On an issue very near and dear to me, there’s a great article on copyright over yonder. My favorite quotes:
So “copying” is not “stealing” but can be “infringing.” That doesn’t have the same sound bite quality as Valente’s position. (_Jack Valenti is head of the MPAA_)
Of course, there is a good quote against the idea that Fair Use is some sort of right. It’s not, but that’s ok, because it’s even better than that. It’s not infringement. Just like copying isn’t theft, fair use isn’t a right. The whole issue is less of a deal than either side will sometimes admit.
Of course, making the issue less of one definitely favors the file-sharers, as it was the copyright industry (by which I mean all the usual four letter words) that began the arms race of terms of significance, trying to make copyright infringement a bigger deal than it ever has been.
And yet, is it a bigger deal? With the ability to infringe and distribute the material, is it going beyond the scope of anything previously? Probably, but how laws and courts are going to play out on it is far from established. Hopefully both sides will continue to bicker and we can actually get something reasonable out of the powers to be. Unfortunately, it looks like to me that this will only happen if something extraordinary like Cringley’s idea comes to be.
[Aside: speaking of Cringely, make sure to read his most recent, very realistic, very scary, the end-is-nigh scenario]
While I’m no lawyer, there’s a huge gaping flaw in Cringley’s idea. Namely, that ownership in a corporation does not imply part ownership of that corporation’s assets. All a stock gives you is the right to vote on the board of directors, nothing else. The corporation would own the CDs, not the corporation’s owners. If Cringley’s scenario worked, than every shareholder of MS would be free to download any MS software they choose, since they are a part owner of it all.
Left by Matt on July 29th, 2003
Matt’s right that the corporation would own the assets. The shareholders would only have a claim to them on liquidation after the creditors have been satisfied. But _could_ a corporation’s board of directors authorize its shareholders to use its assets? For example, the Gator Corporation builds a parking garage across the street from UF and rents spaces to its shareholder/owners only. I don’t see any problem with that. Or, _could_ Microsoft authorize its shareholders to download any software they want. Probably. I know corporations can pay dividends in product rather than cash or stock.
But even if the shareholders were given some sort of joint ownership of the CD’s, I doubt that they could all copy tracks consistant with fair use. I could probably make copies of a CD that I jointly own with my wife consistant with fair use. Could I make Jordan a joint-owner and allow him to copy under fair use? Maybe. Could I sell joint ownership of a CD to everyone on DoP and allow them to copy? Probably not. I think it’s a reasonableness test. One of the tests for fair use is the financial impact of the use on the product’s market. It seems like the market would be affected. The system also doesn’t provide any compensation to the artist, something any successful electronic distribution system would have to include.
It will be interesting to see what business model emerges in the next twenty years. After all, it’s only been about twenty years since the introduction of the CD and the beginnings of widespread use of the home PC.
Left by Dan on July 30th, 2003