James Murdoch Is Very, Very Confused About Copyright Infringement (And So Is His Dad, Rupert)
from the good-luck-to-you dept
TorrentFreak has an article about how Ari Emanuel, brother of Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and the "inspiration" for Jeremy Piven's "Ari Gold" character in the show Entourage, is claiming that he's talking to President Obama about implementing a three strikes law in the US. While I'm sure he's talking, I'm at least somewhat confident he's not getting very far. Almost everyone I've spoken to on various sides of this debate agree that a blatant three strikes law in the US is unlikely to get very far. Now, something like ACTA might put pressure on ISPs to adopt a three strikes rule, and Emanuel's buddies in Hollywood still think that they can convince ISPs to voluntarily put in place such rules -- but very few people seem to think that a full on three strikes law in the US is in the cards. Hopefully that's the case.What may be more interesting, however, is what Rupert Murdoch's son, James Murdoch was saying at the very same event. He didn't just echo his father's blatantly incorrect notions of copyright, he went way beyond them. The younger Murdoch, who apparently is the current heir apparent to the Rupert Murdoch throne at the top of News Corp., made a bunch of statements about copyright infringement that sound like the typical comments of someone who has just entered this debate and has never thought about the actual issues. That is, he trots out the ridiculously wrong line that infringement is the same as "theft":
"We need enforcement mechanisms and we need governments to play ball... There is no difference with going into a store and stealing Pringles or a handbag and taking this stuff. It's a basic condition for investment and economic growth and there should be the same level of property rights whether it's a house or a movie.... The idea that there's a new consumer class and you have to be consumer-friendly when they're stealing stuff. No. There should be the same level of sanctity as there is around property. Content is no different. They're not crazy kids. No. Punish them."Where to begin? First of all, yes, there's a very big difference between going into a store and stealing Pringles (why Pringles?!?) or a handbag. If you do that, the Pringles or the handbags are now missing, gone, kaput. If you make a copy of a digital file, the original is still there. You've just created a new one. And, no, it's not "a basic condition for investment," that there needs to be the same property rights in a house or a movie. The two things have never had the same property rights. A house never goes into the public domain after a certain period of time. There is no fair use of a house (though, to be fair, the Murdoch family seems to think that fair use doesn't exist either, despite relying on it heavily in some of their companies). And there's a reason that there are those significant differences, and it has to do with basic, fundamental economics, and the difference between scarcity and abundance.
Honestly, seeing James Murdoch's words immediately call to mind Larry Lessig's recent talk where he discusses how the current media bosses at companies like Viacom are dinosaurs, with the younger generation waiting in the wings to take over, claiming that they don't hold these same draconian notions on copyright. Except, in this case, James is the younger generation which is supposed to get this stuff.
Perhaps he should take some notes from his (slightly older) sister Elisabeth, who recently made comments that appear to be the exact opposite of what her brother and father are saying:
"Fans remain the best salesmen of our content, even if that behavior is on the borderline of piracy. Danger of the new world is that we must concede that we'll lose some control."I wonder if James' "the idea that there's a new consumer class and you have to be consumer-friendly" line was directed at his big sis. Of course, in that recent NY Mag profile of Rupert, it notes that many people expect Elisabeth to come back into the News Corp. fold at some point (she left to start her own -- successful -- TV production house). Either way, if James really does get control over News Corp., it sounds like it'll be more of the same: more misunderstanding about how copyright law works, more misunderstanding of the economics of content and more mistakes designed to hold a company in the past, rather than embracing the future.
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
Filed Under: ari emanuel, copyright, elisabeth murdoch, james murdoch, rupert murdoch, three strikes
Companies: news corp.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yowza...
Not only does she appear to be smart, but she's a bit of a babe as well. That sounds like an awfully compelling combination for the corporate head of a media company to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yowza...
Couple that with the fact that most males never bother to grow up...
And it's obvious she's grown into a thinking adult--well ahead of her other family members.
;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to hollywood
and music
end of story
and by admission open source would never work if we need to do nothing but invest money into it , and if bad Microsoft and others and there copyright laws didn't exist i bet you'd not need a GPL either
thats the crux here.
WE KNOW in open source that copyrights are evil but we used your laws to make it for us to have free.
remember the comments recently that open source is bad
haha undermines all this corruption and greed don't it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What's stopping you from making trillions of copies of potato chips?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is this thing called a potato. You plant it, it grows. You dig it up, you cut it in half replant, use the other half cut it up and deep fry it, and eventually you share it with a billion people.
You can do this for as long as you like .... well unless its a patented Genetically Modified Potato, then you run into some issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I wonder what would happen if someone actually made their own Pringles (say for the sake of argument that you don't need fancy equipment) and gave them away for free. Or for that matter, made their own designer handbags and gave them away for free.
