Copyright in music

Interesting editorial from today's New York Times:

The battle over online music piracy is usually presented as David versus Goliath: the poor student in his dorm hunted down by a music conglomerate. It is easy, in that matchup, to side with the student. But when the Supreme Court takes up the issue this week, we hope it considers another party to the dispute: individual creators of music, movies and books, who need to keep getting paid if they are going to keep creating. If their work is suddenly made "free," all of society is likely to suffer.

The court hears arguments tomorrow in a suit by music and movie companies against Grokster, which makes "peer to peer" software that allows Internet users to exchange songs and other computer files. At least 90 percent of the material "shared" on Grokster, and perhaps more, is copyrighted. Grokster gives away the software, but it sells advertising aimed at the millions of people who use it.

Many big entertainment companies are backing the suit, along with marquee-name musicians like the Eagles and the Dixie Chicks. But so are some creative professionals - represented by groups like the Authors Guild and the Professional Photographers of America - for whom even a few thousand dollars in royalties makes a big difference.

The technology community has rallied to Grokster's defense. Its most radical members argue that "information wants to be free" online and disparage the whole idea of intellectual property. A more modest argument, and one Grokster relies on in court, is that if it loses, there will be a chilling effect on technological innovation.

The legal case against Grokster is far from a slam-dunk, and we have been wary of it in the past. The court ruled, in a landmark 1984 case, that Betamax video recorders were legal even though they were used to copy copyrighted material, because they had significant legal uses. It is true that there are legal uses for Grokster - not every file exchanged is copyrighted. But it is notable how much illegal use predominates, and how much its business model relies on theft.

The founders wrote copyright protections into the Constitution because they believed that they were necessary for progress. Movies, music and books require investments of money and time. If their creators cannot make money from them, many will be unwilling or unable to keep producing. Or they may have to finance their work in troubling ways, like by building in product placements or taking money from donors with agendas.

Grokster's supporters are justified in worrying that if the courts are too quick to rein in new technology, innovation can be stifled. They are also right to point out that copyright has sometimes been given too much protection, notably in the Copyright Term Extension Act, which gratuitously added 20 years to existing copyrights. But these concerns do not erase the continuing importance of intellectual property, which is unquestionably under assault.

Both the court and Congress should be sensitive to evolving technologies. But they should not let technology evolve in a way that deprives people who create of the ability to be paid for their work.

 

I agree to a certain extent with intellectual copyright, however were do you draw the line, some things have an indefinate copyright period, (music)while others (like medicine) have only around 15 years (from copyright entry, may not bring to market for 5 more years) medicines cost millions to bring to market, a song doesn't.

One of the most ripped off pieces of software, Photoshop, would not be used by as many people if it wasn't bootlegged, they would use somehing else or not bother, so Adobe is not loosing out on sales, so where's the real problem.

 

AK, don't confuse copyright (works of literary or artistic merit) with patent protection (practical inventions). Copyright protects only against copying (i.e., if you come up with the same idea independently, you are not guilty of copyright infringement), whereas coming up with the same idea independently with respect to a patentable invention is patent infringement.

As someone who works in the field professionally, I am all for the protection of intellectual property, but I agree that the period of copyright is too long (now 70 years in the USA - and that's 70 years from the end of the year in which the originator dies), as opposed to the 20 years of a patent (and that's 20 years from application, not grant, with a five-year extension possible only for drugs). However, nobody has ever solved the conundrum that copyright was devised in an era before electronic copying was ever thought of, and technology has outrun the law - and the age-old fact that people can never be legislated into doing the right thing.

Ultimately, copying of someone else's copyrighted material without permission is theft. This can be pushed too far. The law says that we cannot legally copy on to a cassette for use in the car a CD we've bought, but must buy the pre-recorded cassette instead, even though this may actually not exist. The industry has long turned a blind eye to this. The problem lies with electronic file sharing and the enormous potential loss in revenue for the copyright owner. If I had the answer, I wouldn't be sitting here writing to you, I'd be checking out my new mansion and wondering how many S-Class Mercs I could fit in the garage.

 

Tones if that is the case, where does something like computer programes fir in, photoshop is intellectual property, but also a practical invention, so is it patented or copyrighted?

As for lost revenue, I still slightly disagree, only really on computer software, if they reduced the price of photoshop to realistic levels, most would buy it, as it is, at £500, i would not use it it if I had to pay for it, as a user, I also endorse the product, legitimate graphic artists and the like will still buy it, so little lost really.

 

You can buy Photoshop elements for £50 though and its very very good for the price, yes there are features missing such as masking but I would rather use legal software and know all my software is legit.

I am not automaticaly against ilegal software but if I can afford it I will buy the software, all my windows licences are legal etc (well amost all, 4 out of 5 of my PCs are legal).

 

Photoshop is a computer program, so it is covered by copyright, as is a book or a record.

The argument as to excessive cost is the same one made (with some justification) against the pharma companies and their drug patents. The cost of development is indeed high, but these people have shareholders who want fat dividends, so they price things inordinately high and thus encourage people to infringe or copy. I agree that, if they were less hungry, perhaps they'd have people more willing to buy rather than copy. However, with regard to software, the fact that you're handling something essentially immaterial makes stealing relatively easy to ignore - it's not like shoplifting a CD from a record store, yet of course it is.

 

I'd then put it alongside taking a pen home from the office, fair cop, but as I say I endorse the thing for them, so would be giving a bit back in dribs and drabs, it would be the only piece of software I would use illegitemately. And i suppose I just need longer than most to evaluate it.

 

Tones we are in the world of big business. so who is the most powerful, Software , music, Movie or electronics? would it be a surprise the most powerful won?

 

I think the answer is clear - software. Remember that IBM thought that the equipment was all-important, and accordingly allowed a small, insignificant company, name of Microsoft, to keep the rights to the operating system it had developed for the IBM PCs. This may rank as the biggest business blunder ever made.

 

This may or may not be complete bollox. But I'm sure I once heard that the Gaming industry was worth MOre than music and movies combined?

 

How some big US companies are trying to address the problem of copyright abuse and criminal downloading so now read on.