 GrepLaw |
|
|
|
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Music Companies to Pursue Individual MP3 Swappers
|
|
|
|
posted by md
on Wednesday July 03, @09:30AM
from the coming-to-get-you dept.
|
|
|
|
|
SmartMoney.com reports that several large recording parent companies, along with the RIAA, are planning to sue individuals offering MP3 files for others to download. The companies are reportedly going to go after the largest distributors of music, but have not yet decided the details of how they will launch their attack. Not surprisingly, troubled Vivendi Universal is apparently one of the strongest proponents of the idea of attacking individual citizens.
|
|
|
|
< Janis Ian in Defense of Peer-to-Peer
| Entervision Retransmits CNN, NBC >
| |
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Music Companies to Pursue Individual MP3 Swappers
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 4 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a related note, the NY Times reports [nytimes.com] that Vivendi Universal is preparing to sell off parts of its conglomerate. With other media companies drowning in debt as well (consider AOL Time Warner, Walt Disney and News Corp.,) who is gong to purchase Vivendi's unwanted, debt-ridden parts, especially when Vivendi is demanding cash in all deals? Perhaps this sell-off will inevitably lead to the formation of mini-Vivendis (non-media companies getting into media) across industries. Of course, despite media companies' financial woes, analysts are ever-optimistic; says Michael J. Wolf, a partner at McKinsey & Co.: "I think we're going to go through a period of asset swapping among media companies, putting together sets of businesses that make more sense." Now, Michael, answer this: When was the last time business-swapping made sense?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 03, @09:12PM (#108)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi: It appears that we may have reached the point where it becomes necessary to repeal the Copyright Law, altogether. If we did, though, would there be harm done?
This begs the next question, as to why are we still committed to having a Copyright Law exist? There are few, if any, who would disagree with the notion that the Internet permits anyone to participate in a global marketplace. If that's the case, then why do we have a Copyright Law? Why not replace the Copyright Law with a Public Domain Law?
Let's have everyone place any works in the Public Domain. When they do, they spell out any restrictions they want added on those works, and at some point, the works look like the old, traditional copyright license.
Seems senseless to have the default for providing financial support for arts and sciences follow a model that doesn't recognize the Internet as a means of generating support for artists and musicians and authors, which removes the justification for a Copyright Law to even exist.
Such a law, then is one that favors the individual, rather than any special interest groups. Special interest groups have no place in promoting the arts and sciences, unless they contribute to that promotion. The starting point for our Founding Fathers, lay within the search to provide some compromise from monopolies, and the pursuit of creativity and innovation, so important to a Democratic Civil Society.
Since the Internet makes it possible for musicians and artists to pursue support without the need for traditional patrons, or welfare, why does the Copyright Law continue to exist in the Digital Age?
Thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem necessary to repeal the copyright law. What we need to do is to pay attention to the Constitutional underpinnings. Rights are to be given to creators and authors for limited times. Also, Congress needs to remember that the rights of authors are not an end in themselves. Rather they are to be used "to promote science and the useful arts". The intellectual property clause is an instrumental clause. The goal of intellectual property is, ultimately, to enhance the public domain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi: Before the Internet, I would agree with what you're saying. The Internet, however, links the world community into one low-cost [should be] market place.
This makes possible for the first time in history to create global presence on equal footing with others, whether individuals or groups or big corporations.
Musicians and artists no longer need rely on patrons or government welfare programs to support them. In such circumstances, it would seem appropriate to open the market, and let the best products win!
The Creative Commons Project provides a means of utilizing the tagging of Public Domain works, to suit the creator. Those who want to add restrictions to the point that it looks like a copyright, so-be-it. Copyright as a law, just dies a horrible, slow, deliciously tragic death, as people move to a Public Domain lifestyle, supporting those who bring added value to works, creativity and innovation.
I say it's time to say goodby to the Neoclassicists and their assault on personal freedoms. What do you think?
thanks,
Tom Poe
Reno, NV
http://www.studioforrecording.org/mt/Pubdomain_Bre ad/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be
lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.
- Isaac Asimov
|
 |
|
|
|
[
home |
contribute story |
older articles |
past polls |
faq |
authors |
preferences ]
|
