Decriminalizing File Swapping 665
IAmTheDave writes "Wired reports that judicial activism is taking hold in France, much to the dismay of the recording industry, as judges are beginning to suspend the sentences of convicted file swappers. Further, they believe they are starting a revolution against the draconian laws at the base of the industry's legal agenda, and that sometimes laws need to be changed. Says Judge Dominique Barella of the laws against file swapping in today's society: 'It is similar to the sociological consequences of the Prohibition period in the U.S. (during the 1920s). Certain laws can have unexpected consequences on society.'"
viva la france (Score:5, Funny)
so what's personal use? less than 5 movies?
does that mean if i'm caught with more than 5 movies i'm a dealer?
can i get an exemption for medical use?
Fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
Pulling tens of thousands of files from other file-trading networks and then making them available for free to people anywhere in the world, that hardly sounds like "fair use". It's too bad the the technologies that enable the fair use case also enable the more clearly criminal case.
Re:Fair use (Score:3, Insightful)
No it's not. It's only too bad that people use said technology for criminal purposes. Don't blame the tech. It's supposed to be how we use it. And in the case of IP law, like prohibition, the criminal is not so easily defined.
Re:Fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand if the court adopts a hands off stance toward personal, non-commercial copyright infringement, the relentless advances of technology could make the production of digital entertainment significantly less profitable. One of the ideas of copyright law is to encourage the activities of production even as it inhibits more widescale consumption.
The judgment one has to make is which alternative is more potentially damaging to society. I think that even in a society where non-commercial file swapping is completely unchecked, the majority will still choose to purchase what they want. But I could certainly be wrong about that. I just think it is lesser risk than allowing powerful entrenched interests an effective veto power over the development of new technology.
To understand how this could be more significant than how people choose to access silly popular entertainment consider the implications for technical competition between societies. Since my undergrad days at Caltech I became aware that the very expensive texts that we used could be purchased for a fraction of the price we paid in many places in Asia including India and China. If we continue to choose the draconian path while other countries assume a more permissive stance, that would (has) set up an experiment between the U.S. and, for instance, China. I'm uncomfortable with the possible result of that sort of experiment.
Re:Fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I fail to understand why musicians and film actors must all necessarily become multi-billionaires. The entertainment industry currently is a rip-off industry. At some point the pendulum is bound to swing back.
Re:Fair use (Score:3, Interesting)
There are at least tw
Re:A "two way slippery slope" (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Theater (Score:3, Insightful)
As another poster wrote, how much is file sharing hurting George Lucas's pocketbook? Or the creators of Spider-Man or X-Men?
Who are the file swappers stealing from? The black stuntman in the ads?
Give me a break. Maybe movies like Gigli would never have been made. That's about where it ends IMO. The blockbusters would continue to get made regardless.
IMO an open distribution method would encourage theatre use.
Re:viva la france (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:viva la france (Score:2, Funny)
Re:viva la france (Score:3, Funny)
Re:viva la france (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:viva la france (Score:3)
What about film sales to movie networks such as HBO? Airlines? What about sales to TV networks?
I'm sure these add up to more than 1% of many films income.
Re:viva la france (Score:3)
Personal use primarily means something along the lines of not-for-profit. You can't sell it, and you can't play music or movies in your business establishment. Showing movies on the wall in a bar is not personal use. If you think it's OK as long as you don't charge for it, you'd be mistaken - the bar still benefits by attracting customers because of the movie. Increased beer sales would be an indirect profit. A TV station broadcasting a movie to g
Re:viva la france (Score:5, Interesting)
- You theoretically could have recorded it (existing fair use).
- By the time a movie is on television, movie studios have generally extracted a majority of their profits from it. The purpose of copyright (to encourage the creators by allowing them control/compensation for a limited time) has therefore been fulfilled.
