I’m not sure how I’d vote in the current Supreme Court confrontation between MGM and Grokster… although as someone who has made his living through books and film, I have a more than sentimental attachment to copyright protection. But we are living in the shadow of technological breakthroughs that are changing the rules of everybody’s game who writes, directs, paints, makes music and so on at warp speed… not the least of which is the arrival of the Sony HDR-FX1, which produces a theatrical quality image for less than $4000. Couple that with a little high-def editing software and you’re on your way. All you need is a script. [Oh, that.-ed.]
Why would you need a script if so many of the movies that are coming out don’t seem to have one?
I’m looking forward to reading the transcript of the oral argument. As a consumer, I think it’s time that music developed new development channels (which they’re doing, admittedly), and stopped charging old costs like “breakage fees”, so I’d like to see Grokster and its progeny legitimized. However, I also recognize the need for copyright protection. I want you to be able to write more books and get paid for it. Also, as a law student, I have to admit that allowing the RIAA and MPAA to sue filesharers may have some bearing on future job security. So, I guess I’m hoping for a validation of the status quo, with the filesharing systems allowed, and people who share copyrighted works possibly held liable for infringement.
Something that rarely, if ever, gets mentioned in discussions of this and similar matters is that the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government the right to issue patents and copyrights. The exact language is, “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”
This is in the body of the Constitution itself (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8). The body isn’t any more important than the amendments, of course, but there’s no evidence that the First Amendment (specifically, the right to free speech) was intended to trump this.
Legally, I think it’s going to be hard for MGM to make the case that peer-to-peer file sharing software is only good for breaking the law. Therefore, I think it’s going to be hard for them to go after the people who create this software. (Face it; Microsoft could be held liable for providing software that allows users to create ad hoc wireless networks. Starbucks could be held liable for providing WiFi that could be used to illegally swap files. Etc.)
Practically speaking, so what if they manage to make coders liable? This technology is not rocket science; P2P software can be cooked up and compiled by anyone who can download a Java SDK. Is sharing generic P2P source code going to become illegal?
I want to see the artists protected, but what the MPAA et.al. are suggesting is just not right or feasible, and carries with it some long-term bad juju. And considering how objectively awful the current distribution channels are at protecting the artists they supposedly represent, I say, go Grokster!
Do you really need a script, Roger? From what I’ve seen, the vast majority of movies produced today (especially by the younger writers and directors) have more in common with the “Well-Made Play” of the Victorians than with good storytelling. (For non theatre geeks, check out the video version of Tom Stoppard’s “On the Razzle” for a brilliant parody of the form). Any dumb damn thing is permissible as long as the set-up is sufficiently heavy-handed…
It’s been my experience that people who scoff at the ownership of intellectual property don’t actually produce anything…
Richard, I hope your comment wasn’t because you felt I was belittling protection of IP. My problem with the MPAA et. al. has to do with their preferred line of defense, which is really just a protection of their distribution channels.
I don’t have a solution, but I know that handing perpetual control of the means of distribution to isn’t a good idea.
padon, that last paragraph should have been:
I don’t have a solution, but I know that handing perpetual control of the means of distribution to the labels isn’t a good idea.
The revolution will be blogged.