Another awful story about a company abusing the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
Skylink Technologies manufactures a universal garage door opener that can be used to open and shut any type of garage door. Its competitor, the Chamberlain Group, claims that Skylink violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA, by selling such a product.
On the upside, it looks like some people are fighting the DMCA based on some of the terrible things the Recording Industry Association of America has done with it (like suing a 12 year old girl).
I tend to like this argument when it comes to sharing music:
“Isn’t is equivalent to my leaving the door to my library open?” Roberts asked. “Somebody could come in and copy my books but that doesn’t mean I’m liable for copyright infringement.”
Although, if you were to take it to it’s logical conclusion, there really isn’t any difference between sharing music on your personal PC and putting it up on a dedicated web server (one’s just a better-equipped “library”). Although it’s more convenient to go after those that share the music, assuming they purchased it themselves, the only real copyright violators are the downloaders. Tracking the downloaders is a fairly difficult thing to do without privacy-infringing policy like the DCMA.
So, what’s the solution? Well, there are a lot of laws that are difficult to enforce because of privacy concerns. There are a lot of laws that are difficult to enforce in general (for example, measuring the safe travelling distance between two vehicles on the highway). That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be laws, and that doesn’t mean we should compromise other laws (or constitutional protections) in order to make them easier to enforce.
What I’d really love to see happen is an artist stand up and say “I will not create any more music until music piracy decreases substantially.” That’s the real way to solve this problem. If copyright law seeks to ensure individuals will continue to produce without having their output ripped off, then we should reach the point when an artist will stop producing. Since we’re nowhere near that point from what I can tell, the “rampant piracy” is not bad enough to concern me.
If people want to steal music even though it is illegal, it will kill the very music they love. If the RIAA keeps fighting the battles the way they have been (by influencing questionable legislation) mainstream people will never realize this connection, and will continue to view the recording industry in an unfavorable light – as a bunch of “greedy businessmen.” If consumers want to kill the music industry, I say let them try. We’ll see how they like the outcome. Or, more to the point, we’ll see how long it takes before they realize what they’ve done, and see that there’s no one left to steal from.
Though not thoroughly familiar with the DMCA, what troubles me most is the recording industry being able to, *without a judge signing off*, take your ISP address to your ISP and get your name.
Also, what happens in this situation: A person owns a, say, Zeppelin CD, then downloads some Zeppelin tunes from Kazaa (the same songs). Has he committed copyright infringement? I guess I’ll let you know next semester when I take the class. Or put another way, can I photocopy a book I own for my own use? Or a better analogy, can another person photocopy the very same book I own and give it to me, as long as I own it?
T, your point about piracy hurting the music industry is a good one. I don’t think that–even if piracy were everywhere–piracy would ever get musicians to stop making music. There a couple of reasons for this: (1) I’m willing to bet that a substantial amount of money is made from live concerts. I believe that the Grateful Dead pionered the practice of allowing anyone and everyone to tape its shows, figuring that the more people who listened to its music, the more tickets they’d sell at the box office. (2) I’d think that those musicians starting off would actually prefer to have their music pirated (although if they *really* wanted this, then they could just say they’re giving up their copyright to a certain extent), since nobody will actually spend money on a band he hasn’t heard (and liked) before. (3) Downloaded (and subsequently burned on CDs) songs just aren’t the same as buying a regular CD. A legitimate CD, to me at least, seems better (I don’t know if it’s the packaging, or just the fact that someone doesn’t have to write on it in permanent marker). (4) Those people who pirate music probably wouldn’t, if the practicer were banned outright, go out and spend their money on actual CDs, anyway. They’d just go without.
“what happens in this situation: A person owns a, say, Zeppelin CD, then downloads some Zeppelin tunes from Kazaa (the same songs). Has he committed copyright infringement?”
Amusing example. That was exactly what mp3.com was doing when the RIAA sued them (and ultimately put them out of business) 3 years ago.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,33634,00.html
“A legitimate CD, to me at least, seems better”
If you compare a legitmate CD to one made from songs downloaded from the web (usually in MP3 format), the quality is noticeably better on CD. MP3 is a lossy compression format – audio information is thrown out during the compression process. If you compare a CD to a copy of a CD though, the quality should be identical (except, as you say, the packaging and permanent marker).
I also prefer the feel of the real CD.
CDs are actually less convenient for me to listen to, but I only listen to music on the computer.
Tom: “If people want to steal music even though it is illegal, it will kill the very music they love.”
No. It won’t.
You assume that musicians only make music because they can make money selling CDs. Coon Dog mentions the money they can make in concerts (which is the bulk of many band’s earnings), but there’s also the value of being famous (plenty of people do things for free for fame).
Also: Many artists would still continue to do music because they love music. Without a distribution center, that music may not be heard as widely, but it’s still made.
F makes a good point. I mean, let’s think of our very own high school band. Allison, Guthro, Harper, Gianitsis, McCracken, Schulte and Sargent all played in the band for four years without ever making a cent. They simply did it for the love of music.
Please refrain from identifying me by name, Steven Callahan. You may refer to me as “A.”
Coon Dog knows of no such person.
I probably shouldn’t have phrased it as killing “the music.” It will kill the album though. If I’m a musician, and I make money via concerts and appearances but not albums, expect me to not bother making any more albums unless I can convince myself that giving away albums will lead to more concert sales.
I wonder if anyone has convinced themselves of that?
“unless I can convince myself that giving away albums will lead to more concert sales”
Short of one-hit wonders, this is usually a good assumption. You can increase concert sales by either increasing the number of fans, or convincing your fans to see your show again; both of which are easier with new material.