I'd like to see copyright reduced to ten years, for motion pictures, at least.prohibition (Score:5, Interesting)
"National prohibition of alcohol (1920-33)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on drugs but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to alcohol and tobacco and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of alcohol fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems were stretched to the breaking point; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in productivity or reduced absenteeism. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many drinkers to switch to opium, marijuana, patent medicines, cocaine, and other dangerous substances that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Prohibition. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Prohibition--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Prohibition that
much stronger."
My favorite quote from prohibition was this on by Reverent Billy Sunday:
"The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent."
Seems like the same kind of quote a RIAA is telling artist when they talk about their fight against file swapping.
Well, I know that I am drawing at least a couple unfounded correlations between the two, but its fun to do. Also, I should point out that I am not for or against either position. Both positions have their own problems.
Re:prohibition (Score:5, Informative)
National prohibition of file swapping
Although consumption of file swapping fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Swapped files became more dangerous to consume;
I'm really not seeing how you can see the analogy as anything other than ridiculous, unless you think that a ban on file swapping is leading today's teens to hard drugs.
Furthermore, Prohibition was a grassroots movement, complete with its own political parties, while the enforcement of copyright is driven by media companies, with very little public support. You really can't compare the two, except superficially, in that they both tried to ban something that was popular.
Lowers respect for property and law (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way it does. The more you are told that something that seems obviously "OK" is illegal, the more you start to think that perhaps OTHER laws are silly as well.
The more laws you stack up that the majortiy of the populace simply do not follow (speeding, P2P, etc) the more people break other laws as well. "In for a penny, in for a pound" as the saying goes.
Re:Lowers respect for property and law (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lowers respect for property and law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:prohibition (Score:5, Funny)
If you read it, just substitue 'file swapping' for 'alcohol' and it seems to ring very true.
"National prohibition of file-swapping was undertaken to improve hygiene in America." Missed the mark on that one. Maybe if they banned MMORPG's, they'd be getting somewhere.Re:prohibition (Score:5, Interesting)
Intellectual property laws don't make common sense in these cases. Even if you can get your head around the idea that something has been "stolen" (even though the original owner still has it), it's hard to buy the idea that the damages are huge. If I download one track of a song off a P2P network, aren't the damages 99 cents if that's the price I'd pay at iTunes?
When a law tries to tell the people a lie, they lose respect for the law.
Re:Copyright isn't about protecting tangible goods (Score:5, Informative)
This is not what copyright laws were about, and to the true die-hard oldschool believer and many creators alike still isn't. Copyrights were not ment to be a way to control revenue. Copyrights were meant to promote creativity through the temporary granting of a monopoly over a particular work, kind of a "You have solo control over this work, do with it as you please until you have to give it up to public domain where others can build upon it." After that limited time, works would go into the public domain where they could be built upon, but as the extentions become more and more, this will be seen less and less often. As far as I am concerned though, creators don't have a right to profit, instead they have a right to try to profit (which I think the law works in that sense too), because quite frankly, you really don't know how well a work will do, popularity or profit wise, beforehand.
Re:Copyright isn't about protecting tangible goods (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful there. You do not have the right to profit. You do have the right to attempt to profit.
That may seem like a minor distinction, but it's actually a huge one. Confusing the two will only muddy the copyright water even further, which nobody needs.
Re:prohibition (Score:2)
Currently there are a lot of debates in America over laws prohibiting marriages between same-sex couples. Even though I personally, as a believer in Christ, am against homosexuality, I don't believe passing laws blocking the behavior is the answer. It would be better to change the people from the ground up rather than passing a generic law trying to block the behavior at
Re:prohibition (Score:5, Insightful)
"National prohibition of file swapping (1999-)--the "noble experiment" -- was undertaken to make earning a living easier for artists, increase the feasibility of living upon one's art, and improve well-being in America by enhancing trade. The results of that experiment clearly indicate that it was a miserable failure on all counts. The evidence affirms sound economic theory, which predicts that prohibition of mutually beneficial exchanges is doomed to failure
The lessons of Prohibition remain important today. They apply not only to the debate over the war on file swapping but also to the mounting efforts to drastically reduce access to file swapping and to such issues as censorship and bans on insider trading, abortion, and gambling.
