DYohn:
What an excellent balanced post. I'll attempt to back off my dramatic and soapbox-like and write an appropriate reply.
You draw a distinction between "personal use" (mix tapes, format shifting, and time shifting) and impermissible sharing. I believe this is a very important distinction; very important.
Bravo. I believe in Intellectual Property Rights. I recently accepted a job where I'll be obtaining and defending them for a living in less than a year. Artists, inventors, businesses; IP rights provide them with an important incentive to invest. An incentive authorized by the Constitution.
However, I also believe in some sort of
Correct Level of IP rights. I'm glad you recognize the fact that the 1998 DMCA is still being modified and re-interpreted. You say that you expect the law to become more rigid rather than more liberal.
I HOPE that the voice of the public AND the voice of interested corporate entities (those making DVR's, VCR's, MP3 players, etc.) is strong enough to counterbalance the strong lobbying for the DMCA from the Sony/BMG's of the world.
During a period of interpretation and modification, I believe the public has a right to fight against laws that will negatively affect the way they enjoy items they buy in the sanctity of their own home.
Please note that this fighting, to me, should NOT include the sharing of music and movies. Illegal sharing DOES hurt authors, programmers, etc. I used to be a programmer. I understand this.
The regulation of IP rights are authorized in the Constitution by the following line, Article I, Section 8:
"
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
It has been well recognized by the courts and the academic world that
incentive to invest is the primary interest we are worried about protecting. In other words, we want to encourage artists and companies to make music and invest in research and development. We accomplish this encouragement by providing artists and inventors some correct level of exclusive rights; a level where free-riders (those who spent no time and effort) cannot illegitimately compete or offer the work or invention for free, harming the ability of the artist or inventor to achieve the
correct return on his investment.
Here's my problem with the DMCA: it goes beyond the level of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts authorized by the Constitution. It has not been shown that artists' ability to achieve a correct return on investment, stimulating their investment, is achieved by making it illegal for buyers of the CD's to be subject to civil and criminal penalties for exercising the "personal use" mentioned above (time shifting, format shifting, mix tapes).
The key question is this: Does allowing my personal use (time shifting, format shifting, mix tapes), after I bought the CD, harm the artist's ability to earn a return on his investment?
I say NO! I say that restricting my personal use is wrong because the artist or inventor has already extracted their profit from me. I say that restricting my personal use goes beyond the promotion of the arts and useful sciences authorized by the Constitution. I say that artists' and inventors' incentive to invest is not damaged by my personal use after I already paid for a CD.
Stevdart mentioned that I wasn't the norm when I said I buy CD's, convert them to FLAC for my personal use, and do not share them. He might be right. To the extent such format shifting harms artists' ability to earn a return on their creation-related investment, I believe the record companies -should- be able to do something about it.
However, I have neither seen proof that format shifting hurts artists' ability to earn a return on their investment, nor that there are less restrictive alternatives (that don't impose so many restrictions on me, the sucker that actually paid for price-fixed piece of plastic). I don't think Congress has seen this evidence either. I don't think the Music companies
have this evidence. I think the Music companies have been blind to business models that could embrace the 21st century consumer.
I believe the CORRECT level of IP rights is an issue worth getting all Americans involved in. I believe that those opposed to rigid DMCA-like laws should speak out. I believe that the entire burden should be on the IP holders to enforce their own rights. Leave it to them to decide whether their ability to return a correct return on investment has been hampered by me, the format-shifting-buyer.
I believe IP rights should include IP holder's abilities to go after individuals that pirate works.
I don't believe that IP rights should include criminal or civil penalties that harm a paying customer's ability to enjoy their purchase in their own home.
I think that I should be able to buy a Sony/BMG CD and copy the darn thing to my IPOD without violating the DMCA. I bet most artists in this country also believe that I should be able to do this.
I don't think the artists' interests are the ones being served in the DMCA+Sony DRM case. I think Sony is trying to bolster, anticompetitively, their position in the digital player and music download world.
Thank you for the more-balanced post, DYohn. I hope this post followed suit and was also more-balanced and less dramatic.
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder
Topic Closed)
Members
Search
Register
Login
Printable version
