backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by Rav3n.. on Nov 29 at 8:52 AM
Candidates received a lopsided questionnaire of which the results will be posted publicly

This week, 17 presidential candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties will receive a brief letter and questionnaire from the Copyright Alliance, probing them on their efforts to “maintain meaningful copyright protection.”

 “On behalf of the 11 million Americans employed in the creative industries,” writes Creative Alliance Executive Director Patrick Ross, “I am presenting you with a questionnaire allowing you to let the creative community know of your commitment to copyright and artists’ rights.” The letter (PDF) goes on to list the Alliance’s 44 member companies, which include the MPAA, NBC Universal, the NFL, CBS, Microsoft, Disney, and numerous artists’ guilds and trade groups.

The letter’s language is restrictive and describes the Alliance’s vision of a grim future, calling the United States' creative output as a key topic “at stake” in the 2008 elections: “It is critical not only for members of the creative community but also for the U.S. economy to ensure that copyrights are respected and piracy is reduced. We are asking you to let us know what you would do to help preserve one of America’s greatest strengths, its creative community.”

Attached to the letter are five questions (PDF), one for each letter of the Copyright Alliance’s IDEAS Economy acronym (Innovation, Digital Marketplace, Enforcement, American Competitiveness, and [Free] Speech). “How would you promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution,” asks one question, “by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment?”

Under a section titled Digital Marketplace, candidates are asked how they feel “the rights that have served our economy and spurred creativity in the physical world should apply in the digital world?”

“The U.S. economy today is driven by ideas, whether they be born of research (sic), technological innovation, the stroke of a pen, or strum of a guitar,” says Ross, “This Ideas Economy is the backbone of job creation … he copyright industries employ more than 11 million Americans and we want to call attention to the voices of these creators.”

With piracy around the globe seemingly undeterred by the content industry’s expensive, money-losing legal efforts, the organizations representing artists – the majority of whose creations will be computerized and illegally copied – are ramping up the pressure in an attempt to enforce their will.

Charged from recent legal victories, so-called Big Content has turned its attention to the 2008 elections, which it seems to consider the next major battlefield in its ongoing war on piracy.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 12:25:13 AM , Rating: 5
These companies are not going to stop their jihad of lawsuits, lobbying of law makers, or pressuring hardware manufacturers. Those who lead these companies are not average normal people, they are corporate executives that know that money is power and more power gives them more money.

They will do whatever they can to maintain their status quo on the 'creative industry'. They will use typical monolopistic business practices to push out any company that tries to run business outside of their paradigm. They will use their power to influence how copyright law is written so that it does not "protect" artists and creative people, but prevent anyone from challenging the media conglomormate.

These executives believe they have a right to every consumer's dollar and they will do nothing to short of giving the consumer what it actually wants. Easy, simple, access to media from the artists not companies.

The music business was built on a very simple concept. Find a poor musician, flash money at them, steal the rights to their music, spend tons of money in marketing and hype, sell the 'new' artist they found/created...PROFIT!

This concept is no longer valid. Besides American Idol music, and media in general can adverstise itself. I mean, its the digital age, with social networking sites, peer to peer file transfers, and viral you tube videos the media sells itself. But instead of trying to figure out a way to change the business to the new model society had shaped into, these companies and their leaders are trying to keep us in the radio age.




RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By sinful on 11/24/2007 6:13:25 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
How does the music industry differ from this business model?


"Big Content" has gone from having (reasonable) protections to having ridiculous protections, and now they're asking for insane protections regarding their copyrights.

*THAT'S* the big difference.

In other words, there doesn't seem to be any sort of end point in which 'Big Content' will be satisfied with the protections given to them - they will forever ask for more, to the detriment of innovation, consumers, and the economy.

PS: Be sure to delete the cached copy of dailytech's website from your internet browser. You know, in some industries, that would be called "stealing a copy"....
=P


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Myg on 11/24/2007 6:13:39 AM , Rating: 1
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all (DailyTech might as well remove the comments section in that case).