Although consumption of illegal music fell at the beginning of Prohibition, it subsequently increased. Files became more filled with bugs and spyware; crime increased and became "organized"; the court and prison systems found it infeasible to even prosecute; and corruption of public officials was rampant. No measurable gains were made in art quality or artists' standard of living. Prohibition removed a significant source of tax revenue and greatly increased government spending. It led many listeners to switch to Brittney Spears, Ashlee Simpson, NSYNC, The Backstreet Boys and other dangerously stupid artists that they would have been unlikely to encounter in the absence of Copyright law. Those results are documented from a variety of sources, most of which, ironically, are the work of supporters of Copyright Law--most economists and social scientists supported it. Their findings make the case against Copyright Law that much stronger."
I agree that this argument, as a snippet, is still a little lacking. However, the fundamental problems originally addressed by copyright protection as well as patent protection are no longer handled by said laws.
Re:prohibition (Score:3, Insightful)
As I read that, a particular phrase caught me:
"No measurable gains were made in art quality or artists' standard of living."
It's funny...everyone assumes that if we legalized file sharing that artists would starve. But we have seen no such thing - perhaps even an opposite effect. As the internet has grown, and P2P with it, I think we have a bigger "media culture" than before. People get more excited about upcoming releases (of movies, music, games, whatever), and entire online communi
So... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's fine for them to protect their content but it's also fine for citizens of the United States to practice fair-use. There has to be a balance whether the music industry likes it or not.
Copyright owners are free to protect their content but don't waste taxpayer monies and private industry money tracking these "offenders" down and then prosecuting them when the music industries' protections don't work the way
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true. There has to be a balance. Currently, the balance is in favor of file swappers, via ever more inventive technology. The music industry is trying (and failing) to restrict that through various DRM schemes and lawsuits.
Overly restrictive DRM goes against fair use. And so does wholesale file swapping with everyon
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Is any of that stuff working? Have any of their idiotic DRM schemes not been circumvented? Has file swapping ceased and I didn't notice?
Re:So... (Score:2)
Re:So... (Score:2)
I think at the root of the file sharing debate is an issue of access to information. Now that distribution methods have changed so much in 10 years, those that control the distribution are seeing their way of life disappear, and they are fighting tooth and nail to hold back innovation and progress to keep things pointed in their favor. I think this is why we see so many posts on
Re:So... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, content. That's what it is. I so love that word. It makes ideas sound so special, and non-commodity like. *chuckle* That's advertiser thinking. Ideas are just a commodity you use to try to sell stuff.
Try asking the question from a different angle. What can be done that's not a huge impact to society as a whole that will encourage people to create more stuff? The purpose of copyright was not to try to manifest some fictitious 'ownership' right, it was to try to create a social benefit (people c
Re:So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Information is the lifeblood of democracy. Art is the lifeblood of culture. They are as essential to functional human society as food is to bodily survival; just as we would find it immoral to withhold food from anyone if food were freely replicable and distributable (the farmers' business plans notwithstanding), we should find it equally immoral to withhold information from anyone now that our technological environment makes information freely replicable and distributable.
I'm surprised by how infrequently I see this argument articulated, even among free-culture types.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Not a surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not a surprise. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, the French do have shitty taste...
Re:Not a surprise. (Score:2)
You mean return of the Shit? I don't understand why people liked that movie. It felt less like Star Wars than episode I and II.
If I would have downloaded a bootleg copy of it, I would have at least known not to go watch it in the theaters and waste 24$.
The cone in which Padme gave birth in was absolutely retarded! I didn't know the movie was supposed to be a comedy but I got a bunch of healthy laughs.
