Women in Technology

Hear us Roar

Weblog:   The Right Term is Copyright Infringement
Subject:   I've invented a matter replicator
Date:   2002-12-16 01:27:22
From:   simon_hibbs
Response to: I've invented a matter replicator

Why resort to absurd matter replicator analogies, when there are truck loads of far more relevent historical analogies available. You are writing as though music sharing was a completely new class of problem (and therefore needs new measures to regulate or eliminate it), when in fact it's merely a re-run of an old, old problem.

Exactly the same problem was faced by sheet music publishers when photocopiers became common, a common sense solution was found. The music industry has already faced the same situation with tape recorders, there was no need to panic. The film industry should have learned their lesson over VCRs, but quite obviously they're just too mindless to do so.

The fact is there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that music copying by consumers has harmed recording industry profits. in fact their profits rose significantly during the Napster years, and have declined since the demise of the service. Hardly compelling evidence of their claims.

Nobody is saying that mass copying and organised redistribution of copyrighted works isn't a problem, just that harrassing consumers and removing traditional fair use behaviour hasn't solved similar problems in the past and is unlikely to do so now. Please address the point being made, and not a different point that's easier for you to attack.

Simon Hibbs

Main Topics Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

  • I've invented a matter replicator
    2005-01-24 10:32:18  GinEric [View]


    Sheet music and lyrics will now also be encoded for tracking. The same type of codes as ISRC can, and soon will, be employed by Internet Websites to track the use of their Copyrighted content.

    By the way, sheet music publishers suffered most from the advent of radio, not Xerox. The sheet music publishers were at least fair, splitting the profits 50/50. Radio, in the beginning, under an Italian and three Russian Generals "the Brothers Sarnoff and Mr. Paley, aka, ABC, NBC, and CBS, all under Marconi's, Edison's, Bell's control via the MPA and other illegal organizations, did not pay for music. Why? They were cheap! Skinflints! And none of these inventors can actually claim the devices they said they invented! In short, they were really good con men.

    Unlike the American print publisher. Who, having a tradition of American Heritage [unlike the foreignors above] and Fairness, paid the author half of the profits for the right to publish them.

    The Sarnoff's, Paley's, Marconi's, Edison's, and Bell's are gone, thank God, and maybe now we can fix that other crooked office, the U.S. Patent Office.

    Meanwhile, around the early 1900's, movies and radio started up. By 1927 both the movies and the radio were stealing not only from songwriters, but also from some of the old movie companies in New York City and the East Coast. The whole idea of setting up movie lots in Hollywood was to bootleg film and music and not pay any royalties to the people who had created them on the East Coast. Nor to pay for the use of patented equipment.

    Television came along, LP's, cassettes, even CD's and DVD's and Hollywood is still stealing from the creators of music, stories, whatever they can get.

    But it all goes back to the early movie lots of Hollywood and their desire not to pay artists. The sheet music publisher was the last honest publisher this country knew of.

    Had the movie industry dealt fairly, none of the writers would be complaining. However, not just songwriters, but people like Moses [Charleton Heston] have had to take on these Hollywood and Beverly Hills moguls for their acts of theft. SAG and the Directors Guild have had a hell of a time fighting the crooked lawyers of Los Angeles, New York City, and Nashville. These are the same types that hired Pinkertons to put down strikes by shooting and killing people. They are no less scum than that. Most of the movie moguls are Organized Crime Syndicate Members. That is were most of the dirty money gets laundered, through the untouchables in Beverly Hills and Hollywood. Some, like Meyer Lansky, preferred Miami over Hollywood, but the current ranking Russian Jewish Mafia that controls the movie industry prefers the pomposity of richness which they never knew in their native U.S.S.R.

    Think I'm joking or I don't know what I'm talking about? Look up their dossiers under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Am I trying to start a war? Yes I am.

    Mr. Claymore, who doesn't live too far from me, needs to sell some hardware, doesn't he?
  • I've invented a matter replicator
    2002-12-16 18:06:26  grepsedawk [View]

    I used the matter replicator analogy for two reasons. 1) I am not overly familiar with past precedents. I'm not a student of such things. 2) The essential difference between copies of digital works (software, music, movies) and physical works (books, computers, and automobiles) is that exact duplicates can be made of the former and practically no cost, but the latter requires investment of raw material, engineering skills, machinery, etc. The matter replicator puts the two on an equal footing. Thus putting a publisher like O'Reilly in the same realm as BMG or Sony.

    Since you bring it up, sheet music, tape recordings, and vcrs are not the same as what is currently happening in the music space. 1) Exact duplicates cannot be made of these items. 2) They aren't necessarily cheap, a tape and a VHS tape still cost more than a blank CD or digital transfer. 3) They require equipment that can be expensive if you want to make copies in mass. 4) The global connection that allowed for a worldwide market for these items was either slow (mail order catalog) or none existant.

    The fact that exact copies can be made of a song, for pratically no money, then shared with a global community, again, for no money, puts copyright infringement of music works in a different place than your examples. It is similar, but it is an order of magnitude greater.

    A better example would be software copying. However, we know that warez sites are illegal, and we know that the Business Software Alliance (BSA), can get Federal Marshalls to raid your computer if it is suspected of using illegal software. I'm talking about a company that doesn't even know that a user installed their personal copy of Adobe Photoshop on a work machine to view the occasional eps file; not about a company that is making it their business to copy Windows XP and sell it to people through eBay. If this use of Adobe Photoshop is copyright infringement, how much more so the entire ripped CD of Sting's latest album available via Kazaa?

    You're right, there is no evidence that music copying by consumers has harmed recording industry profits. However, your claim that their profits rose during the Napster years implies a causal relation between copyright infringement and music sales that cannot be proven.

    Your final paragraph gets to the heart of what I tried say, perhaps to obliquely. What is fair use? Tim asked a dozen questions about what is fair use of a music cd. Most of them are quibbling and ignore a person's inherent gut feeling of, "Would I like what I am doing unto this other if it were done unto me." Thus my matter replicator analogy, an attempt to give Tim a chance to answer fair use in a way that could affect his business. While Tim is willing to give fair use of music a chance to get legs and develop, mature and find a market, would he be so willing to do the same if fair use meant his books were being shared freely in the very market he wanted to sell to?

    Ultimately, I feel that there is a change happening. That music distribution is going to adapt to a model preferred by customers, and this model is appearing to be online distribution, possibly P2P, not just B2P. But, I know that the current form of sharing, as done by most people, is not fair use. It is copyright infringement, it is illegal, and customers should not use illegal methods to force an industry to change. That's a kind of corporate terrorism.

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.