4 ms·

I think what people in some of these countries don't realize is that there is not a big enough financial incentive to do the legal work required to bring certai

I think what people in some of these countries don't realize is that there is not a big enough financial incentive to do the legal work required to bring certain artists to those regions. The amount if would cost to get those agreements done, setup distribution, collect, pay royalties on a tiny amount of sales is just not worth it. I know, I know...everybody will say that the labels shouldn't complain when they fail to bring music to a market and those people pirate the music. At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think so is just juvenile.

sounds 15y ago
You mean securing international copyright protection? The article is completely satisfactory with regard to all other legal "hurdles": "The only people who would find this sort of thing acceptable are the legal teams, administrators and royalty-collecting intermediaries who need this sort of relentlessly stupid convolution to maintain their positions." Copyright protection is easy to secure, and is not a barrier to entry into foreign markets. http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+secure+international+copyright http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+secure+international+c...
sophacles 15y ago
At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think so is just juvenile. An equally valid criticism to apply to any attempt at perfect copyright enforcement. Or to keep copyright in the same bullshit state it is in. Or to not innovate to keep up with the technology. Or to exert claims over a business model's viability. And on and on.
GFischer 15y ago
Living in a small, oft-forgotten country (Uruguay) I realize that there isn't a big enough incentive to do the legal work, and it's totally understandable from that perspective (distribution and collection are not the main problems IMO, the big one is legal). However, I will argue that current IP practices are hurting us. It does bring the quality of life down for the citizens of the country, and sometimes it's not just a song which is not available, it's a needed piece of software you just can't purchase legally - as an example, the Business Software Alliance branded as "illegal" a copy of a certain software package in a company I worked for because it was purchased in the U.S. and used in Uruguay, even though it was paid for. So now said company has to use a clearly inferior software package. It also adds a drop to the bucket to our ability to recruit abroad (people aren't as happy when they learn that their money buys much less and far more expensive, and with lots of availability issues - want the latest and greatest? Either pay through the nose if possible, or smuggle it. I wish there were good IP treaties that allowed us to buy abroad. Barring that, I'll have to keep hoping for a non-pipe dream Mercosur (EU equivalent) or being absorbed by Brazil or (god forbid) Argentina.
ars 15y ago
What legal work? Since when do you need legal work to allow someone from a different country to download a song? Just do nothing. Simply don't program in any restrictions - very easy, no work involved.
timwiseman 15y ago
Most of what you said is true. And I, as a programmer and occassional amateur author, am quite against piracy. Yet, the copyright holders biggest arguments for strict copyright enforcement also seem to go out the window if they make it impossible to legitimately purchase the content in a certain market. They cannot claim they have lost a sale if they have made it impossible for that sale to go through any reasonable, legitimate channel.
DarkShikari 15y ago
I think what people in some of these countries don't realize is that there is not a big enough financial incentive to do the legal work required to bring certain artists to those regions. What exactly is this "legal work"? The Berne convention makes copyright worldwide, and your typical software company doesn't need to check to see if their customer is in the US before selling them their product. Your typical independent band doesn't perform a region-check on customers buying their MP3s. What's different here? From what I can tell, most of the "legal work" is complexity created by the labels themselves.
tomp 15y ago
> At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. It has nothing to do with entitlement. Copyright is not a god-given right. It is a social contract; the consumer respects the copyright so that the artist gets more money, in return the consumer gets more art. Currently, this social contract is out of balance. I think the right approach would be for some smaller countries, such as Slovenia, which get routinely neglected by copyright moguls, to pass laws saying that copyright is only valid if the work in question is offered domestically under equal terms as elsewhere worldwide. That would solve the problem real quick, one way or the other.
- qdog 15y ago
  It's not a social contract, it's a government granted monopoly. Currently the 'industry' operates much like a cartel. I would posit that granting monopolies rarely benefits the most people, despite the good intentions.
  - rwmj 15y ago
    It's both: the public grants a monopoly and expects a social contract in return for this. Note: the public CAN withdraw the monopoly at any time.
    - geoffschmidt 15y ago
      Once it's been given? Unclear. Google "regulatory taking." When you downzone property you have to be worried about lawsuits. It seems like you could make a similar argument around copyright.
hxa7241 15y ago
> you're not entitled to everything everyone else has That is inane and witless. It throws away any kind of intelligent informed view and reduces it all to a cheap emotive sloganeering. Rightsholders are not entitled to control what people do with information -- they are granted special commercial rights, and not for their own benefit but because such an arrangement is intented to encourage production for people to use/enjoy overall. The purpose is not to deny people or restrict people -- exactly the opposite. The aim is to have no more restriction than needed. This is just the standard rational understanding. It is not difficult to find. And it follows that if people do feel inordinately restricted or inconvenienced, the system is not functioning well and needs adjustment or fixing.
tomjen3 15y ago
>At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think so is just juvenile. You can also see it as the publishers are not entitled to the protection of copyright if they aren't going to sell the books.
guard-of-terra 15y ago
In Russia we have an idiom for that kind of behavior: A dog sitting on the haystack. Neither eats nor lets others to. Those endless "rights holders" who complain about piracy in countries where they don't even want your money. If they can't figure it out it should equate to public domain, I think. Maybe that'd provide an incentive.

