|
|
Posted by Christopher Campbell on 12/08/06 18:39
On Wed, 6 Dec 2006 17:26:02 -0800, Rick Merrill wrote
(in article <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!
The label companies have no intention of going after individual users, even
though many of them do, in fact, have very deep pockets. The fact is, the
label companies cannot afford the bad publicity resulting from going after
individual music lovers.
But they sure can go after YouTube, or Google, or any of the other Internet
giants that are encouraging copyright infringement. Look at what happened to
Napster. Those guys have deep pockets and a lot to lose -- they could be shut
down completely.
This is not to say that label companies would be making a good decision by
sticking to the traditional business model -- that way is financial suicide.
They know it, too. Universal has been very innovative, for example. But
owners of intellectual property should run their businesses as they see fit.
You don't let a bunch of kids on YouTube make your business decisions for
you.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|