Hey all. I was just curious if you had the chance to debate or something to that effect with someone at the MPAA or RIAA or even if you were given the chance to say something about our rights as consumers what would you say. I'm writing a paper right now about intellectual property rights and I have a lot of ideas, but I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about anything that these groups/private media corps are doing that you don't like. Of course if i choose to use anytihing that you might say i woudl give you full credit under MLA guidelines for an Online Forum Posting. It's going to be really difficult to make this paper under 12 pages. I'm trying to narrow right now to stay on one specific issue.
If you had the chance to voice you displeasure with the MPAA RIAA etc what would you
- Thread starter hpman247
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 5
- Views 1K
- Status
Well I don't know if what I am about to post is what you're looking for, but here goes.
Point one: The MPAA and RIAAs efforts only serve to keep honest people honest, as for the REAL problem pirates (as opposed to the casual user burning a CD once in awhile) are the real issue, and they are very good at what they do, so when the RIAA/MPAA try some new anti-pirating measure, it is quickly defeated by the professional pirates (which should be their real target), and the anti-piracy measure only serves to treat your average honest consumer as a criminal, while the pirates just keep on going.
Take this example, remember cassette tapes? Well when CDs came onto the scene, the CDs were more expensive than cassettes, consumers complained at first, but the consumer realized new technology always starts out expensive, but the consumer also knows, that as it gets more popular and matures, the technology gets cheaper (logical, right?), to help support that thought, the record companies raved about how much cheaper CDs would be once the manufacturing costs of CD media becomes cheaper (something that happend A LONG time ago) than cassette tapes.
For years people waited for CD prices to fall below cassettes, this day never came (because they are greedy liars), because of this, among piracy advocates and members, there is group-thought that since they lied to us about getting cheaper, that they will pay for their greed via pirating of their media.
Another issue, is the media quality itself, when CDs were sold at first, the quality of the CDs was extremely good, remember them stating that a CD could withstand scratches, etc and last forever?, well that was mostly TRUE, at that time, since then, they now use media which will, after a short amount of time (relative to the original first generation cd media) develops a 'disease' (not unlike rust is to metal) of the CD coating (inherent to the cheaper materials used to coat the CDs, you can see this on todays CDs as a kinda pitting on the media side of a well-used CD), meaning the retail cost to the consumer of a music CD remained the same, so, the companies continued to lower media quality making a better profit margin for them (the artists get screwed here)), yet CD prices still have not dropped.
Fast forward to the late 90s, the internet is flourishing and soon becomes an issue with intelectual property, at that time (before piracy really became an issue), they had come to a crossroads, they could have:
1) Embraced the new technology (the internet) and offer what people wanted, (cheaper music (a promise already broken as mentioned above), and a way to d/l only the songs they want.(pre-napster)
2) Choosen to lower the prices of CD (like they originally promised a decade before) to the point where most people would just buy the CD instead of pirating it, I mean if you could buy the whole CD in FULL quality legally for a reasonable price, why bother pirating?
3) Try to fight a losing war against technology and the entire world (because the RIAA and MPAA mostly have no power outside of the US, and the net is global).
I'd like to note, that NOTHING will have, or would have, stopped ALL piracy, but 1) and 2) would have prevented them from alienating the consumer (by lawsuits on old ladies and 12 yr old girls) and may have won them more support from the global community. However, it has been too long, and 1) and 2) would no longer be as effective (although #1 is starting to show promise), as the 'genie' is out of the bottle now.
By now, the RIAA and MPAA MUST know this is a losing battle, and know they cannot stop the real pirates (the ones who d/l the product and mass reproduce it, repackage it and sell it on the black market), but they have gone so deep, that to back off now would be an admission of failure, at this point, they use piracy as a means to justify the high price of their CDs, (i.e. they cry that they need CDs at that price to 'pay' for things like anti-piracy measures), and the losses of profit they are showing (which really is more attributed to talentless rubber stamped talent they try and push on the masses and the high cost of CDs which only have maybe 2 good songs on them), they can either explain why profits are down by telling the investors and artists that, "we have some crappy names on our label and/or our CD prices are too high", OR, they can say "it's them pirates' fault", which one do you think they would choose?
If you use any of this, there is no need to credit me, you can have it, but I would (if possible) like to see the completed project.