Plus I couldn't keep myself from picturing Darth Vader in Yoga pos
Obligatory Homer Simpson quote (Score:3, Funny)
Finally, someone that understands! (Score:5, Interesting)
See, but the music industry doesn't want to do any real investigative work. They want to make examples out of people that are just like everyone else. Everyday people who are swapping music for their portable media players are not going to feel scared of sympathetic towards large-scale operations. They are going to be scared of someone "just like them" that was prosecuted for doing exactly what they are.
"People still look at this as 'harmless, file sharing,' but the fact is that the effects are the same, or even actually worse, than a massive-scale organized crime piracy operation," Rechard said. "If you look at the number of files that are distributed and the number of music that is being offered without payment to the authors and injury inflicted to the copyright holders, at some point people need to start understanding what we are up against here."
That's because it is harmless and we have proven time and time again that your trumped up "loss" numbers are nothing more than spin and bullshit. At no point will be stop understanding that the music industry conglomorates are nothing but money grubbing, lying, pieces of shit that do nothing but steal from both sides of the equation for their own benefit.
Prohibition period (Score:4, Insightful)
The prohibition period in the US continues to this day. Marijuana, LSD, opiates, and a host of other substances less harmful than alcohol remain prohibited. It's just that the propaganda is better this time around.
Re:Prohibition period (Score:2)
Music fileswappers aren't the ones with the money to fuel corruption. The music industry is.
Re:Prohibition period (Score:3, Funny)
I've seen the commercials. If I smoke pot, I'll become a baby sitter and burn down the house with the baby inside. There is also a good chance I'll play with the gun on my dad's desk, and blow away my friend. Finally, I would obviously run over a little girl on a bike when pulling out of a d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Prohibition period (Score:3, Informative)
Alcohol is the ONLY drug where withdrawls can kill you. Lots of things can be OD'd on, but alcohol is the only one where you can die if you don't get it.
Re:Prohibition period (Score:3, Funny)
Alcohol is the ONLY drug where withdrawls can kill you. Lots of things can be OD'd on, but alcohol is the only one where you can die if you don't get it.
What about food? People get addicted to that, but when they stop eating they always seem to die.
(this was a joke)
Re:Prohibition period (Score:3, Informative)
Well we have the best argument against making alcohol illegal. We tried it and it didn't work. The costs to society of alcohol prohibition were more than that of alcohol regulation. It's the same for marijuana, psychedelics, and opiates.
I'm not so sure about cocaine and methamphetamine. But the libertarian (small l) in me says it's none of the gov'ts business what I take, and even if it were,
Re:Prohibition period (Score:3, Insightful)
As an ex user of opiates I can tell you one thing...
They should remain illegal (or, at least, controlled as they are now).
Marijuana, LSD, and mushrooms are another matter.
The Perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
This has some interesting implications; however, I don't think it'll be interpreted the same here in the states. See, Prohibition was viewed as the government taking away a liberty right, or the right to be left alone. Here is the Man telling me I can't buy alcohol.
Downloading MP3's is viewed as taking the "property" of somebody else. In other words, if I want to buy and drink alcohol, then who is the government to stop me? But if I want to take somebody's property (as defined by IP laws), then obviously, this changes things.
I do think that "jail time" people for downloading some music is ridiculous. Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
Re:The Perspective (Score:4)
No, the analogy to Prohibition is entirely accurate (in fact, I've used the same analogy myself). The current problems with copyright law should be viewed as the government taking away our liberty right to our culture.
*okay, technically the "viewed as" part is true. But you know what I meant.
Re:The Perspective (Score:3)
Downloading music will never stop, this cycle will always continue. It's like the 55MPH speed limit. Nobody follows is, and yet the police still try to enforce it. Some of us will pay fines, and others will get away scott free.
The speed limit is not about "right and wrong" it is about making money for police departments. It is a way to gain revenue and pretty much nothing else. If you are speeding to the point where you are actually a danger you are charged with reckless endangerment or reckless driving.
Re:The Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Would someone please explain it to me?
