Senate Talks Fail on File-Sharing Software (Newsday) [LWN.net]

Senate Talks Fail on File-Sharing Software (Newsday)

Posted Oct 8, 2004 16:01 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

You know, that's really up to us. We have to put pressure on them to listen, otherwise, the distribution of just about anything related to entertainment, and not owned by RIAA-backed operations, will flow right around the US, and we will once again lose out to foreign markets that have some forward-thinking ideas.

What creative community is he taling about?

Posted Oct 8, 2004 16:05 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

There are lots of "creative communities" that have absolutely *nothing* to do with the "entertainment combines" that have sucked the life out of artistic endeavors over the last 100 years. So, how is "legislation" going to protect *those* communities from these evil techno-hijackers?

Somehow, I suspect such legislation is going to protect rich people's stock portfolios and wallets, and pretty much nothing else, unless the rest of us make it clear we are no longer going to put up with that.

Protecting whom?

Posted Oct 8, 2004 16:59 UTC (Fri) by ccyoung (guest, #16340) [Link]

how much of the what they're protecting is actually owned by the US? Sony? And what percent of the entertainment companies' stock is actually owned by US citizens?

Protecting america's kids????

Posted Oct 8, 2004 16:33 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

They certainly aren't protecting the wallets of the people who actually play and sing the music, that's for sure.

Protecting america's kids????

Posted Oct 8, 2004 18:08 UTC (Fri) by The_Pirate (guest, #21740) [Link]

I guess you are right. Same problem this side of the pond.

Here in Denmark, a fresh CD cost roughly Dkk 150. Thats about US$ 25.
Of that amount, 25% is tax - 5$. Leftover 20$.

The musicians gets - depending on contract - 0.85$ per sold CD. The rest goes to the distributor/sales.

This does not include recording and marketing, at least not for new upcoming bands. They have to pay for the recording, printing of CD's and initial advertising themselves - first when they shown that they 'carry their weight', they'll be able to negotiate better deals.

This is the direct cause of a lot of illegal file sharing here. Nobody minds that the musicians get paid, but why the (insert explicit here) should anybody pay some leeches 19.15$ pr.CD for nothing?

Perhaps alternative distribution methods could help breaking the Fat Cats.

The musicians could provide lo-quality MP3's for free download, as "Try Before You Buy", then let people pay for download of the CD-quality file.

I could imagine secondary buisnesses start, like the old CDrom.com - select what you want, we burn the CD and ship it to you.

Tennis, anyone?

Protecting america's kids????

Posted Oct 8, 2004 19:31 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Try this company for a forward-looking approach to distribution and sales. If a user downloads an album, the artist gest 50% of what the user pays. If a user wants a CD, the user pays an extra $4.97 for the shipping, packaging, and artwork; all that money goes to the company that does the CD work.

File sharing is not evil

Posted Oct 9, 2004 7:28 UTC (Sat) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link]

Micheal Robertson of Linspire (and of MP3.COM fame) was saying that this
legislation would put him out of business because his company uses P2P to
distribute his OS. Oh what a shock that P2P has legitimate uses.

Besides, the question that should be asked is that maybe copyright law is
broken here. As I understand it, US copyright law was made to protect
publishers of books and then was extended to audio and video media.
Copying physical medium takes time and money. No one would do it without
getting reimbursed for it, at least, not on a mass scale. Making a digital
copy costs nothing (well, maybe a fraction of a penny for the electricity
it took and perhaps something for your ISP). Plus distribution is also
free.

Fair use issues aside, it should be legal to make digital copies of
copyrighted works for yourself, and to give those digital copies to anyone
you want. Now if you make digital copies of said works, burn them to CDROM
and then sell them illegally, that's a different story. But sharing files
with no monetary gain should never be illegal. Period. It's a violation of
our basic freedoms.

And don't start with the bunk "lost revenue" arguments the industry tries
to make--the folks sharing the files of audio wouldn't have necessarily
bought the corresponding albums--they just would not have had access to
them otherwise. Hence you cannot come to the conclusion there would have
been any sale at all.

File sharing is not evil

Posted Oct 12, 2004 17:55 UTC (Tue) by dooglio (guest, #2604) [Link]

Either we change copyright law with regard to allowing free copying of digital works, or we make it so corporations can no longer own copyrights--it has to be individual citizens.

Posted Nov 2, 2004 18:41 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link]

It's a great idea, but without more details, all it'll mean is that the private citizen will have the title of ``Chairman of the Board''. Could we maybe restrict it solely to the artist? Even then, I fear the result would be some new type of contract, in which the artist keeps the copyright, but signs away all profit therefrom.

In a faintly related note, humans (each contained within a single skin) are called ``natural persons'' in law, to differentiate them from corporations. In what I consider one of the worst legal precedents since slavery, the U.S. started treating corporations as ``persons'' in the late 19th century. It was just to simplify certain legal situations, you understand, but the difference seems negligible today. :-(