MESSAGE
| DATE | 2012-06-18 |
| FROM | Paul Robert Marino
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Fair Use bills
|
well sort of rule 10 needs revising or more specifically it need be
broken into subclauses or multiple rules.
As it stands its too wide open for interpretation.
it need to lay out some rules about under what cases would be
considered a violation of someones intellectual property what actions
can be taken and some limits on how it can be monitored.
This all stems back to how the copyright act was purposefully
misinterpreted and abused by the layers on both sides of the Napster
case. put quite simply calling it sharing with friends when what users
were really doing was republishing screwed us all.
That said Napster and other music sharing sites and applications like
it actually did increase the profits of the record companies however
from a business perspective the recording and movie industry found it
disturbing because if they hadn't done something about it there were
clauses in the copyright act that did allow for them to become public
domain if others were republishing and it could be proven that they
were aware but hadn't taken action for a certain number of years.
The real problem with how they handled it was that they were purposely
setting up the Napster case as a justification for future lobbying for
things like the digital millennium copyright act and SOAP. The truth
of the matter is they could have taken a lighter hand with the Napster
case and kept the the new revenue stream intact but they over reacted
because they were listening to internal annalist who were coming up
with industry dooms day scenarios.
The funny thing is they inadvertently caused a backlash that fulfilled
their prophecies. more and more recording artists who write original
music are self publishing instead of signing away their rights to
recording companies for initial funding and promotion simply because
they don't need it as much. The recording companies that do get most
of this new talent to sign contract are smaller ones that are looking
at things like youtube viewing statistics and offering the artist
significantly better contract because they know that the artist
already have an audience. The real heart of the issue is that the
recording companies and the radio industry have been controlling what
people hear and telling them to like essentially what the big
recording companies tell them to for along time. in the new internet
era that control has been lost and their business model is to tied to
it to change easily. This will start hitting the movie industry very
soon, although television companies already get it and are planing for
it. Televisions model is different the don't really dictate to the
viewer instead they use statistics to figure out what gets the most
people consistently watching (which oddly doesn't always mean they
like it). What television is primarily selling is eye balls (yea i
know that term sounds creepy but that's the term they use) looking at
commercials so they are focusing on things like how do we take
advantage of the internet to capture more eye balls on the commercials
so they are starting to think along the lines of who cares about DRM
we never had it before and it causes problems so let focuse on how to
embed the commercials in a way that's difficult as possible to remove.
Then allowing other more experienced companies to deal with thing like
premium commercial free digital distribution as a secondary market.
by the way the actual site is here
http://keepthewebopen.com/digital-bill-of-rights
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> OK they are finally beginning to come around
>
> http://www.geekosystem.com/digital-bill-of-rights/
>
>
|
|
