|
|
Posted by PTravel on 12/13/06 18:54
"Bill" <trash@christian-horizons.org> wrote in message
news:JOydnQ4ccprUqR3YnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@golden.net...
>I didn't say that either.
>
> But I will say this: if you believe in stringent copyright enforcement,
> you can't have it both ways. You can't-- morally, if not legally-- let
> your video be played 100,000 times because you benefit from the exposure
> and then cry, copyright theft and sue the uploader.
Of course you can. No analogy is perfect, but that's like saying if you
take my car while I'm out of town and rent it out to someone, I shouldn't
complain of the theft if you share the rental fee with me. An economic and
legal system that recognizes the concept of private property does not, and
should not, excuse appropriation of that property because there may be some
benefit to the property owner.
>
> You tell me: is that logical?
It's very logical.
Let's go back to my travel video example. My travel videos were first
posted on my website which, if I ever finish it, will be all about how to
shoot travel videos. My site isn't, and will never be, commercial, but it's
a fun hobby and I derive non-economic benefit from people visiting the site
and, eventually, exchanging information and ideas. My videos can be
downloaded, and frequently they are. If someone downloads my video and then
puts in on Youtube, I'm deprived of the benefit that _I'd_ like to receive,
because people will go to Youtube and see them rather than come to my site.
You may argue that I get more exposure on Youtube, and that's probably true.
However, I don't care about Youtube exposure. I care about people visiting
my website.
> And -- with all due respect again-- can you answer that question and not
> some other question that provides a straw-man argument? Is it logical or
> moral for copyright owners to allow their rights to be conspicuously
> violated and then turn around and sue the uploader?
Of course. The uploader violated the law. Period. It's not the uploader's
call as to whether the property owner would want their property distributed
in an unauthorized manner.
>
> Could you at least admit that copyright holders that allow their material
> to continue to be played without making any effort to have it stopped
> undermine the general idea copyright as it applies to videos and music?
There is a concept in law called "acquiesence." If a plaintiff sues a
defendant for infringement, and the facts suggest that the plaintiff had
known about the infringement and encouraged (or, at least, tolerated) it,
the defendant can assert acquiesence as an affirmative defense. If the
trier-of-fact believes that the plaintiff acquiesed in the infringement,
then the defendant will be held non-liable.
A good example of that is the Colbert Report "Green Screen Challenge." The
show expressly encouraged viewers to create derivative works based on the
Green Screen Challenge video. The producers of the Colbert Report would be
equitably-estopped if they then turned around and sued anyone who made such
a derivative work for copyright infringement.
> And before anyone tells me that the law doesn't change no matter how many
> people disobey it-- fine, I know that. That's not what I said. I said
> "undermine the general idea". I think most of us know what is meant by
> "general idea".
>
> I anticipate Paul responding that it doesn't matter if Enya benefits from
> the endless viewing of her video-- she still has absolute copyright and
> property rights and all that. Fine. I grant you that. The question is,
> in the minds of the uploading public, does her claim have that abstract
> general thing that most people understand as credibility"?
I think you have a very narrow view of who is the "uploading public." The
fact that a lot of teenagers and young adults have no conception of, or
respect for, copyright doesn't not mean that disregard of intellectual
property rights is typical of everyone.
>
> If you don't think that matters, fine. Say so. But don't erect another
> strawman argument and please, above all, spare me the assertion that
> anything I said can be construed as meaning that I don't think artists and
> creators should be paid for their work because I do. I just don't think
> the current system does it very efficiently at all.
>
> I apologize if I sound a little curt -- I think I'm just a little
> exasperated with an industry that wants to pick and chose how it's rights
> are enforced, without any regard for the fact that consumers have some
> rights as well.
>
> As I have said many times: if anyone today doesn't like the current state
> of the marketplace, they are absolutely free to keep their stuff out of
> it. But if they want to benefit from the marketplace, I don't think they
> can rightly expect to be able to dictate all of the terms upon which the
> entire marketplace, not just their own product, will operate.
>
> You want to sell your music? You can use a proprietary format that nobody
> can copy. How many copies will you sell? Not many. Want to use the CD
> format that every consumer expects? Don't do it! Because CD's can be
> copied! Got that! So if you really want all the rights you should have
> under the law: protect your self and keep your music on some other format
> and try to convince consumers-- as you have the right to--
> to buy your own proprietary player.
>
> Don't like that idea? Fine-- release it on CD instead and quit whining.
>
> And that really will be my absolutely last word on this thread.
>
>
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> "Bill" wrote ...
>>
>>> With all due respect-- and I mean that-- , did you read what I said?
>>> Merely that there is a well-known public allegation (by the then
>>> attorney general of New York State, Eliot Spitzer) that Sony-BMG and
>>> other music companies have been providing radio stations with various
>>> "incentives" to play their songs. This is well-documented, in the New
>>> York Times. I didn't say what you imply I said-- that Radio stations
>>> don't pay to play songs, though clearly I don't think that's pertinent
>>> to this issue.
>>
>>
>> Payola as a defense to copyright infringment? You gotta
>> be kidding. Unless you're lobbying to actually validate
>> two wrongs make a right. Try going for 2 + 2 = 5 while
>> you're at it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|