Posts
The battle of the music industry with the bit torrent, file sharing,You tube and other Internet mediums over copyrighted material is been a long road for Labels, Artist and copyright owners. Every method to date that has been tried has failed in some form or another. We had DMR in it various forms. Law suits against downloaders and companies sued for allowing people P2P File Sharing and threats of we are going to stop you.
The RIAA has filed about 20 000 lawsuits against Americans for illegally downloading music through peer-to-peer software, as of July 2006. (EFF,2009) This attempt only created more P2P traffic and defeated purpose of trying to set example of what would happen if you illegally obtain copyrighted material.
Success and Failures
First we need to look at what tactics the industry has implemented to protect copyrights and there success and failures. Has this reduced the amount of copyrighted material been distributed through P2P networks?
Electric Slide Litigation
The man who claims to have created "The Electric Slide" agreed to call off his online takedown campaign and stop threatening anyone using the popular line dance for non-commercial purposes. The agreement settles a lawsuit filed by EFF on behalf of videographer Kyle Machulis, who posted a concert video to YouTube that included a ten-second segment of audience members attempting to do the Electric Slide. Richard Silver sent a takedown demand to YouTube under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging he owned the copyright to the Electric Slide and that the video infringed his rights.
Under the terms of the settlement, Silver will license the Electric Slide under a Creative Commons license -- allowing the performance, display, reproduction or distribution of any recorded performance of the dance in any medium for non-commercial purposes. Silver has agreed to post these terms on any of his current or future websites that mention the Electric Slide so that users are aware of the Creative Commons license. (EFF,2009)
MGM v. Grokster
EFF defended StreamCast Networks, the company behind the Morpheus peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing software, in an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 23, 2005. Though the Court set aside the Ninth Circuit's ruling in favor of Streamcast, it also declined giving Hollywood what it truly wanted—a veto over technological innovation.
Twenty-eight of the world's largest entertainment companies brought the lawsuit against the makers of the Morpheus, Grokster, and KaZaA software products, aiming to set a precedent to use against other technology companies (P2P and otherwise). As we noted in our arguments before the Court, the case raises a fundamental question at the border between copyright and innovation: When should the distributor of a multi-purpose tool be held liable for the infringements that may be committed by end-users of the tool?
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (a.k.a. the "Sony Betamax ruling") found that a distributor cannot be held liable for users' infringement so long as the tool is capable of substantial noninfringing uses. This standard has served innovators, copyright industries, and the public for more than 20 years. Relying on this precedent, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the distributors of Grokster and Morpheus P2P file-sharing software cannot be held liable for users' copyright violations.
The Supreme Court set aside the Ninth Circuit ruling, but it refused to overturn the Betamax doctrine or to force technology companies to redesign multipurpose technologies. Hollywood's main objective thus went unfulfilled. (EFF,2009)
Proposal
May be the movie and music industry are having trouble to come to terms with the digital age and the focus more on trying to stop the unstoppable rather than gaining control of the creative rights. If Producers of entertainment material could become more proactive and provide the product free via their web portal and maintain a relationship. Using the social network platform to create followers to their product and provide under the Creative Commons License free downloaded movies and music to the members. The companies can then generate revenue by offering tangible product relating to the artist such things as photo albums, real cd's and DVD's, autographs, cups, mugs, and T-shirts. Under the Creative Commons License commercial use of the material will still be protected by copyright.
I can see that there would be many benefits to the all parties as major parties would attract millions of users to their sites to download legitimate material for free and have a cost effective method of promoting and distributing content. New Artist would have new opportunities though the portal.
Downfall of retail outlets
Retail outlet will no doubt have objections to this proposal as it will turn the wheel of the distribution process but I still see there is opportunities for this industry to adapt to change by becoming retail outlets for the merchandise. At present there would still be a strong market for hard copy products for people who will remain with just buying the real product and the commercial users like as disk jockeys at the local night club but the face of the out lets would change. Rather than paying $20 for the latest CD you may pay $50 for a photo album of your favourite band with personnel autographs.
Further Information
- Microsoft is the largest software company in the world today, with 44.3 billion USD in revenue in Fiscal Year 2006.
[Source] - The RIAA has filed about 20 000 lawsuits against Americans for illegally downloading music through peer-to-peer software, as of July 2006.
[More info] [Source] - In 2004, a survey conducted found that 24% of respondents from eight developed countries said that they have downloaded a movie before.
[More info] [Source] - The first copyright act, the 1710 British Statute of Anne, granted authors a copyright protection of 28 years.
[More info] [Source] - According to a 2004 study by Business Software Association of Australia, out of 84 countries, Vietnam had the highest software piracy rate of 92%.
[More info] [Source] - Under the fair use provision, in the US, limited portions of copyrighted works can be used for certain purposes without contravening the law.
[More info] [Source] - Music consumers as young as twelve have been targeted by the RIAA in its lawsuits against users who download music from peer-to-peer software.
[More info] [Source] - As of early 2005, American TV series 24 ranked as the top pirated TV program worldwide.
[More info] [Source] - Some researches have claimed that companies are able to profit from piracy of their own copyrighted products.
[More info] [Source] - In late 2005, it was found that one of Sony’s Digital Rights Management software could compromise a user’s computer by exposing it to viruses.
[More info] [Source] - Libraries, rental shops and second-hand retailers are all legal alternatives to copyright infringement.
[More info] - Software companies Adobe, Microsoft and Symantec all require product activation in some of its titles; in principle, it would be impossible to install a single copy of the software onto more than one computer
[More info] - The broadcast flag scheme, if implemented, could cause compability problems between old and new digital television devices like DVD players.
[More info] [Source] - Legislation against digital copyright infringement is an ongoing process and the writing and passing of laws continue to take place in certain nations.
[More info] - Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Intellectual Property Committee and the Interpol have both found evidence that many terrorist organizations are funded by the production or sale of pirated discs.
[More info] - Users of pirated software often lack standard documentation, proper technical support and software upgrades for their pirated software.
[More info]
References
No comments:
Post a Comment