Point one: The MPAA and RIAAs efforts only serve to keep honest people honest, as for the REAL problem pirates (as opposed to the casual user burning a CD once in awhile) are the real issue, and they are very good at what they do, so when the RIAA/MPAA try some new anti-pirating measure, it is quickly defeated by the professional pirates (which should be their real target), and the anti-piracy measure only serves to treat your average honest consumer as a criminal, while the pirates just keep on going.
Take this example, remember cassette tapes? Well when CDs came onto the scene, the CDs were more expensive than cassettes, consumers complained at first, but the consumer realized new technology always starts out expensive, but the consumer also knows, that as it gets more popular and matures, the technology gets cheaper (logical, right?), to help support that thought, the record companies raved about how much cheaper CDs would be once the manufacturing costs of CD media becomes cheaper (something that happend A LONG time ago) than cassette tapes.
For years people waited for CD prices to fall below cassettes, this day never came (because they are greedy liars), because of this, among piracy advocates and members, there is group-thought that since they lied to us about getting cheaper, that they will pay for their greed via pirating of their media.
Another issue, is the media quality itself, when CDs were sold at first, the quality of the CDs was extremely good, remember them stating that a CD could withstand scratches, etc and last forever?, well that was mostly TRUE, at that time, since then, they now use media which will, after a short amount of time (relative to the original first generation cd media) develops a 'disease' (not unlike rust is to metal) of the CD coating (inherent to the cheaper materials used to coat the CDs, you can see this on todays CDs as a kinda pitting on the media side of a well-used CD), meaning the retail cost to the consumer of a music CD remained the same, so, the companies continued to lower media quality making a better profit margin for them (the artists get screwed here)), yet CD prices still have not dropped.
Fast forward to the late 90s, the internet is flourishing and soon becomes an issue with intelectual property, at that time (before piracy really became an issue), they had come to a crossroads, they could have:
1) Embraced the new technology (the internet) and offer what people wanted, (cheaper music (a promise already broken as mentioned above), and a way to d/l only the songs they want.(pre-napster)
2) Choosen to lower the prices of CD (like they originally promised a decade before) to the point where most people would just buy the CD instead of pirating it, I mean if you could buy the whole CD in FULL quality legally for a reasonable price, why bother pirating?
3) Try to fight a losing war against technology and the entire world (because the RIAA and MPAA mostly have no power outside of the US, and the net is global).
I'd like to note, that NOTHING will have, or would have, stopped ALL piracy, but 1) and 2) would have prevented them from alienating the consumer (by lawsuits on old ladies and 12 yr old girls) and may have won them more support from the global community. However, it has been too long, and 1) and 2) would no longer be as effective (although #1 is starting to show promise), as the 'genie' is out of the bottle now.
By now, the RIAA and MPAA MUST know this is a losing battle, and know they cannot stop the real pirates (the ones who d/l the product and mass reproduce it, repackage it and sell it on the black market), but they have gone so deep, that to back off now would be an admission of failure, at this point, they use piracy as a means to justify the high price of their CDs, (i.e. they cry that they need CDs at that price to 'pay' for things like anti-piracy measures), and the losses of profit they are showing (which really is more attributed to talentless rubber stamped talent they try and push on the masses and the high cost of CDs which only have maybe 2 good songs on them), they can either explain why profits are down by telling the investors and artists that, "we have some crappy names on our label and/or our CD prices are too high", OR, they can say "it's them pirates' fault", which one do you think they would choose?
If you use any of this, there is no need to credit me, you can have it, but I would (if possible) like to see the completed project.
Last edited:
Absolutely. I will post it when complete. The main point that i want to make in this research paper is that copyright protection is needed and justified, however there is a fine line between protecting what is yours and alienating the people who make them, the consumer. When we arent allowed to burn our cd's or DVD to make individual backup. When it's illegal to let your friend borrow you season of "24" there is something wrong. There is too much greed from these compaines and organizations
You make some extremely valid points also. I really like hearing the timeline, as I am only 19 and I don't know the promises that were made and such when CD's first came out. It's great information and thanks a lot.
You make some extremely valid points also. I really like hearing the timeline, as I am only 19 and I don't know the promises that were made and such when CD's first came out. It's great information and thanks a lot.
