Mark Kent wrote:
> begin oe_protect.scr
> > The biggest problem with any hosting service, ranging from rackspace to
> > MySpace, is that the publisher (the person who puts copyrighted content
> > in the public space) is the criminal. The challenge is that if you
> > have 5 million "tweens and teens" who have been stealing software for
> > years, and have been watching their parents steal software for even
> > longer, should you treat them the same way you should treat drug
> > dealers? The penalty for copyright violations is 15 years. The
> > penalty for drug possession of drugs such as pot and powder cocaine is
> > only 5 years.
> Nah, the sentence should be raised to 50 years. Then we can all watch
> as the US puts 50% of it's teenagers away for the whole of their fertile
> period.
>
> You should be a little careful with the words here, though, Rex.
> Copyright violation is not stealing, it's copyright violation. The
> music industry's estimates for lost revenue from this are known to be
> utter and complete fabrication.
> The industry, of course, would rather the hosting service be
> responsible, however, they're not, any more than the brick manufacturer
> is responsibly for a house with stolen goods in it.
Actually, this is more like trying to sue Xerox because individuals
used the photocopier to duplicate and "publish" copyrighted documents.
Until 1976, the doctrine of "fair use" generally led Judges to limit
the prosecution of copyright violations. For example, someone who
quoted a few lines of another publication in a secondary publication
was allowed to do so under the "fair use" doctrine. The duplication of
higher documents.
When the copyright act of 1976 went into effect in 1977, fair use was
now superceded by the terms of a "copyright license". This original
clause was intended to allow a copyright holder to define the terms of
republication, as part of the copyright notice.
Bill Gates' father, Bill Gates II, was a powerful corporate lawyer, and
probably advised Bill Gates on how to take advantage of this new law in
his dealings with MITS. Eventually Bill was arrested, possibly related
to a "steam roller race", but the records were sealed in a settlement
involving Bill Gates return to Washington state.
The combination of new copyright laws, combined with new microcomputer
technology made it possible for Microsoft to rapidly evolve into a huge
player. Microsoft didn't have the best technology, in fact it wasn't
even mediocre. What Microsoft had was the support of a very powerful
corporate lawyer, who could use his son as a magnificent barganing
tool. Propspective customers would underestimate the nerdy and
autistic Bill Gates III, giving him what appeared to be minor
concessions when he "caved in" to what appeared to be a major sticking
point. Both the major sticking point and the concessions were
carefully chosen and planned by both father and son. Often, the minor
concessions were so minimized that the other party never realized that
these were the true issues and that the issue being haggled for weeks
or months was only a way of getting the concessions.
> Or more closely, the publican is responsible for criminals trading stolen goods in his
> pub.
If you have a public library, and you have a copier in that library,
you have a problem. The environment has been configured to permit
duplication of copyrighted works. Eventually, the public libraries and
the copier vendors found a solution. They put a coin slot on the
machine and kept a film record of the items being copiied. The copier
maker collected the money and the film, and did it's best to identify
publication information to make sure that the publisher got a portion
of the price paid for each copy, often many times what would normally
have been collected via other modes of communications.
The problem with so many of these "napster" and "myspace" and "youTube"
scenarios is that there are no provisions for collecting revenue, or
for properly distributing the royalties - on any basis.
Such mechanisms need to be configured and negotiated, but the
publishers are also at fault. Many different "brokers" are trying to
be the self-proclaimed "agents" for the entire industry, and this makes
negotiation very crazy. For example, if MySpace has already negotiated
terms with BMI or ASCAP, and then one of the other "agents" files a
high profile lawsuit, claiming that they were the exclusive agent, then
the Judge will have to sort out who really had the right to negotiate,
and whether these organizations had a right to compete for the
contract.
Of course, the FUD value is extraordinary. It could take months, even
years to sort out all of the disclosures, and most of them could be
sealed, leaving key facts of the case, which, if made public, would
eliminate all question of FUD, and would nullify public fears, and
would eliminate this question.
> --
> | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
> When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
> -- Hunter S. Thompson
|
|
