April 10, 2005  ·  Lessig

I screwed up an update on the last entry, and seem to have lost the comments, which I hadn’t read after the first few. I apologize, and will see if there’s a way to recover.

  • http://sethf.com/ Seth Finkelstein

    All the comments are still visibile in the static archive page:

    http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002824.shtml

  • http://www.boobam.org William Loughborough

    If you had a proper copyright on the contents, this wouldn’t be a problem and you could get into litigative mode vs. those who transferred the comments verbatim instead of just linking thereto!

    If you copyright the entire site you might be able to sue people who take a picture of you for invasion of privacy in addition to the suit for using an image that, however innocently, infringed on your rights to any images that substantially represented your protected version.

    It’s very interesting that if the judge who had the “fair/balanced” pegged as lunacy had been the one ruling on the old Air Pirates absurdity, we wouldn’t be dealing with this nonsense. Our “nation of laws” become a “nation of lawyers” is therewith proof that we actually are as affected by judges as by legislators. there should be a decision “laughed out of the courtroom” to deal with much of this stuff.

    Love.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Check out what Michael Geist has written concerning the FUD some canadian musicians and the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) have been promoting. This paper was around a few months ago but has been recently updated.

    The usual story of “billions” of lost sales and how p2p is nothing but an attack on artists and the industry as a whole. Complete F U D.

    The canadians are 1 for 1 when it comes to the war in Iraq…let’s see if they can make it 2 for 2 by listening and acting in accordance with those who are seriously inquiring into the topic of p2p file sharing. Let’s hope they don’t listen to those simply making outlandish claims regarding the demise of music, movies, and any other content that can be stored digitally.

    Check out this article.

    Some musicians are simply daft. Although I think Tom Cochrane has made some excellent music, his comment that –

    I don’t want the press to spin things like: ‘Here’s rich Jim Cuddy and rich Tom Cochrane coming along to make more money.’” Cochrane said. “We’re here because it’s a right, it is stealing.” -

    speaks volumes as to his awareness of the issues at hand. “Stealing”? When will this false equivalence between material objects and ideas be seen by the masses? When it comes right down to it, the fight to stop p2p file sharing is what will hurt musicians. If unregulated p2p is forced to stay underground, the musicians will suffer. The recording industries will continue to define the majority of music culture and many talents will never be heard from.

  • ACS

    Peter I must disagree.

    Although you may be right in showing the clear ignorance of the peer to peer issue held by many in the debate you are still ignoring the fact that peer 2 peer software takes away an individuals right to choose the distribution of that work.

    Stealing may relate to rights in physical things and copyright as we all know is intangible however copyright and the rights therein are analogous to the rights to alienate or control property. It is the removal of these rights whether in physical choses or choses in action that is the stealing.

    Individuals used those rights without licence when they used p2p the question is whether Grokster, Morpheus and Kazaa were complicit by creating the machinery of theft.

    As much as you may disagree with the artificial statutory rights vested in copyright owners it is a matter of law. Those works are protected for control by the author/s of the work. It does not as a matter of law belong to the masses. This is the idealogical divide that seems to exist in this debate. Albeit the lawyers will tell you something else.

  • http://gnuosphere.blogspot.com Peter Rock

    Although you may be right in showing the clear ignorance of the peer to peer issue held by many in the debate you are still ignoring the fact that peer 2 peer software takes away an individuals right to choose the distribution of that work.

    It does not “take away” anything. It is not that extreme. P2p influences the nature of distribution, but it does not “take away” anyone’s rights. Just as VTRs influence distribution. Just as Xerox machines influence distribution. Just as many technologies influence distribution.

    Just because a technology may make it easier for individuals to break copyright law, it does not mean that copyright holder rights have been revoked.

    I think it is clear that the influence of p2p technology upon the music and movie industries is actually a positive. It helps level the playing field for ALL digitized art and helps one’s work get heard and seen. This is a big plus for the unheard-of artists who have watched Hollywood – for decades – dictate what is popular. At the same time, p2p doesn’t mean the end of Hollywood either. That view is too extreme – it is based upon the belief that rights of distribution are “taken away” rather than influenced.

  • http://www.yourcopyrights.blogspot.com ACS

    PR

    I think its clear that we do not know the effect of p2p on the digital entertainment industry. The Amicus Curae in Grokster show that p2p is either positive or negative depending on whether the brief is for the respondent or the applicant. In truth we may never know due to the complex market which p2p influences.

    But returning to the point – copyright is a set of statutory under congress and the consititution (of a country to which I am not a citizen). Those rights are inalienable except by permission or transmission (or arguably abandonment) before the date of expiry.

    My point is that Grokster and the other p2p systems do not include architecture for licencing. There is no room for copyright owners to give thier rights whether it is under CC licence or any other form of licence. There is no room for it in the software –

    If there was a mechanism of licencing available then I wold be fine with it because the copyright owner could deal with his rights – otherwise software users are just assuming they have the right to use the works – much as a thief assumes they have a right to take property.

    Copyright owners rights havent been revoked – they have been ignored!!

    As for Xerox and VCR I think the case law would suggest that sale of VCR’s with reproduced material from legal broadcasts would still be copyright infringements. –> Is an interesting concept of time shifting.

    Lets get the ideology out of this debate–> yes it is very good that people can now share culture I am all for that –> no it is not good that property rights are being infringed.

    I have nothing against a licence protection form of the p2p application whether it incorporate a CC licence or otherwise. But without licence protection it is infringement –> note these comments on the archive post as they are somewhat clearer.

  • Karl

    When we talk about copyrights, ideology is the only prevailing issue in the debate. That goes for anyone who debates it.

    It is pointless to attack viewpoints meerly on the grounds of ideology, unless you can criticize areas where these ideologies fails to address problems.

  • http://www.yourcopyrights.blogspot.com ACS

    Karl I dont agree that ideaology is a guiding force in the debate unless it is the ideaology of property v community.

    In this regard I would state that the view opposing my own is a communizing view.

    As an advocate of economic growth on the internet as a result of giving individuals rights to deal with works I would make just a single argument -> where is russia now??

    I know that is cheating somewhat on an academic front but it is a cheat I am willing to take in order to avoid an entire diatribe of capitalism over communism and similar free market rules rhetoric.