pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
|  Insulting
Why does BBR see the need to insult Al Capone by comparing him to the content industry?
And why does the content industry need even more government help? There are numerous existing civil and criminal remedies available to this industry to combat copyright infringement. I don't see why yet another industry that works against my behalf needs more of my money to do its job.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | yea the content industry is lower then Capone, that said they still do hold their MAFIAA name.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| maybe this pic would be more appropriate |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | That's just bleepin' priceless!
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to S_engineer
Nah, he's way too stupid when compared to Capone. He might make a good RIAA exec though.... |
|
JimF
join:2003-06-15
Allentown, PA | It is enough to give Chicago a bad name. That is a shame, I like the place. |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net | reply to pnh102
"And why does the content industry need even more government help? "
From what we know of jim griffin's approach and from what we have heard so far the government isn't involved in this. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
From what we know of jim griffin's approach and from what we have heard so far the government isn't involved in this. This plan would require a change in copyright law. That is the exclusive domain of the federal government.
While I hate the content industry, I see this as being unfair to other copyright holders as well. The whole point of copyright law is to ensure that owners of copyrights can distribute those works in a manner that they see fit. Compulsory licensing detracts from those rights. Another way to look at is to consider open source software licenses. A license like GPL2 allows for copying and distribution of a work provided that certain conditions are met. It would not be right for the government to arbitrarily change that license just because someone else is having trouble making money.
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty |
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| "This plan would require a change in copyright law."
I don't see this and I don't see anyone talking about this. There is already a collective licensing system in place for things like radio play.
"The whole point of copyright law is to ensure that owners of copyrights can distribute those works in a manner that they see fit. "
Aren't the companies that are looking into this and negotiating this collective licensing scheme the owners of the copyright? The government isn't forcing this on these companies. These companies are looking into the possibility of reaching agreements with the isp. They hold the copyright and have the right to license the material. The government isn't involved and I don't think any changes to copyright law would be required given that this sort of licensing already takes place. |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
I don't see this and I don't see anyone talking about this. There is already a collective licensing system in place for things like radio play. It would take a law because THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL all the ISP's and their customers would agree to this unless *forced* to do it by law. Before a collective licensing system could come into being WITHOUT requiring new copyright oppression law would mean we'd all have to agree to it or opt in.
Fat chance.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Nanoprobe
Crunching in subspace
Premium
join:2003-05-11
Crab Nebula
clubs: 
 ·Skype
·magicjack.com
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to pnh102
Cuz I'm the taxman.
Yeaaaah I'm the taxman.
Ooppss. I just pirated a Beatles lyric.
I'm expecting a knock on the door any time now.
--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein
|
|
asdfdfdfdfdfdf
@Level3.net
| reply to KrK
"It would take a law because THERE'S NO WAY IN HELL all the ISP's and their customers would agree to this unless *forced* to do it by law."
Who is saying that every isp has to opt in?
"Before a collective licensing system could come into being ... we'd all have to agree to it or opt in."
I don't see this either. If it is a voluntary collective license it doesn't require that every isp opt in before the licensing moves forward.
It sounds like the isp would have the choice of whether to opt in or not. If the isp chose to opt in then their customers would pay the fee and would be licensed to share files legally. If the isp chose not to opt in then their customers would not be licensed and any customers engaging in file sharing of copyrighted material with an opt out isp would be considered to be infringing as they are now. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Okay, and who decides how much each artist receives? I'm an independent musician, I release an indy album. It gets pirated. How would I collect? How would I determine how much I'm owed? Or even better: what's to prevent an artist from freely sharing a track millions of times and then screaming "PIRACY!!" and getting paid?
The only way I see this plan working is if each and every music file that moves across any network is tagged and monitored ACCURATELY for description of content and number of copies made, number of copies distributed, etc. in a way that prevents any hint of fraud. Yeah, THAT'LL happen.
Besides, this tax is already in place. The tax that's STILL in place on every music-only CD-R that gets sold. AND YET...the RIAA still sues and prosecutes the "pirates" who manufacture duplicates of protected works (using this medium) that the "pirates" already paid a compulsory tax for. So methinks the RIAA won't let people slide on this one, either.
No, there's an even easier solution than a Piracy Tax: the RIAA and the MPAA need to adapt their organizations to fit in with the rest of the 21st century. They need to accept that there's going to be a certain amount of inventory shrinkage and then get over it. They need to start treating their own artists with respect and integrity and start honoring their contractual obligations to same.
In other words, they need to start acting like responsible businessmen before most of us will start treating them as such. |
|
