Lessig Vs. Oppenheim

said by Brianv5:

---

So what makes their viewpoints any different from ours?

---

said by Brianv5:

---

Plus, everyone KNOWS its wrong!

---

said by pkust:

---

That is a factually untrue statement. The volume of postings on this topic here at BBR is sufficient proof to demonstrate that more than a few people do not know "it" is wrong.

---

said by Brianv5:

---

So what makes their viewpoints any different from ours? This issue has been argued by everyone from middle schoolers to grandparents.. everyone eventually comes to the same stalemate. Its like blaming the gun manufacturer for a shooting death. Its not the software, its what you do with it... Plus, everyone KNOWS its wrong! Me giving away something that everyone should pay for its wrong. So what's the big mystery?

Its like a murderer caught red handed and pleading not guilty.
--
Anything can be tweaked!
[text was edited by author 2003-06-12 19:03:30]

---

said by Brianv5:

---

Its like a murderer caught red handed and pleading not guilty.

said by Brianv5:

---

Plus, everyone KNOWS its wrong! Me giving away something that everyone should pay for its wrong. So what's the big mystery?
[text was edited by author 2003-06-12 19:03:30]

---

said by yj4x4:

---

"So, if you buy a CD that you keep at home, you should feel free to make a copy that you have in your car."

So said by the RIAA lawyer. So how can we do this with copy-protected cd's?

---

quote:

---

Are some of the people posting to this thread actually in favor of allowing groups like the RIAA to tell you that you need to buy multiple copies of the same CD if you want to play it in different media? Because that is what this copyright crap is tantamount to.

---

said by boogie74:

---

It is perfectly legal and acceptable to burn a copy of your CD for your car or to copy it onto your computer to listen to in mp3 format.

---

said by boogie74:

---

If you read the article, you would know (as those that actually READ it) that the DMCA doesn't make format shifting illegal- nor does the RIAA oppose it. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to burn a copy of your CD for your car or to copy it onto your computer to listen to in mp3 format. What is NOT acceptable is SHARING and DISTRIBUTING it to others.

Boogie

---

quote:

---

if you read the article you would know that breaking copy protects now ARE illegal, so just how the hell am i supposed to be able to shift formats, backup, or make other LEGAL personal usage of a cd by MY choice when the first step is to have to bust technology designed for the exact purpose of thwarting my efforts??

---

said by boogie74:

---

There are exceptions built into the DMCA that cover this type of format shifting- including a tri-annual review by the USCO (US Copyright Office) to validate and ammend the DMCA as necessary to keep things fair and up to date.

Boogie

---

quote:

---

The only exception built into the DMCA is allowing researchers to circumvent copy protection technology, and even that is extremely restricted. Tri-annual reviews don't do anything to protect legitimate uses if they don't make the necessary changes. As yet nothing has been added to protect individuals in such a way. So you have to wait until a committee approves it? What if the issue never gets addressed? The DMCA is still a lousy piece of legislation.

---

said by boogie74:

---

No argument there. My main point was that the regulation and enforcement of the act itself is a function of a branch of Congress- not the Recording Industry Association of America.

Boogie

---

said by TxRoadDawg:

---

if you read the article you would know that breaking copy protects now ARE illegal, so just how the hell am i supposed to be able to shift formats, backup, or make other LEGAL personal usage of a cd by MY choice when the first step is to have to bust technology designed for the exact purpose of thwarting my efforts??

---

said by POB:

---

said by TxRoadDawg:

---

if you read the article you would know that breaking copy protects now ARE illegal, so just how the hell am i supposed to be able to shift formats, backup, or make other LEGAL personal usage of a cd by MY choice when the first step is to have to bust technology designed for the exact purpose of thwarting my efforts??

---

Give it up, dawg, boogie is an obvious proponent of draconian legislation like the DMCA and son of DMCA (S-DMCA). Wonder why that is--ignorance? Or is it that he's employed in the corporate publishing business. I find it very difficult to believe that the average person not directly in line to profit from anti-technology laws like the DMCA would voluntarily embrace ignorance, but, you never know. There are a lot of stupid people out there.

Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers. Congress also was concerned that American creators should not have less copyright protection than is commonly provided abroad, and they therefore extended the term to match the copyright term in Europe and elsewhere.

said by pkust:

---

It seems to me that, if production costs for RIAA members are increasing, granting them extended IP rights is contrary to Congress' mandate "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," as stated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Would that not render any legislative remedy sought by the RIAA unconstitutional on its face?

---

said by russotto:

---

It should, but the Supreme Court in the case of Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) washed their hands of the issure decided that Congress can screw over the public any way they want in the name of copyright; it is Congress and not the courts which decide what promotes the progress of science and the useful arts. Congress, of course, thinks anything which benefits their campaign coffers also benefits science and the useful arts.

---

said by Ericthorn:

---

By Oppenheim...

"In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.

...

So sales are down 28% in the last 3 years?

---

said by Ericthorn:

---

By Oppenheim...

"In 2002, unit sales were down about 11 percent.
In 2001, unit sales were down about 10 percent.
In 2000, unit sales were down seven percent.

During that same period, illegal Internet downloading has skyrocketed. On the FastTrack network alone, there are about 900 million files being distributed at any given moment. The majority of those files are music files. Polls confirm that those individuals who are downloading illegally online are buying less. That illegal downloading is decreasing sales is probably not a surprise to anyone."

---

said by asdfdfdf:

---

It is very confusing as to why so few pro-capitalist believers understand your efficiency analysis or the traditional view of copyright. These are much more compatible with a capitalist vision than copyright industry protectionism is.

---

said by pkust:

---

One would think that technological advances would have the opposite effect--costs of production and distribution should be lower, not higher.

---

said by martissimo:

---

said by pkust:

---

One would think that technological advances would have the opposite effect--costs of production and distribution should be lower, not higher.

---

That certainly is true, but everyone seems to forget the promotion part of the equation, and frankly that has done nothing but grow from year to year. You won't sell a thing from a band nobody has ever heard of without promotion and advertising (established acts can get away with it maybe, and rely on word of mouth, but almost nobody else can)...that's where most of the money is spent.

---

said by pkust:

---

I found this line from Matt Oppenheim especially curious:

Given the increased cost to produce and distribute copyrighted works, Congress has tried to keep pace with what it has believed is necessary to continue to incentivize creators and publishers. Congress also was concerned that American creators should not have less copyright protection than is commonly provided abroad, and they therefore extended the term to match the copyright term in Europe and elsewhere.

One would think that technological advances would have the opposite effect--costs of production and distribution should be lower, not higher.

If RIAA members cannot produce or distribute content efficiently, how does extending their intellectual property rights (assuming, for the moment, that they have such rights) promote progress? Progress, to my mind, occurs when costs decrease, and is demonstrated by the extent of that decrease.

It seems to me that, if production costs for RIAA members are increasing, granting them extended IP rights is contrary to Congress' mandate "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," as stated in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. Would that not render any legislative remedy sought by the RIAA unconstitutional on its face?

---

said by gogeta6:

---

They are the precise reason for lack of musical diversity.

---