Some years back I went down to the "You-Buy-It Electronics Mart" and bought a new cassette recorder/ player with built in equalizer and FM/AM radio. I tuned in my favorite Country Radio and found out they had Dolly Parton on every half hour. I sure liked that song, so, I slipped a new tape in and ShaZAM! I had a copy of Dolly I could now play in my Pickup Truck!
Some time after that, I went back to the You-Buy-It, and t
Amnesty (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should laws be changed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why should laws be changed? (Score:2)
Re:Why should laws be changed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because property is a social construct. There is no inherent characteristic in anything I own that makes it mine; what makes it mine is that we as a society commonly agree it is mine, and the laws generally follow that common agreement.
Intellectual Property is particularly nebulous since we're defining something without physical being (a series of ideas) as being property -- that is, we're assigning a notional value to a notion.
That's all well and good, but when what do we do when a major sector of the society doesn't agree with the attribution of such a notional value to a specific form of that notion?
For example, a law could state that all sports cars belong to me. That'd be good and legal, but the sports car owners would think differently. Why should the law be changed?
At heart, the problem is that this particular construction of property collides with millennia of human practice. Heck, even the old copyright law only makes sense for a few centuries of human existence. Add in that, in the case of music, we've got an industry built around oligopolic vertical domination of the industry -- from artists to mass dissemination to retail, and and new technology has basically destroyed the dominant position of the old guard. And no elite is more vehement than one that's being supplanted.
So why should they have the privileged voice in law?
Re:Why should laws be changed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Before the internet, large scale copyright infringment was impractical unless the person copying was making a profit. Hence there are a lot of laws on the books that are intended to deal with commercial infringement rather than file sharing. However, the record industry brings suits under these laws.
Since these laws were clearly not intended to cover not-for-profit file sharing, should the judge interpret them by the letter of the law, or consider the intent of the law?
question (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyrights are compatible only with fascism (Score:2)
In a true capitalist society would patents & copyrights even exist ? I don't believe so, they're incompatible with that philosophy.
At least Yartrebo agrees with you [slashdot.org].
Re:question (Score:3, Informative)
Capitalism is based on private investment, trade in goods and services which are not provided by the state, church, or community.
You do not get investment where private property rights are not protected.
Re:question (Score:3, Insightful)
So, even though you don't get it, you answered the question perfectly. Capitalism only needs property rights, and not imaginary, propagandized quasi-property rights.
Foreign Law (Score:3, Interesting)
judicial activism? (Score:2)
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think so. Judges are supposed to make rulings based upon the written law, not based upon their opinion of the written law. It's called judicial activism because rather than judging, they are legislating, and thus abusing their power by setting up their own law apart from that approved by those elected by the people specifically as representative lawmakers. (This is from a US perspective. The French system may be
go france! (Score:5, Insightful)
seriously though, i think it's refreshing to hear people in authority looking at the situation from this perspective instead of blindly following.
change always has to start somewhere, at some level.
Re:go france! (Score:2)
change always has to start somewhere, at some level.
That won't fly here in the US. Unfortunately it's all too easy for the judicial system and those in power to ignore the judgements of other countries as you can see by a certain war our administration is conducting at the moment.
You can almost certainly expect the DRM hammer to come down in this country righ
the point of my sig for the last 2 years (Score:4, Insightful)
It's even more insane to criminalize file swapping than it is to criminalize drug use. Catching file swappers basically requires the violation of either the 4th ammendment or the first.
At one point in time the freedom to copy was so unimportant to the average person that the trading away that freedom in the hopes of some greater social benefit made sense. Now things have changed, and it's time to re-evaluate how the social benefit might be achieved without trading away an important and easily exercised freedom.
Judge with a clue! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is understandable... (Score:2, Interesting)
I Disagree to Agree (Score:2, Insightful)
but on the other hand, some of these kids that are being fined only had like 433 songs. What happened to "The RIAA will only sue 'major' contributors to copyright infringement"? I thought they defined that as at least 900+ songs.
