| | |
|
ChristopherCrismanCoxFirstPaper 4 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | As noted above, Grooveshark's service faces a legal problem. It compensates copyright holder every time a user streams a copyrighted song. However, Grooveshark compensates the copyright holder on Grooveshark's own terms. In order to be abide by the current law, Grooveshark would have to negotiate the terms of compensation with the copyright holder and obtain a license to distribute the copyrighted material. In the current legal environment, one solution to this problem would be for one entity - Grooveshark, a competitor, or even a major music label - to secure enough licenses to make operation of a Grooveshark-like site legally viable. However, given the vastness of music selection currently available on Grooveshark, it is simply unlikely that any one entity could obtain enough licenses to allow for on-demand free streaming of all the content currently available on Grooveshark. This is especially true given the high transaction costs in licensing all of this content. | |
>
> | Not only that, but it
hasn't come into possession of its copies for streaming in a licensed
fashion, because the party who uploaded it in each case was infringing,
which means the whole operation can be shuttered. In fact, despite
all the trappings of having done something new, it's really just an
old-style infringement factory. | | | 2) Copyright Holders and Other Entities Could Individually Create Their Own Competing On-Demand Free Streaming Music Websites
If it is unlikely that one entity will be able to amass enough licenses to create a legal version of Grooveshark, then perhaps competing websites could arise. For example, EMI could create a website, supported by advertising and the sale of "premium accounts," that allows users to stream any song in its catalog for free. Likewise, Sony could create its own counterpart website. However, this would be an undesirable state of affairs. Users would have to go to different websites to find different songs. Moreover, copyright holders would always have the right to cease on-demand free streaming of their copyrighted media if they felt they could make more money by directly charging for streaming. | |
>
> | This talk of "streaming"
is technical nonsense. A bitstream is just a bitstream, and the
difference between "downloading" and "streaming" is zero. So if the
companies were streaming on demand without DRM they would be giving
freely shareable copies away for free, and they're not going to do
that. In fact, they're not going to let anyone do that, which is why
iTunes became the creature from the dark lagoon that nearly ate their
business in the first place: because they only wanted to let their
music out in DRMd form. | | | 3) Copyright Holders Aggressively Attempt to Shut Down Grooveshark and Eliminate On-Demand Free Streaming Music
Under the current legal environment, a third scenario could occur. Large copyright holders could simply decide not to play ball with on-demand free streaming. They could actively remove copyrighted content from Grooveshark and make only very limited content available for free on their own websites. This would be a highly undesirable scenario for the consumer. | |
>
> | But because "free streaming" and "free downloading of copies" is the same, that's what they're going to do. | | | Instead of the Three Options Above, the Legal Environment Should Be Redesigned to Allow the Creation of a Government-Supported On-Demand Free Streaming Service for All Media | | | All three of the above options are unsatisfactory for consumers. None of the three options above provides better utility than the current (illegal) version of Grooveshark does. The solution to this problem is to change copyright law. The federal government should create a government-run version of Grooveshark. That is, the federal government should create a government-run website that provides on-demand, free streaming of all media. (There is no reason to limit this concept to music.) The government site would compensate copyright holders every time a copyrighted piece of media is streamed. The rate of compensation would be mandated by the government, and the goal would be to set it at a minimal rate, but enough not to discourage the production of media. The site would be supported by tax revenues. | |
>
> | Really? A socialist
takeover of all existing copyrighted works to be distributed by
government at government-fixed prices through compulsory licensing?
It's not constitutional, it's not politically possible, it's just
basic nonsense. | | | The Merits of Such a System
The above system would be a compromise between the economic rights of copyright holders and consumer demand to consume free media. It would fairly compensate copyright holders, thus encouraging continued production of media. Additionally, it would end the culture of media piracy that is prevalent in modern America by eliminating the need for it. In short, such a government system would bring the law back into accord with the practices of society. | |
>
> | Amazing. Was there an
edit? | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |