YouTube muted my videos! (1 Viewer)

[DavidJ]

Absolutely true and I am with both you and Brian on this, but I understand where Francois is coming from and I would not be surprised if things change as the generation of kids raised using YouTube, P2P, etc. grows up.

This really hit me at a seminar where the presenter asked a question about music sharing. Everyone of the students thought it was ok, even knowing it was technically illegal, to share music. These are students who have had classes in media law, ethics and have teachers who discuss copyright in all of their major classes. They know the law, or theory if you will, but the practice is different. Many of them cite a "revolution" under way and that the "old" media business models must change to deal it. Most don't understand and appreciate the economic nature of our world and interactions. Yet, I think all of them would draw a line somewhere.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

There is a philosophical divide here. Our ethical framework protects traditional boundaries of copyright law dealing with physical media. That framework was weakened with the introduction of audio and video cassette recording, which divorced the protected content from the copyright holder's favored medium of transmission. People that would never walk into a store and steal an LP woud tape a song of the radio or a friend's tape. Illegal but inefficient enough to be an industry-killer.
As techology has expanded, copyright has followed an expansive path. While the upcoming generation may be predisposed to support narrower copyright laws, as long as copyright dependant industries exist that can afford to mount a concerted lobbying effort an expansive perspective will continue to dominate.

 

[MarkHastings]

and that's the key. The companies didn't care and let the public believe it was ok to do so. Now that we've gotten to the point where you can make a perfect copy of something, now they want to change their views. I say shame on them for allowing things to get to this point. They should have done something YEARS ago!

You know, when you let your dog jump up on your old couch for 8 years, then get a new couch and expect him to not jump on it because it's new, well then that's your own damn fault...not the dogs.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If the person in question has no more moral fiber than a dog, then I guess the analogy works. Or to quote When Harry Met Sally: "Is one of us supposed to be the dog in this scenario?"

 

[MarkHastings]

Oh crap! I'm wrong again. LOL

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

You are misinformed.

You may record and sell your own version of the original music (as in the collection of notated notes which is public domain), but anyone else's recording/arrangement is protected by copyright, which you DO NOT have a right to use without permission.

On the subject of enforcement - the reason that copyright infringement is rarely prosecuted is because unlike speeding, which is enforced at the city/state/federal level, it is up to the copyright holder to enforce their rights, meaning that they would have to investigate, collect evidence and prosecute each an every individual who they could prove was infringing on their copyright. Which would you rather have - creative individuals actually creating, or spending their entire lives in court protecting their interests?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Except that induvidual creative types rarely would think to prosecute infringement of their works, and would rarely have the reach necessary to spur large-scale infringment.
In the case of mass media, creative induviduals give up the rights to their works to the corporations in exchange for having access to the very expensive production, distribution and promotion facilities and prowess of those corporations. Those corporations in turn form industry trade groups that lobby legislators to pass rules and regulations favorable to the industry.
The prosecutions are handled by the legal department of the corporations and trade groups, whose careers are specifically dedicated to investigating, collecting evidence, and honing the arguments necessary to prevail either in settlement or before a judge. It is not and either/or scenerio.
Without this model, the very few acts that would have managed to break through to international notoreity would probably police their content, but neither the economic nor legal framework would be there for the current antagonistic dynamic between content creators/distributors and their consumers. Most music sharing would probably be more along the lines of Live Music Archive, with fans sharing recordings from various local shows around the country. Radio would also be much more locally-driven, with a far greater regional diversity than we experience now.

 

[Jeff Ulmer]

Which in most cases is to strengthen laws which already exist and which by extension becomes favorable to the creative talent. If there were no protections to a right of income for the work that is done (copyright or patents), then there would be no reason for a corporation to support any form of creative endeavor. While it is true that artists may give up some of their rights (not all) in trade for what a corporate entity can provide (like income and ability to record/tour/promote themselves), the cost of prosecuting gets passed back to the artist (like every other expense the corporation makes on their behalf).

Prosecutions for infringement are extremely rare compared to the scale of infringement that routinely occurs these days, and are generally only for large scale commercial infringement, since the cost for mounting any of these cases vastly outweighs any damages that may be recovered.

As some eon who has devoted their lives to the creative arts, it would would be nice if all those who enjoyed the fruits of my labour actually compensated me for it, but that isn't the reality and there isn't much I can do about it. I'm certainly not going to spend my time trying to prosecute people for taking my work. If it bothered me that much I'd be better off ceasing to create.