Posted by PTravel on 12/14/06 18:10

"J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:elrg510i8i@news2.newsguy.com...
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:18:42 +0000, PTravel wrote:
>
>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:elqi8m0opk@news4.newsguy.com...
>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:52:07 -0800, PTravel wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:elorp00tnq@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:45:00 +1300, Colin B wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We may be at the beginning of a sea-change in perceptions of
>>>>> intellectual
>>>>> property with regard to video. If enough of the public decides that
>>>>> they
>>>>> want video to be freely copiable then the legislators won't have any
>>>>> choice but to tell the MPAA to go pound sand and remove copyright
>>>>> protection from such material.
>>>>
>>>> Complete nonsense.
>>>
>>> In what way?
>>
>> "The public" doesn't want video to be "freely copiable" to the extent
>> that anyone can upload anything they want to Youtube.
>
> You have a poll to present? No? Then on what basis do you make this
> claim?

This is turning into one of those silly internet arguments in which I refuse
to participate. As a practicing IP attorney, I have a pretty good idea of
the State of Intellectual Property, which includes how people use it and
perceive it. Feel free not to take my word for it. If you want, go wager
in Las Vegas that there will be a Copyright Revolution, eliminating property
rights in protected expression. I'm sure you'll get very good odds.

>
>> Elimination of a
>> property interest in intellectual property would have a devasting effect
>
> What would this effect be?

Read on MacDuff.

>
>> -- it would eliminate any incentive to creation and the stream of
>> professionally-produced content would evaporate.
>
> You've never spent much time with artists, have you?

I haven't? Then how do you explain my BA and MFA, 15 years of experience as
a professional actor and 20 years as a member of the Lehman Engle Music
Theatre Workshop -- a workshop for composers, lyricists and book authors.


> They don't need no
> steenkeeng _incentive_. As for the "stream of professionally produced
> content" "evaporating", and I should care about this because?

You've obviously little familiarity with how video is produced. Do you have
any concept of how much it costs to produce a television show, music video
or movie? Do you seriously think that any of the numerous craft guilds
would have any interest in working for free?

You, like many who harbor your beliefs, are thinking only about how nice it
would be to be able to download pop music for free. Guess what -- it's a
much bigger world of protected expression than is contained in Billboard's
Top 40. Operas are not going to get produced for free. Symphony orchestras
are not going to play for free. Musical theater is not going to be staged
for free.

>
>> More than that, the
>> United States economy has, increasingly, become a system whose only
>> value is its intellectual property.
>
> Uh, don't look now, but the Japanese own major chunks of that particular
> American "intellectual property".

Again, you're thinking only about pop music.

Can I ask you a question? I don't mean this as a put down, but I'm really
curious. How old are you? I ask because, as I noted, I find the views that
you've expressed generally to be limited to younger people.

>
>> The only ones who want video to be "freely copiable" in the sense the
>> way that you're describing are a bunch of children and young adults who
>> have no conception of the relationship between intellectual property and
>> property interests.
>
> Again, you have a poll to present?

Only my professional experience.

>
>>>> First of all, the Constitution reserves exclusive rights to copyright
>>>> owners in Article I, Section 8.
>>>
>>> At one time the Constitution prohibited the sale and consumption of
>>> alcohol. If there is a consensus then the Constitution can be changed.
>>
>> There isn't a consensus. Banning alcohol was a disastrous decision that
>> was rapidly undone.
>
> So you're saying that there _was_ a "consensus" that alcohol should be
> banned and then that "consensus" changed? Do tell.

As I said, it was a different America in the 20s.

>
>>>> Second of all, copyright
>>>> owners are businesses that pay taxes and, more importantly, pay
>>>> lobbyists.
>>>
>>> The same was true of brewers, vintners, and distillers and they got
>>> shut down anyway.
>>
>> It's a very different America now then it was in the 20s. Lobbyists
>> didn't exist then.
>
> Then why were newspapers writing diatribes against the practice of
> lobbying in 1869?

In 1970, there was something like 70 registered lobbyists in Washington.
Today, there are thousands. More frightening is the fact that, today, the
lobbyists draft legislation. That wasn't the practice even 30 years ago,
much less 150.

>
>>>> Youtube copyright infringers are children and very young adults who
>>>> don't work, don't create content and, most likely, don't vote.
>>>
>>> You've determined this how? And what happens when those "children and
>>> very young adults" get older?
>>
>> I've determined this by looking at what's on Youtube,
>
> Which tells you nothing about the beliefs of the public.

It tells me the demographic that would be interested in the "theory" of
intellectual property that you propose.

>
>> who is making the
>> arguments for "free downloading,"
>
> And who is making these arguments and how did you determine their age and
> occupation?
>
>> and looking at who is getting sued.
>
> In other words you're assuming that the only people who have an opinion in
> the matter of the MPAA are those who post on youtube.

Not what I said but, as noted, I have no intention of getting into one of
these stupid internet arguments, where "prove it" is supposed to be a
substitute for rational rebuttal.

>
>> As
>> to what happens to the children, presumably they'll get some education
>> as well as some real world experience and understand that perpetual
>> motion machines don't exist, and if the incentive for creation is
>> eliminated from copyright there simply won't be anymore "tunes" to
>> listen to.
>
> There won't? Now, to your knowledge has _anybody_ ever listened to _all_
> the "tunes" that are out there and watched _all_ the TV and movies that
> are out there? Why is there this crying need for more "tunes"? And how,
> before there was such a thing as a "recording", did musicians and actors
> and the like make a living, anyway?

Musicians and actors have always made a living by being paid for their work.
Your proposal is that they no longer be paid. As for your contention that
there is "enough" protected expression, that's just bizarre.

>
>
>>>> Just because that group might like to legalize intellectual property
>>>> theft doesn't mean that (1) the majority of Americans would approve,
>>>> and (2) Congress would be inclined to amend the Constitution and pass
>>>> legislation that would enable IP theft.
>>>
>>> And it doesn't mean that they wouldn't, either.
>>
>> See above.
>
> I've seen above and it appears that you are a typical MPAA/RIAA shill who
> sees the end of the revenue stream from recordings as being the end of the
> universe.

And, with that, this conversation is over. I don't work for the MPAA/RIAA
or any business remotely related to that. If you took 5 minutes out of your
busy day downloading free tunes from peer-to-peer networks, you could find
out very quickly who I work for and what I do. You, however, are simply a
spoiled young person who thinks ad hominem attacks are an acceptable
substitute for logic and facts.

Grow up, sonny.

> If the recording industry goes bankrupt, it won't be the end of
> music, but it will be the end of the boy-band du jour becoming filthy rich
> on the basis of marketing rather than talent, and no doubt you would have
> to go out and get a real job.
>
> Should have plonked you at "nonsense". Oh, well.
>
> --
> --John
> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Back to original message]