sounds 15y ago

You mean securing international copyright protection? The article is completely satisfactory with regard to all other legal "hurdles": "The only people who would find this sort of thing acceptable are the legal teams, administrators and royalty-collecting intermediaries who need this sort of relentlessly stupid convolution to maintain their positions." Copyright protection is easy to secure, and is not a barrier to entry into foreign markets. http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+secure+international+copyright http://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+secure+international+c...

sophacles 15y ago

At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think so is just juvenile. An equally valid criticism to apply to any attempt at perfect copyright enforcement. Or to keep copyright in the same bullshit state it is in. Or to not innovate to keep up with the technology. Or to exert claims over a business model's viability. And on and on.

GFischer 15y ago

Living in a small, oft-forgotten country (Uruguay) I realize that there isn't a big enough incentive to do the legal work, and it's totally understandable from that perspective (distribution and collection are not the main problems IMO, the big one is legal). However, I will argue that current IP practices are hurting us. It does bring the quality of life down for the citizens of the country, and sometimes it's not just a song which is not available, it's a needed piece of software you just can't purchase legally - as an example, the Business Software Alliance branded as "illegal" a copy of a certain software package in a company I worked for because it was purchased in the U.S. and used in Uruguay, even though it was paid for. So now said company has to use a clearly inferior software package. It also adds a drop to the bucket to our ability to recruit abroad (people aren't as happy when they learn that their money buys much less and far more expensive, and with lots of availability issues - want the latest and greatest? Either pay through the nose if possible, or smuggle it. I wish there were good IP treaties that allowed us to buy abroad. Barring that, I'll have to keep hoping for a non-pipe dream Mercosur (EU equivalent) or being absorbed by Brazil or (god forbid) Argentina.

ars 15y ago

What legal work? Since when do you need legal work to allow someone from a different country to download a song? Just do nothing. Simply don't program in any restrictions - very easy, no work involved.

timwiseman 15y ago

Most of what you said is true. And I, as a programmer and occassional amateur author, am quite against piracy. Yet, the copyright holders biggest arguments for strict copyright enforcement also seem to go out the window if they make it impossible to legitimately purchase the content in a certain market. They cannot claim they have lost a sale if they have made it impossible for that sale to go through any reasonable, legitimate channel.

DarkShikari 15y ago

I think what people in some of these countries don't realize is that there is not a big enough financial incentive to do the legal work required to bring certain artists to those regions. What exactly is this "legal work"? The Berne convention makes copyright worldwide, and your typical software company doesn't need to check to see if their customer is in the US before selling them their product. Your typical independent band doesn't perform a region-check on customers buying their MP3s. What's different here? From what I can tell, most of the "legal work" is complexity created by the labels themselves.

tomp 15y ago

> At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. It has nothing to do with entitlement. Copyright is not a god-given right. It is a social contract; the consumer respects the copyright so that the artist gets more money, in return the consumer gets more art. Currently, this social contract is out of balance. I think the right approach would be for some smaller countries, such as Slovenia, which get routinely neglected by copyright moguls, to pass laws saying that copyright is only valid if the work in question is offered domestically under equal terms as elsewhere worldwide. That would solve the problem real quick, one way or the other.

qdog 15y ago
It's not a social contract, it's a government granted monopoly. Currently the 'industry' operates much like a cartel. I would posit that granting monopolies rarely benefits the most people, despite the good intentions.
- rwmj 15y ago
  It's both: the public grants a monopoly and expects a social contract in return for this. Note: the public CAN withdraw the monopoly at any time.
  - geoffschmidt 15y ago
    Once it's been given? Unclear. Google "regulatory taking." When you downzone property you have to be worried about lawsuits. It seems like you could make a similar argument around copyright.

hxa7241 15y ago

> you're not entitled to everything everyone else has That is inane and witless. It throws away any kind of intelligent informed view and reduces it all to a cheap emotive sloganeering. Rightsholders are not entitled to control what people do with information -- they are granted special commercial rights, and not for their own benefit but because such an arrangement is intented to encourage production for people to use/enjoy overall. The purpose is not to deny people or restrict people -- exactly the opposite. The aim is to have no more restriction than needed. This is just the standard rational understanding. It is not difficult to find. And it follows that if people do feel inordinately restricted or inconvenienced, the system is not functioning well and needs adjustment or fixing.

tomjen3 15y ago

>At the end of the day, you're not entitled to everything everyone else has. To think so is just juvenile. You can also see it as the publishers are not entitled to the protection of copyright if they aren't going to sell the books.

guard-of-terra 15y ago

In Russia we have an idiom for that kind of behavior: A dog sitting on the haystack. Neither eats nor lets others to. Those endless "rights holders" who complain about piracy in countries where they don't even want your money. If they can't figure it out it should equate to public domain, I think. Maybe that'd provide an incentive.