Consumer rights move to superior court

Your right to listen to music in the way you want is up for review. The US superior court is currently hearing a case that MGM filed against the file sharing network Grokster.

You've probably heard it all before, but the case revolves around the question if the creators of peer-to-peer networks can be held responsible for the copyright violations that they enable.

We had a ruling on this case in the form of the Sony-Betamax case. There it was ruled that Sony couldn't be held liable for consumers using a video recorder to illegally copy copyrighted materials. After all, Sony developed the device to allow consumers to watch rented or purchased movies.

Similarly US courts have always denied liability claims against gun makers. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, gun makers and their buddies at the NRA will argue.

While copyright holders will cry foul over the massive theft of music that's going on a daily basis, and nobody seems to disagree that it is wrong to steal copyrighted materials. But technologists will argue that making the creators of peer-to-peer networks partially liable is taking it too far.

The problem is: what if the record industry has its way?

As Salon.com explains:
If the entertainment studios had their way, every time a format changed, you'd have to buy all your records all over again. In their ideal world, we would hold restricted licenses to our content, not ownership. Digital rights management would cripple our all-powerful computers, creating backups would be impossible, and the basic human impulse to share the wealth of information that helps define who we are would be beset with obstacles. This is not paranoia. At every step of the way, intellectual-property-right holders have resisted technological innovations that give ordinary people more scope to enjoy and consume music, television, movies or any other content.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. And so should you.

31 Mar 2005

Permalink

Do you agree?

Add your comment

Dear All The way in which law-suits over file-sharing have brough the topic of copyright into sharp focus is much to be welcomed. Both sides have their merits and demerits. Clearly, the creator of an original work is entitled to his share of whatever profits are made as a result of the sale of his work. However, that doesn't mean to say that he's entitled to a new payout every time someone reads a given copy of his book or hears a song on a given CD. If I buy a book, I expect to be able to lend or give it to anyone I like, without reference to a single soul in the Universe. And I don't give a damn if the copyright-owner says that, each time I do that, I deprive him of a sale. It's slightly different if I copy it and sell the copies, though presumably I'm doing that at a cheaper cost than he and his business associates can do it, otherwise no-one would have any incentive to buy from me. Is there a lesson to be learnt there? Normally, we don't make spare parts for our cars: it's cheaper for us to buy the manufacturer's parts. Surely the same could apply to copyright material ---if only it weren't for the greed of many copyright-owners. It's absolute nonsense to insist that, if the purchaser of a copyright article wants to have further examples of it, he should be obliged to buy the item all over again, and again,and again! It's not as though file-copying is automatic: there's a fair amount of skill needed. If the purchase of copyright material were to be affordable, then the public would buy Ford Spare Parts rather than make them themselves. I don't think many members of the public would regret the passing of the Pop Idol with his gold-plated Cadillac. I'm sure no-one would mourn the passing of the mega-corporations who are behind the current efforts to squash file-sharing. And, most of all, I'm positive no-one would lose a single moment of sleep if all the perryfogging attorneys involved in these disputes were to be bankrupted overnight Regards J L A Hartley ____________________________________________

Posted by: J L A Hartley 01 Apr 2005

When you buy a CD you are buying the content - the music. I agree that the rascals in the entertainment business would have you buy anew each time they bring out a new format, but with iTunes you can load your CDs on, so perhaps you're being a little harsh here. Either way, this has nothing to do with file sharing, where by definition you have never paid for the content in any shape or form. We may all have - particularly as students - produced illegal tapes of our mates' music, but the potential of file sharing goes well beyond this - at least we would have known one person who had paid for the music in the first place. With file sharing the potential for intellectual property theft is so much greater that it really does have to be tackled. If we destroy the potential to make money from art our artists will have to get proper jobs - expect the wide range and diversity of music to diminish. If Elvis couldn't have made money out of music he'd have had to stick with the truck driving. However, whilst I feel that Grokster have a pretty good understanding of the uses that their product is being put to, I'm not sure that this makes them liable - it is the end user that is the guilty party here, no matter how inconvenient that is for the corporates.

Posted by: Peter Dunkley 31 Mar 2005

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email address:	We won't publish your address
Your comment title:
Your comment:	By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms & Conditions. Your comment will be moderated before publication.