus implemented in it. www.againsttcpa.com explains my frustration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
I partly disagree -- if you mean its not their right to PURPOSELY sell you something that you supposedly can have indefinitely but that THEY know secretly will only last for a specified, finite amount of time, then I do completely agree.
If you are saying that it is not their right to sell you something that they STATE UP FRONT will only last for a specified, finite period of time-- they have every right to do that. You also have every right to accept their offer or tell them to go pound sand.
If you are saying it is not their right to sell you something that won't last forever, I'd say you need to re-examine your surroundings. We buy stuff with limited lifespans all the time... milk, eggs, cheese, cars, computers, clothes, etc.
I think the difference you might be attempting to articulate is that _some_ things last an "indefinite" finite amount of time-- ie, they wear out sooner or later but have no planned or built-in drop-dead date.
And even that's not totally the case either. Many manufacturers of products-- cars, washing machines, refrigerators, stoves, etc-- use a concept of "planned obsolescence" and design with materials and techniques they know will fail within a statistically-derived period of time.
So I'd say that on the whole, yes the music industry DOES have a right to sell us something that will only last a specified period of time, but ONLY if they are up-front about it and everyone knows that's what they're getting. Besides, the 45's, CD's, etc that you've already bought don't last forever either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
They want to "license" the content of a CD to us on their (sometimes draconian) terms...HOWEVER, they ALSO want to treat it as a physical item, with all that it entails. They will switch from one form or another in discussions to their advantage.
SO, when I go down to the music store and plunk down 15 bucks for music I want:
If I license the thing, then the media doesn't matter...if it's wrecked, or later somehow inaccessible, I still have a VALID license to the music and should be able to download or get a replacement.
If I buy the media as an ITEM...then I should be able to listen to it wherever I can use that item and copy that item.
What they have is a hybrid of both the above with all the restrictions and none of the value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That isn't bad, per se.
Kids! Free music, DVDs software and porn! Go get it! Much better than paying and it's all FREEEEE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That isn't bad, per se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]