Piracy, in essence is stealing. We (people who downloaded music/videos/etc..) have stolen from them, so we have created/instigated a division between us and them as human beings.

We broke an unspoken promise to act responsibly and to show respect. They did not forgive us (nor ask for an apology, which they should of), and are doing the same; in turn (wether they are aware of it or not).

So, we are currently in a vicious cycle of stealing their music, and them trying to steal our rights/freedoms (see DRM).

A war is currently being waged between the pirates and the companies, what side will you be on? It doesnt matter who wins, because, in the end, despite all fanfare or self-indulgent glory and history writing, we will all lose something (Dignity and self-respect to the pirates, fun and enjoyment to the copyright alliance)

This is why morality is so important in society: ("thou shalt not steal" (pirates; yarrr, you scurvy sea dogs) "Love thy neighbour" - (copyright alliance; please stop wasting money on frivilous persuits and grow up).

Someone has to stop this sillyness, either the companies have to approach their piracy foes with an open hand to take advantage of their infrastructure/technology, or the pirates have to offer their services to them with responsibility and cooperation.

Either way, the one who will humble himself before the other, surely will be remembered by our history books as the honourable and mature one.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 8:27:46 AM , Rating: 4
Priacy is not stealing. Stealing is built on the premise that what is taken is tangible property and upon theft is no longer availble to property owner.

When you copy a song, it is the equivilent you speaking to someone, and saying you have the rights to what you say. That you own the words that you have spoken and noone can ever repeat them without paying you a fee.

Many people do not recognize the assertion that something intangible is property.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Christopher1 on 11/24/07, Rating: 0
RE: Not gonna stop them.
By tmouse on 11/26/2007 8:22:48 AM , Rating: 2
As long as you and her do not listen to the same song at the same time. I see stealing a song as a theft of service rather than a theft of real property. You pay for the chance to be entertained "on demand" by the purchase. Would you consider it fair to reimburse a friend half of their ticket if they opened a back door to let you into a concert? You can listen to SOME music fro free on the radio but that is not really free. You get subjected to ads and you do not hear what you want when you want (even on "request shows" there is only a chance to get your request and it cues when they can get to it. I do believe these groups want to take all of our rights and would love to see "fair use" finally codified in law rather than just being a lose interpretation which these groups are eroding. I also think these companies should not receive all rights to a work they publish just first publication rights. You do not have the right to set your price on another’s work, just the right to either pay the requested price or not, if people stuck to their guns the prices would drop. Theft is still theft be it property or service.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Rav3n on 11/25/2007 6:57:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Stealing is built on the premise that what is taken is tangible property and upon theft is no longer availble to property owner.


Why are we fooling ourselves into trying to narrow the definition down to "property?" What if you stole my heart? Or an actor stole a show? Or if I stole a peak through your open window?

What we really have to assess is the notion of stealing an idea. And ideas, like the other examples, are neither physical property, nor do they fit your relatively narrow definition of intangible property.

Proper laws have to address proper philosophy. While I am not about to address the underpinnings of a more comprehensive philosophy in my DailyTech post here, it certainly is one of the root issues with copyright laws in the digital age.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By mindless1 on 11/26/2007 11:25:11 AM , Rating: 2
It is not "we" who are fooling ourselves.

It's not stealing and never will be.
Yes, it's illegal. So are many acts which also can't be randomly called stealing. Stealing is a term used by simpletons who can't appreciate there is a substantial difference in every possible way.

A metaphor about stealing one's heart is obviously inapplicable and in so writing it you had already conceded you were wrong though lack of evidence, so why did you keep writing?


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Rav3n on 11/29/2007 8:52:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A metaphor about stealing one's heart is obviously inapplicable


Hmm... maybe I missed how it was "obviously inapplicable."

Please write me about it.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By ZmaxDP on 11/26/2007 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 3
That was a horrible analogy.

