|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/07/06 02:12
"Rick Merrill" <rick0.merrill@NOSPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:IdqdnXIzbv028OrYnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> PTravel wrote:
>> "Colin B" <Colin B@cb.org> wrote in message
>> news:4573e69e$1@clear.net.nz...
>>
>>>Now that it's easy to put your digital photographs and movies on to a
>>>video sharing site, such as "youtube", the question of whether copyright
>>>infringements really harm the copyright holders is now a hot topic. See,
>>>for example, the article titled:
>>>
>>>Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright
>>>holders?
>>>
>>>http://fredhere.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>What do you think of the arguments in this blog? Should copyright holders
>>>take a broad view and tolerate copyright infringements on youtube as is
>>>suggested in this blog?
>>>
>>>See also the youtube site: http://www.youtube.com/
>>
>>
>> Copyright is an exclusive right, meaning the reserved rights are owned,
>> entirely, by the copyright owner. It doesn't matter whether
>> infringements are "not all bad" or not -- copyright is, by definition, a
>> right to exclude. Your argument is pointless as it would mean, among
>> other things, amending the Constitution and ignoring several hundred
>> years of intellectual property jurisprudence.
>>
>
> No argument, but I thought Colin's point what that "the times they are
> a-changing", and furthermore it has always been true that when the re-use
> becomes so widespread that copyright enforcement becomes futile,
> especially when the users all have shallow pockets!
I'm not entering the debate as to whether intellectual property protection
is "good" or "bad" or "obsolete." My only point was that, under current law
and throughout the history of the jurisprudence of copyright, whether or not
an infringement hurt the copyright owner was not a factor in limiting the
scope of protection afforded.
> I think the OP intended to engage more in futurism, not in current law.
That's okay -- that kind of discussion is a good thing.
>
> When you get thousands of people copying your music, you go after the top
> 50 as examples if not genuine remuneration. When you get tens of
> millions copying your music - you've got to find other ways to count
> your blessings than trying to sue.
My personal opinion is that the music publishers are trying to frame _new_
law that protects an obsolete business model. It's not the law that's bad,
but the distribution mechanism selected by the record companies. One of my
clients is a very well-known computer game developer. They devised a
business model that was essentially piracy proof -- they benefited even when
their games were knocked-off. Not surprisingly, they were (and are) very
successful, and a number of other game developers have emulated them.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|