14 ms·

There is nothing "outdated" or "obsolete" about content production. The issue is that technological advance has effectively stripped the business of the legal p

by alexqgb 14y ago

There is nothing "outdated" or "obsolete" about content production. The issue is that technological advance has effectively stripped the business of the legal protection that it - like every other healthy business on the planet - depends on for survival. Obviously, the unilateral extension the existing legal framework into the new technological sphere is a recipe for disaster. I'll be the first to condem the ham-fisted attempts to do so, and applaud the fully justified push back that promoters of unenlightened copyright laws have received. But to go a step further, and declare that this business - and this business alone - is "undeserving" of any legal protection whatsoever, and that it - and it alone - "needs to figure out a business model" that doesn't enjoy legal protection from those who refuse to pay for goods taken or received, overshoots the mark. And the persistance of these arguments is exactly why we need laws in the first place: put simply, some people are self-serving assholes. They lack a sense of fairness or decency, and will follow the norms of reciprocity only under threat of force. Most people don't get further than their freshman year in high school without discovering that these people are real, they are numerous, and they are a curse. But like any number of curses (war, plague, famine, etc.) they cannot be wished away. They have to be dealt with head on, forcefully, and with enough severity to provide a deterrent to others who may be considering similarly abusive pathways to profit. With copyright, the question is, where do you draw the line? My own feeling is that copyright law, which evolved over centuries, was never intended to govern the conduct of private individuals. Historically, efforts by publishers to extend their control into the realm of private, personal life have been wisely checked (the Doctrine of First Sale is a shining example). And while the relentless extension of copyright terms represents unchecked abuse, it's been limited in that it still (grudgingly) respects the operative delineation between public, commercial enterprise, and private sharing and enjoyment. Indeed, these limitations have been the key to copyright's longevity as an institution. While some publishers still chafe at any limitations, the more enlightened ones recognize that these parameters are actually the key to a thriving culture, which is, in turn, their most vital natural resource. That's why I think any efforts to prosecute private individuals under existing copyright laws are an abomination. Reform - which we desperately need - should include simple, unambiguous boundaries beyond which no publisher can reach. And the life on the other side of those boundaries should be rich and noisy and free. Of all the options I can think of, drawing the line with corporate status is the most elegant. That is to say, you can only be sued for infringement if you are a corporation. Under this rule, the AP would have both the right and the responsibility to throw the book at a commercial clipping service. As noted, the AP has no monopoly on news gathering. If they fail to innovate themselves, or gouge those who are willing to partner with them, they leave the market to other, savvier news organizations. At the same time, they remain free to charge proces in line with their full set of costs (i.e. production and distribution), and not just the rapidly falling cost of distribution alone.

rayiner 14y ago
I don't think it's necessarily a problem that you can go after individuals for copyright infringement--the problem is the statutory damages. In nearly every other civil suit, the fact that you can only get actual or punitive damages filters out suits where there wasn't really substantial harm to begin with. Without the statutory damages there would be no reason to go after individuals for copyright infringement unless they were setting up a major operation in which case you should be able to go after them, individual or not.
- alexqgb 14y ago
  That's a really good point. I suppose that getting rid of the (insane) statutory damages would make it economically unviable to enforce the law at the individual level, and you could secure a healthy space beyond publisher's reach in this way. That said, I dislike the kind of law that makes everyone a criminal by default, since opens the entire population to arbitrary enforcement. The other advantage of limiting enforcement action to incorporated entities is that it sidesteps any sticky questions about individual freedom of speech. More importantly, it provides for a commercial adolescence. There's a big gap, after all, between the work of hobbyists and professionals. And publishers have been able to exploit this to the detriment of artists and audiences alike. So I'm in favor of people being able to make commercial use of copyright protected materials without permission or payment - so long as they do so as private individuals. The assumption is that people finding limited commercial success and wanting to carry that further will find corporate entities indispensable. Whether they set up their own, or go into partnership with ones that already exist, they'll need them to grow. These are people who are ready and able to pay for the professionally produced sources they rely on. Indeed, I suspect that people with serious professional ambition will focus on handling these responsibilities in the same way that ambitious undergraduates with an eye on graduate school manage to limit social life for the sake of their studies. It becomes an expected part of going pro. The famously exploitive agreements that artists have suffered under can usually be traced to the absence of a space in which they can freely prove their commercial viability. Creating this space would not only allow more professional artists to develop (especially ones not connected to independent wealth), it would establish a far healthier balance of power between them and the major publishers and distributers that are usually needed to develop one's appeal and audience fully.

by alexqgb 14y ago

rayiner 14y ago

I don't think it's necessarily a problem that you can go after individuals for copyright infringement--the problem is the statutory damages. In nearly every other civil suit, the fact that you can only get actual or punitive damages filters out suits where there wasn't really substantial harm to begin with. Without the statutory damages there would be no reason to go after individuals for copyright infringement unless they were setting up a major operation in which case you should be able to go after them, individual or not.

alexqgb 14y ago
That's a really good point. I suppose that getting rid of the (insane) statutory damages would make it economically unviable to enforce the law at the individual level, and you could secure a healthy space beyond publisher's reach in this way. That said, I dislike the kind of law that makes everyone a criminal by default, since opens the entire population to arbitrary enforcement. The other advantage of limiting enforcement action to incorporated entities is that it sidesteps any sticky questions about individual freedom of speech. More importantly, it provides for a commercial adolescence. There's a big gap, after all, between the work of hobbyists and professionals. And publishers have been able to exploit this to the detriment of artists and audiences alike. So I'm in favor of people being able to make commercial use of copyright protected materials without permission or payment - so long as they do so as private individuals. The assumption is that people finding limited commercial success and wanting to carry that further will find corporate entities indispensable. Whether they set up their own, or go into partnership with ones that already exist, they'll need them to grow. These are people who are ready and able to pay for the professionally produced sources they rely on. Indeed, I suspect that people with serious professional ambition will focus on handling these responsibilities in the same way that ambitious undergraduates with an eye on graduate school manage to limit social life for the sake of their studies. It becomes an expected part of going pro. The famously exploitive agreements that artists have suffered under can usually be traced to the absence of a space in which they can freely prove their commercial viability. Creating this space would not only allow more professional artists to develop (especially ones not connected to independent wealth), it would establish a far healthier balance of power between them and the major publishers and distributers that are usually needed to develop one's appeal and audience fully.