It isn't balanced in either direction. The punish
Judges New Legislative Body? (Score:2, Insightful)
The purpose of the judges is to rule on current law, not make up law as they go along. We have the legislators to make up laws. And I do mean make up.
Re:Judges New Legislative Body? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is also my understanding that higher court judges can overturn laws (notably marijuana laws in canada, various laws in the states) and dictate to the government that they need to shape up the laws to work with society.
The first stage is where the people complain,
then the judges will help,
then you have a problem and it must be legislated,
because criminals cannot be judged free 100% of the time for a crime...
France has a different legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:France has a different legal system (Score:3, Interesting)
That said, my history is a bit rusty and I'm sure I got a few details wrong. But t
Some problems with this article... (Score:3, Interesting)
2. They never gave the reader any clue as to how many "convicted file swappers" there were.
How can I judge how big this event is if they don't give me any kind of ruler to measure it against. I know the RIAA in the US has sued some swappers for money, but it was all civil. Wired seems to act like this is a Bastille Day for file swappers, but I'm not even sure anyone was even in prison.
good (Score:2, Interesting)
File Swapping is not a crime! (Score:5, Insightful)
as judges release convicted fileswappers with suspended sentences associated with otherwise draconian penalties stipulated by copyright law. [emphasis added]
File swapping is not a crime! Copyright infringement is. We wouldn't call someone who downloaded child pornography a "convicted web-surfer"
I suppose I'm rehashing the tired hacker/cracker terminology argument, but terminology does matter. Public opinion shapes public policy, and ultimately creates laws. Even though their are legitimate uses for file sharing programs, we may find them made illegal simply because they were publicly associated with copyright infringement. Nevermind the fact that web browsers facilitate more copyright infringement than filesharing programs - it's the public perception that matters.
I'm a file swapper too. But that doesn't mean I'm guilty of copyright infringement.
lattest The Pirate Bay lagal threat (Score:5, Funny)
Latest email to the pirate bay: http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_mail.
this is GREAT for all, stop crying (Score:2)
everyone loves to argue that it hurts the music industry or hurts up and coming artists, but the only thing it can really do, is prevent shitty artists from making money - and how is that a bad thing? if you make crap, don't cry to the world that the problem was file sharers, the problem was your crappy music.
now I know there are 100 different ways (now,
Expectable (Score:3)
Is it really a mystery that now they're legalizing file swapping?
I'm changing my mind on this (Score:5, Interesting)
But I'm changing my mind. Why?
Art is about the medium, message, and reception. It used to be the medium was radio or a record, the message is the content, and the reception was just somebody absorbing the content.
That worldview is no longer valid. Therefore, laws and mores built upon it need to be re-examined.
The medium can be anything now -- disc, WiFi, BlueTooth, etc. The reception -- and here's the key point -- is not the human ear anymore. It's the hard drive. When I TiVo an old Star Trek episode, my computer's hard drive is the first to get it, not me. I use the computer as a extension to my brain and memory process. It's nothing at all like a book, or record.
This sucks for content producers, because the rules are going to change. Maybe not today, maybe not even this decade, but the world is changing. The people who made buggy whips were probably outraged that the horseless carriage came along.
I think the situation sucks. The reason it sucks is that people who have been playing by the rules are getting screwed by file-sharing. But there are no culprits here, save for the evolution of the human existance. Demonizing people and paying a lot of lawyers is just smoking so much rope. How many times was the new Star Wars movie downloaded in the last week? 100 thousand? More?
Use Occam's Razor -- has the world suddenly grew infected with souless criminals intent on stealing from the mouths of the creative industry? Or has time simply moved on?
Re:I'm changing my mind on this (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, art is communication. And that communication doesn't stop with just the first "somebody;" it continues until society has absorbed the content.
No, it sucks because the copyright holders ar
bad as Prohibition? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Mafia had running gun-battles with tommy guns with the police through the streets of Chicago.