The music industry is not asking that you don't sing the songs yourself, or play them with your own instruments, but that you don't copy (record) someone else's voice and instrumentation and play it without paying for it. Last I checked it is equally illegal to record someone's spoken conversation without their permission/knowledge as it is to copy a recorded song without the artist's or studio's consent.

Also, stealing isn't based on the premise that what is taken is "tangible property" but on the premise that what is taken is simply property and therefore owned by someone other than the thief. Intangible isn't even remotely related to the definition of stealing except in your book.

Besides, music isn't "intangible" any more than a book, or a patented way of assembling a microprocessor. When the idea was originated, all these examples were "intangible." Then, through a process of recording these ideas onto paper (manuscripts, sheet music, patent applications) or other mediums (vinyl records, CD's, Digital files that take up real space on your hard drive), they become tangible.

I think "tangible" is something a lot of people throw around in the digital age willy nilly as a means to an end. Tangible means (basically) something you can touch. Guess what, you can touch a CD, a record, sheet music, and a hard drive. Tangible does not intentionally exclude things too small to touch with your fingers (electrons). It is meant to mean something with a physical presence. Conveniently, when the word was coined (created) people weren't aware that there were things so tiny they couldn't physically perceive them, hence the common definition of the word. Point being, those tiny bits of data stored on your hard drive are every bit as "tangible" as a grand piano. So, stop using the "intangible" nature of music to excuse your theft...

The beauty of the creative arts is that the idea behind the tangible evidence of said idea is indeed "intangible" and theoretically exists outside of any physical representation including the artist's own mind. However, I've never met anyone capable of "copying" this intangible stuff either. It's only the tangible evidence of that idea that ever gets copied. Interestingly, it's this tangible evidence that copyrights apply to. Which, back to music, is why copying a song recording without having paid for it is stealing, while listening to the song on a radio or podcast or live or from a CD you've bought and then teaching yourself how to play it (or buying the sheet music) and then playing it yourself isn't.

So let's drop the intangible defense...

You may not recognize that something "intangible" can be property and thus belong to someone. If you honestly believe this, then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

However, most modern societies are built upon the premise that those who create ideas are the owners of those ideas. No system is perfect, and in many cases the wrong people get credit, but despite these screw-ups this premise persists. Why? To encourage the sharing of creativity, and it's results. Without the "ownership" of "intangible" ideas, the entire creative system breaks down. Take a close look at the few societies that discredit the ownership of such intangibles by individuals (Stalinist Russia, North Korea, etc...) and you'll find that instead the state owns these ideas. They still implicitly accept that ownership of ideas is important, but reject the rights of the individual to that ownership. If you look closely at the intellectual property that was developed in these kind of societies, you'll notice that most of the creativity was expended in areas that the governments did not have an interest in. The government didn't bother to take ownership of those ideas. In areas deemed important, creativity and advancement slowed down dramatically. Not entirely, but any systematic decrease in creativity can have startling economic effects on the affected industry (music or otherwise). Some economists contribute the fall of most communist states to this one factor alone. Decrease in creativity leads to a decrease in productivity relative to other states leading to an eventual economic collapse. Not such a pretty picture. In fact, I can't think of a single government or society that didn't place value on intangible ideas. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be very interested in a society that doesn't. It would make for a fantastic research assignment.

When you say many people don't recognize the assertion that something intangible can't be property, I'm not clear who this large group of people are (outside of content pirates). Heck, even most of the content pirates I know are quite protective of their own intellectual property, they just haven't figured out how to respect other people's IP. I only know one person who truly buys into your premise, and he'll admit that the reason he doesn't support ownership of such intangible things is because he is incredibly uncreative himself. The guy has a photographic memory, but lacks almost any shred of creativity. As such, IP is of little use to him. Like I said, he'll admit it freely.