Last edited:
I would say that the digital storage medium existed long before CD's and DVD's existed. If they didn't take any precautions from letting others who use a digital storage medium (computer people) from copying their "property" then it's their fault, not the so called "thief". If I took all of my valuables and put them on my front yard, I can't complain if someone steals all of it. It's still on my private property but it's not secure.
Last edited:
Honestly I dont have much to say, Im not into recording movies onto cd/dvd/tape/hd because of the cost and space limitations so if the feds say " hey you cant do that" then its fine with me. It seems to me that the only ones who are really cranky about the whole issue are the ones that are trying to circumvent having to pay for said movie or song and the others are the ones who are trying to make money on the black market a/v trade. I dont have a problem buying a movie or a cd, I do have a problem with buying a copy of a movie or a cd that someone has made and packaged to look like the real thing and is charging near or the same amount for it as the retailer does and this happens on a grand scale in many parts of the world.
I am a content creator. I deal with DRM and copyrights, trademarks, and service marks all the time, at both ends of the game/business. As content producer, I have to be very careful the content I use in my work created by others has the rights paid and to the proper people. I don't mind doing this because contrary to popular belief 99% of all the creative intellectual property rights are available for a fair price for commercial purposes. What about the other 1%. these would be the hugely popular contemporary music and movie productions and as a close second, TV productions on major networks. With this small minority of content, the cost for rights for use is obscenely high. My solution is to just avoid those since most of my work doesn't require this end to be a success.
example- The internet has created an opportunity for content creators to market their creations at a fair price. eg. clipart.com has a huge catalog of clipart and photos where you can pay a blanket fee per year for essentially unlimited access for commercial use. That is much better than stealing the work and then getting sued.
Most content creators do pay rights and permissions for use of intellectual property and it is mostly affordable. The reason why some rights are not affordable is because you may be trying to purchase through the wrong channels. eg don't try to buy rights and permissions from the artist of a popular song. Better to go through a clearing house or agency such as Harry Fox or Rights and Permissions inc. Even then it will be expensive but then not as expensive as if you tried to gain permission from the artist directly. Fact is, that artist may not have 100% rights to his work to sell in a non-exclusive arrangement as he may have assigned portions of those rights over and you'd need to research this. That research effort has been done at the agencies. Other alternatives are to use services like library music, stock video clips and artwork as mentioned earlier, paying am annual blanket or piece cut fee. Most stuff being created for broadcast does not have the budget so these blanket license services will do.
Now for the other side. How about my copyrights? I have had to defend my rights to the point of involving the FBI once and it was not a fun experience although the use of that made the individual pirating my works cease. The way I feel about it is this-
If I create a work of intellectual property, whether it be art, music, video, or a piece of software, the person buying a legal copy of that work has a right to play that piece in his computer, car, home stereo and make as many personal copies as he wishes to conveniently do so. If he has 17 computers, he may make 17 DVD's to play ready and convenient to play in all 17 of them. But here is where he may cross the line. He may not take one of those additional copies and distribute it to a friend either loaner or permanent. He may not take one of those copies and play it in a theater and charge admission whether that charge be for money or personal good will. No theatrical performance for theater or broadcast or private cast should be allowed of a work purchased for private home use. I also do not permit the rental of the single purchased copy. I think that any of these uses violates my copyrights because the consumer has crossed the line and has now begun to use my work for his personal benefit. Just to be clear- I do not believe that not charging admission constitutes a permission for theatrical presentation. One does not have to charge money to gain from distribution as in a free performance. How about inviting friends over to watch a copy of the movie or listen to a copy of the music. That would be OK because a home is not usually a stadium or movie theater setting capable of admitting hundreds of people. The term I would use is "ordinary and customary." I party of 50 people invited to a home to watch the NFL on a home theater screen is OK, IMO; but, renting a 1000 seat theater to show the same game on the big screen (even for free) would be crossing the line. Hard to define but by example I think you can see the difference.
