Vexcalibur wrote:
Again. It is a complete and outright lie (UTTER BS in fact) that artists currently have no means to "protect their works".
The current internet is kind of free and copyright holders already have plenty of tools to protect their works. Even megaupload will delete uploads that violate your copyright if you report it. And of course, then we have the other sites, some of which are even ridiculously pro-active in making copyright holders happy. Universal can delete any youtube video without any proof of ownership, and they have already done it.
It is not the collective's problem that some copyright holders are so lazy that they would rather prefer the web to be destroyed than them do their job. The advantages of holding a copyright come with the price that you have to work to protect it.
It would be insane and non-sensical to expect anyone other than the copright holder to protect the work. Because there are millions and millions of songs and videos out there. We, the people, cannot know all the copyrighted things in existence. It makes sense for the people that benefit from copyright protections to spend their own time looking and reporting for misuse of their work.
Passion disguising itself as intellect, yet again.
You claim that the current legislative environment provides artists with sufficient means to protect their works. But then you go on to demonstrate that the current legislative regime is just as offensive as SOPA. All that your post serves to do is demonstrate that the current legislative environment is insufficient to meet the
legitimate needs of copyright owners. For my part, I don't think we have it right, yet (and SOPA certainly isn't the answer--but neither is a free-for-all).
You claim (correctly) that the onus of protecting copyright lies on the owner--but then you practice your hypocrisy by failing to evaluate whether a copyright owner can effectively do so.
Quote:
I have priorities. If it is up to me, these "artists" can drop to bridges if their livelihoods require the destruction of the free internet.
A perfectly fair statement. The statement of a Philistine. But a fair one, nonetheless.
For my part, I like to think that there are intelligent people out there who are capable of balancing interests without sacrificing one for the other. You might not be one of them, but my belief continues, unabated.
Quote:
This is more complete and utter bull. There is a big reason why SOPA, PIPA and STUPIDACRONYM laws are pushed by big copyright lobbies that are already too massive. These laws will preserve their monopolies and cause discomfort tol the small artists. Small artists who right now actually using the free internet to their advantage.
The big offense, the big blasphemy against big disc labels is not that the free internet allows copyright infrigement (as mentioned, they already have plenty of means for them to fight copyright infringement). What really boils their bloods is that new, small artists are using things like youtube and facebook to publish their new works and are able to jump to popularity without any help from them. The internet makes disk labels irrelevant. You may ask Justin Bieber about this.
Ah, the "it's for your own good" argument. I think I might rechristen it the "Justin" argument, in honour of you. Certainly he has profited from putting his work out there for all to see. But that was
his choice. And notice that this is not the means by which he is distributing his work, now. Labels continue to be relevant.
Nothing in any legislation that I am aware of stops anyone from putting their own work out on the internet free from constraint. Of course, the practical application of existing legislation has allowed players like Universal to uncritically assert copyright in any file containing the work "the" in the title--but we need to understand the distinction between legislation and its misapplication in the private sphere.
Does a remedy exist for Universal's behaviour? Of course it does. Is it within the reach of a private individual? Most likely not.
Quote:
Culture has existed and has been rich for ages way before copyrights were invented.
Yes, because the only way to share artistic and cultural products was to buy them,
in specie from their owners.
As soon as movable type was created, people starting stealing other people's works on an industrial scale. It is no accident that the first copyright legislation had to do with the ownership of printed materials. As technology has provided more and more means for artists to create and distribute their work, so too, legislation has had to keep up.
We are on the cusp of a wholesale change in which artistic products are created, sold and distributed. This cannot happen in a legal vacuum. Some form of legislative framework must exist, so it behoves us all to work cooperatively on finding a solution.
Quote:
Oh sure, the free internet has consequences. Take a look at Egypt.
Be careful the example that you cite. Hundreds of thousands of Coptic refugees will not be a welcome advertisement for the Arab Spring.
But even accepting the Arab Spring is evidence of the tremendous power of social media, that does not stand as a justification for file sharing, or the uncompensated use of artists' work.
Quote:
New technology kills industries. It is a fact of life. Scribes had to lose their jobs once they got obsolete. Giant record companies shall suffer a similar fate if they are unable to adapt. Scribes could not stop print.
I wholeheartedly agree--which is why I continue to call on advocates for a free internet to look to practical solutions.
E-bay does not justify tax evasion; Pirate-bay does not justify copyright infringement. If the internet will not create the mechanisms for the protection of people's interests, then government is forced to step into the vacuum.
_________________
--James
20 Jan 2012, 8:37 am