I don't like invasive DRM, copy restrictions on already purchased content, or any of the other "new" measures the RIAA or MPAA is trying to enforce any more than you do. You can argue against those policies using any number of legal precedents (fair use, etc...) or constitutional rights. Your argument, however, is just so totally a 180 from all these precedents and from almost the entire societal history of the human race that it really blows my mind. It just seems strange to me that given all the other possible ways of arguing against it, you've picked this one. It's the A-bomb of arguments against the creative arts. It's also the one least likely to succeed. Then again, if what you're shooting for is the freedom to copy anything and everything as you wish, then it's the only one that will get you what you want. So, good luck with that. I just hope it never happens...


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 11/24/2007 10:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all (DailyTech might as well remove the comments section in that case).

Wordsworm brings up some interesting points. They may not be entirely on topic, but he does it tactfully and in an informed manner.

It's OK to be a little off topic :)


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By wordsworm on 11/24/2007 11:51:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wordsworm, if your annoyance is with the medical industry, address it in an article which is relevant. If we were to dig up all the grieviances of all the possible ways people are taking advantage of others, there would be no point of having a discussion on this particular topic at all
You seem to miss the parallel. I do have a grievance with the medical community, it's true. My point is simple: there's big money in protecting its interests, and most people seem to be content with that, and with protecting the interests of patent holders such as Intel or Microsoft, yet seem to care not one whit about the interest of the film and music industries. The real issue of this article is how the culture, and for matters of discussion at DT, is the argument over whether or not artists should have the right to protect their interests. I have read some suggest that artists should consider recorded albums as little more than an ad for a concert. These people have no perspective. They just want to be entertained for free. I vaguely recall someone complaining that radio stations that are being required are having to pay royalties - their argument being that these stations have to pay for bandwidth and that should be enough. I'm trying to show that the value attributed to physical goods. If physical goods could be copied by anyone with a computer, then it would open a whole new world of piracy, with everyone's livelihood being threatened. Of course, then everyone would staunchly defend their intellectual property. What is a patent, really, other than an intellectual property? What is a scientific invention if not an act of creation? Both scientists and artists need to have their work protected that it may bring value to their work and effort.

In most cases, the only people who really care about morality are the people held accountable for it. Those who do pirate work or willfully download pirated work are criminals who need to be corrected. Due to the extent of this infraction, the music and film industry have become draconian to protect its interests.

The previous post suggested that people shouldn't be getting rich off of artists. I countered that people shouldn't be getting rich off of sick and dying people. I made the comparison because most people respect doctors as demigods, just as the disparage entertainment execs. In the area of morality, I think that what I'm trying to do is put a little perspective on the values of popular culture.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By mindless1 on 11/26/2007 11:39:15 AM , Rating: 2
"If physical goods could be copied by anyone with a computer, then it would open a whole new world of piracy, with everyone's livelihood being threatened."

No, it would open a whole new nirvana where people aren't enslaved.

This is where your thinking is wrong. People are not "entitled" to a livelihood! They can't just do some kind of work and then demand to be paid, it has to be one of two factors:

1) They'd already reached an agreement, a binding one that they be paid.

2) Their work produces something others choose to pay for, they cannot just extort money from those unwilling to pay.

In either case, the paying party was willing to pay. We could weep for someone who spent time that was of no value to anyone but in the end they made the choice to do so. Boo hoo, maybe if they wanted a sure thing, a fixed income then they should have chosen a profession where it is not such a gamble!


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By NullSubroutine on 11/24/2007 8:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
I guess my reponse would be both would be symtoms of this disease called capitalism. Everyone talks about religious zealotry and the evil crusaders from this side or that side but the true horror of the world comes from the religion of economics.

Everything is supply and demand. Food, water, resources, hell, even people. Big business, no matter which one it is, loves it when there is more workers. The more workers their are the less they have to pay them, simple supply and demand.

I could name dozens of companies without having to pull out hardly any research that have put a value on human life. Ford factored the cost of a recall vs the number of lawsuits from death and the average payout of these lawsuits. They calculated it would cost more for the recall so they didn't do it!

They care about one thing, money...well two, power as well.


RE: Not gonna stop them.
By Christopher1 on 11/24/07, Rating: -1
RE: Not gonna stop them.