-to say nothing of the devestation that modern drug prohibition has wrought on our society.
File-swapping is a tempest in a teapot compared to the impact of drug/alcohol prohibition. My biggest concern is that file-swapping prohibition might lead to erosion of free speech and fair use rights, and amounts to government pandering to what should be an illegal cartel (RIAA/MPAA/BSA).
The two situations compared amount to a false analogy.
Engage brain before putting keyboard in gear... (Score:3, Informative)
The American system is based on English Common Law.
The French system is based on The Napoleonic Code.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_sys
Re:Frances is just damn sore ! (Score:2)
Re:Frances is just damn sore ! (Score:2)
Re:Frances is just damn sore ! (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? Their music might not be to everyones taste but their movies can be absolutely superb.
RikF
Re:Frances is just damn sore ! (Score:2, Funny)
How could you?!? You missed out snails in your sterotype!
And france does produce some things I like to watch... *cough*
Someone must stand up and defend France! (Score:5, Interesting)
The best way to understand the relationship between Anglo and French cultures is to think of them as parallel universes. There is a lot of great stuff that happens in both that doesn't 'cross the bridge' between them.
French movies tend to be 'small' and not huge CGI blockbusters, but they tend to be the best of all the 'small' movies of the world. During the movie theater era before the VCR revolution of the mid-1980s, French films were widely shown in every major US cities. French directors like Truffaut and Rohmer were known throughout the world.
French music is not only the pop songs of the radio, but also most of Europe outside of the UK. Paris is also the ground zero for the world music movement. Much of the music of Africa is recorded there and many of the best African musicians are based there. Paris is also the center of the European orchestral music movement, both modern and classical. Classical music is rare and modern orchestral music unknown on US radio.
Back to the topic. I believe that the final effect of all the DRM and legal action against the consumers of corporate entertainment product will be the marked decrease in the demand for this product.
This might be beginning to happen with Hollywood movies. The box office revenue growth seen in the past eight years seems to have stopped. This has nothing to do with movie file sharing, because that activity is very small compared to the size of the industry itself. It's more due to high prices at the theaters and unexciting movies.
What we will see, hopefully, is a lot of smaller movies on DVD that rent for 1/2 or 1/3 of the cost of the latest blockbuster. It would seem to management that 20 $1 rentals is a lot worse than 4 $5 rentals, but that isn't so because the consumption of entertainment product creates its own demand for this product. It's a different type of product from, say, food. The more entertainment that you consume, the more that you want and the more money that you will pay for it.
Re:Judicial Activism (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Judicial Activism (Score:2, Interesting)
However, its much better than the US legal sytem which still hasn't
Re:Judicial Activism (Score:3, Insightful)
Where it can get tricky is do you believe the constitution is a "complete" document. Do you believe we are only due those rights speicifically spelled out in the constitution over 250 years ago or are there other rights we should be afford
Re:Why can't people understand... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too Far? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then they don't have that right, because they don't own the property. Society does, and we're letting them borrow it from us. So yeah, I'm glad to see that we're finally asserting our rights.
In case you want to disgree, think about this: copyright expires. It does so so that the art can be returned to society, it's rightful owner. If it were otherwise -- if the artist owned it -- wouldn't the expiration of copyright have to be considered s
Re:Too Far? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not quite. I'm suggesting that the law should provide the greatest net benefit to society. If that's encouraging the creation of new works by enforcing funding of the artist (like it has been until recently), fine. If that's encouraging wide distribution of the works by allowing file sharing, that's fine too. It's all about where the need is -- and with the sharp reduction in the c
Re:Too Far? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's a political position, and one so noisily promoted in the US (by the Heiritage Foundation and its friends) that it's become mainstream. But it's not fundamental to society.
In Europe, property rights are not generally considered to be more important than other rights. Europe, unlike the US, had a feudal era. Until about 200 years ago, most real estate was owned by a few powerful barons, who le