The philosophy I have is that FAIR USE rules! The Fair Use provision in the US copyright act gives consumers, educators, and news producers the fair use rights to use intellectual property as long as they do not cross the line of distribution, commercialization, or republishing. The closest we see to crossing the line here is news stories. The News media is specifically listed in the fair use provision because the news does distribute and republish as does educational presentations. Educational is also listed specifically. But to be classed in this category, one must be a news organization or educational facility or credential to access the fair use privilege. You cannot just claim you are loaning a friend your dvds because it is "news or educational" to them. I said this because I know how ridiculous some "what if" questions can become. The case law is quite clear on this. If you are just an ordinary citizen who has purchased a few DVD's some software and music. Don't distribute copies to anyone outside your household for free or for money or favor.
What about selling all your copies and your original. The case law is also established in this. Just destroy all your 2nd copies and sell your original for equal or less than what you paid. You may do that. But, it has been established in the case law that should you be able to sell your original for a much higher price, say as an antique or memorabilia, you may owe copyright royalties to the holders of those rights, even if a 50 year old item. Those holders would have to make their claim on you, however.
In addition to the US copyright act, we now have the DMCA and other DRM enforcements that enter the picture. This is separate and remotely related to copy and trademark rights. The DMCA(digital millennium copyright act) says IF you attempt to make a copy of any digital media, even for yourself that has been protected against copying, you may have violated this DMCA. Now we have a serious philosophical conflict between Fair Use and DMCA. Presently we do not have this conflict resolved and Congress is presently trying to figure out how to define and regulate this so the two will not be in conflict. This is precisely what happens when law makers make laws with little regard to the affect it has on everyone but rather makes laws based on the power of one or more strong lobbies ts. They create a mess for the courts to deal with. The whole idea and concept of the DMCA was to further restrict the Fair Use act for digital media and to be used as a tool to make it possible to sell more of the same content to the same person. The idea behind the DMCA was to say to the public, if you wish to watch the movie in your car, you pay for it. If you wish to watch the content in your home, you pay again, if you wish to take the content to work and watch on your private computer you'd pay again. This is the extreme case of DMCA advantage. IT is the beginning of the demise of pay once and watch several, and/or watch in different locations. DMCA opens the door to enable content providers to sell you a PPV or Pay per Use on all content if they want. Again, the DMCA IS in conflict with personal fair use and Congress is presently trying to fix that.
Finally, let me also state that the general philosophy behind content copyright protection is to make an attempt to establish an environment where content creators will have an incentive to produce. While it is true that there are many content creators who produce for the advancement of the art itself, motivated by inspiration, and a whole host of stuff unrelated to money, the idea behind copyright protection is to offer them an environment where their work will be theirs first to distribute as they see fit and make anyone else secondary. Their fiscal interests in the work remains protected as would be anyone purchasing a % of their copyrights for investment. The DMCA was designed to enable mostly secondary rights holders to realize greater profits and sales from their investment in those bought copyrights through reselling the same copyright content digitally over and over again to the same buyer.
Hope this viewpoint from me, a content creator and user for commercial purpose, has helped you grasp the subtle differences in where we are today.
example- The internet has created an opportunity for content creators to market their creations at a fair price. eg. clipart.com has a huge catalog of clipart and photos where you can pay a blanket fee per year for essentially unlimited access for commercial use. That is much better than stealing the work and then getting sued.
Most content creators do pay rights and permissions for use of intellectual property and it is mostly affordable. The reason why some rights are not affordable is because you may be trying to purchase through the wrong channels. eg don't try to buy rights and permissions from the artist of a popular song. Better to go through a clearing house or agency such as Harry Fox or Rights and Permissions inc. Even then it will be expensive but then not as expensive as if you tried to gain permission from the artist directly. Fact is, that artist may not have 100% rights to his work to sell in a non-exclusive arrangement as he may have assigned portions of those rights over and you'd need to research this. That research effort has been done at the agencies. Other alternatives are to use services like library music, stock video clips and artwork as mentioned earlier, paying am annual blanket or piece cut fee. Most stuff being created for broadcast does not have the budget so these blanket license services will do.