Actually, scrap that. I don't want to wonder about increasingly dumb comparisons between property and pseudo property. I do wonder about the likelihood that James Murdoch might choke on a Pringle though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death and Taxes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just To Play Devil's Advocate…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(for real - why Pringles? was it lunchtime?)
It's terrifying that these people have the ear of policy makers...why is there no one to countermand them? No equally influential group or person imparting common sense?
Where are those people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pringles
I smell a lawsuit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stealing implies depriving me of something that's rightfully mine. If I deprive you of the privilege to enter my house that's not stealing because the privilege to enter my house is not rightfully yours. Me depriving you of intellectual property privileges is no more stealing than me depriving you of the privilege to enter my house, such a privilege is not rightfully yours.
Now you depriving me of my right to create a product just because you have a patent on it or to make copies of something IS stealing, such a right is rightfully mine and society owes you no monopoly on anything. If we are to grant monopolies it should only be to the extent that it advances innovation and the public shouldn't enter into a social contract that unfairly benefits IP holders over society as a whole, as our current laws do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
More accurately, me depriving you of intellectual property privileges is no more stealing than me depriving you of the privilege to break into my house and take my television against my will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's call his bluff
So, let's impose an "Intellectual Property Tax" to go along with the Property Tax on the house. And, lets allow governments to pass laws that dictate what you can do with your Movie the way they impose laws about changes to your house.
And, of course, in order to buy and sell a house, you have to register the transaction with the government. No more private copyright contracts. Now anytime your lawyers work out a cross-licensing deal, you've got to register it with the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let's call his bluff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let's call his bluff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's call his bluff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's call his bluff
But remember kids, sharing is the same as stealing, and once ACTA comes into force, the future will be ours!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let's call his bluff
Seems part of the problem w/copyright abuse is that it's just too easy to have the copyright. There's no pushback, no payback, just more stick to wield over those who, via law, *permit* copyright to exist - the citizenry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Let's call his bluff
Property taxes are not paid based on income brought from the property. You pay property taxes regardless, often based on the value of the property instead. The value of the property is what others are willing to pay for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Twist - You Have to Manufacture a New Copy
The reproduction of content by digital means does not involve any of these costs to the content manufacturer (artist, distribution firm). So how about this, as the content is reproduced the per-unit cost of that content declines! Furthermore, product sales increase as the price declines. Content stimulus!!!!
Given that content producer's don't have to pay manufacturing costs to produce new copies why should they be entitled to gouge the consumer with a "full price"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
maybe hes a R.E.T.A.R.D.?
join us murdoch its fun and you can spend so much more money on your yacht building, rather then waste it on litigating and making your lawyers yacht building program better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
weird..
Physical goods vs. Virtual?
The theater ISNT selling your the movie.
They are RENTING you a seat to watch the movie. THATS PHYSICAL.
TV shows use commercials to SELL you physical goods.
DVD's sell you DVD's to get the movie..Physical.
Virtual..
is the INTERNET.
Its here, and NOT HERE.
its an illusion of 1's and 0's..
Virtual goods is like AIR, enjoy it while its there.
Food is Physical..
YOU NEED it to survive.
The old STORIES collected by the GRIMS and ANDERSONS were free, until someone STUCK THEM IN A BOOK and SOLD THEM as PHYSICAL products.
When I goto a SHOW, I RENT a location to BE' to listen to the music, to use the RESTROOM.. not the music or movie.
If they sang on the Street corner, would I PAY FOR IT??
I hope they paid for a Peddlers License.
The artist of the PAST, the painters, only got paid 1 time for the Picture..The Picture has sold many times, does he GET ANYMORE?? DOES his family reap the money??
Music and MOVIES are only there to ATTRACT US, to a product or service. If a SERVICE on the net, GAVE me the availability to GET SOME THING I WANTED, I PAY for the service. NOT the music or movie. THE ARTIST should be paid for HIS service of BRINGING people to the SERVICE, NOT the middle man.
WE ARE IN A BATTLE,
over the definition of VIRTUAL over physical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: weird..
learn2notcapslock
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DID YOU KNOW
For your OWN use.
You can ACTUALLY, goto the copyright office, and COPY any thing, and make the device yourself, for your own use.
ANY device.
As long as its not for sale or SOLD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would love the price structure on it
You mean I could pay for my house 1 time and NEVER pay TAXES again??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
Oh, good, thank you for admitting that you do not know what problem trademarks were designed to solve. Now I don't have to bother reading the rest of your drivel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Except that this is a lie and telling lies is wrong. Why should I trust your moral judgment when all you do is tell lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]