Now for the other side. How about my copyrights? I have had to defend my rights to the point of involving the FBI once and it was not a fun experience although the use of that made the individual pirating my works cease. The way I feel about it is this-
If I create a work of intellectual property, whether it be art, music, video, or a piece of software, the person buying a legal copy of that work has a right to play that piece in his computer, car, home stereo and make as many personal copies as he wishes to conveniently do so. If he has 17 computers, he may make 17 DVD's to play ready and convenient to play in all 17 of them. But here is where he may cross the line. He may not take one of those additional copies and distribute it to a friend either loaner or permanent. He may not take one of those copies and play it in a theater and charge admission whether that charge be for money or personal good will. No theatrical performance for theater or broadcast or private cast should be allowed of a work purchased for private home use. I also do not permit the rental of the single purchased copy. I think that any of these uses violates my copyrights because the consumer has crossed the line and has now begun to use my work for his personal benefit. Just to be clear- I do not believe that not charging admission constitutes a permission for theatrical presentation. One does not have to charge money to gain from distribution as in a free performance. How about inviting friends over to watch a copy of the movie or listen to a copy of the music. That would be OK because a home is not usually a stadium or movie theater setting capable of admitting hundreds of people. The term I would use is "ordinary and customary." I party of 50 people invited to a home to watch the NFL on a home theater screen is OK, IMO; but, renting a 1000 seat theater to show the same game on the big screen (even for free) would be crossing the line. Hard to define but by example I think you can see the difference.
The philosophy I have is that FAIR USE rules! The Fair Use provision in the US copyright act gives consumers, educators, and news producers the fair use rights to use intellectual property as long as they do not cross the line of distribution, commercialization, or republishing. The closest we see to crossing the line here is news stories. The News media is specifically listed in the fair use provision because the news does distribute and republish as does educational presentations. Educational is also listed specifically. But to be classed in this category, one must be a news organization or educational facility or credential to access the fair use privilege. You cannot just claim you are loaning a friend your dvds because it is "news or educational" to them. I said this because I know how ridiculous some "what if" questions can become. The case law is quite clear on this. If you are just an ordinary citizen who has purchased a few DVD's some software and music. Don't distribute copies to anyone outside your household for free or for money or favor.
What about selling all your copies and your original. The case law is also established in this. Just destroy all your 2nd copies and sell your original for equal or less than what you paid. You may do that. But, it has been established in the case law that should you be able to sell your original for a much higher price, say as an antique or memorabilia, you may owe copyright royalties to the holders of those rights, even if a 50 year old item. Those holders would have to make their claim on you, however.
In addition to the US copyright act, we now have the DMCA and other DRM enforcements that enter the picture. This is separate and remotely related to copy and trademark rights. The DMCA(digital millennium copyright act) says IF you attempt to make a copy of any digital media, even for yourself that has been protected against copying, you may have violated this DMCA. Now we have a serious philosophical conflict between Fair Use and DMCA. Presently we do not have this conflict resolved and Congress is presently trying to figure out how to define and regulate this so the two will not be in conflict. This is precisely what happens when law makers make laws with little regard to the affect it has on everyone but rather makes laws based on the power of one or more strong lobbies ts. They create a mess for the courts to deal with. The whole idea and concept of the DMCA was to further restrict the Fair Use act for digital media and to be used as a tool to make it possible to sell more of the same content to the same person. The idea behind the DMCA was to say to the public, if you wish to watch the movie in your car, you pay for it. If you wish to watch the content in your home, you pay again, if you wish to take the content to work and watch on your private computer you'd pay again. This is the extreme case of DMCA advantage. IT is the beginning of the demise of pay once and watch several, and/or watch in different locations. DMCA opens the door to enable content providers to sell you a PPV or Pay per Use on all content if they want. Again, the DMCA IS in conflict with personal fair use and Congress is presently trying to fix that.
Finally, let me also state that the general philosophy behind content copyright protection is to make an attempt to establish an environment where content creators will have an incentive to produce. While it is true that there are many content creators who produce for the advancement of the art itself, motivated by inspiration, and a whole host of stuff unrelated to money, the idea behind copyright protection is to offer them an environment where their work will be theirs first to distribute as they see fit and make anyone else secondary. Their fiscal interests in the work remains protected as would be anyone purchasing a % of their copyrights for investment. The DMCA was designed to enable mostly secondary rights holders to realize greater profits and sales from their investment in those bought copyrights through reselling the same copyright content digitally over and over again to the same buyer.
Hope this viewpoint from me, a content creator and user for commercial purpose, has helped you grasp the subtle differences in where we are today.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
