But what we've done under the law is eliminate the possibility of the public domain. Copyrights don't expire anymore. The average copyright term when Disney produced his work was 30 years. The average term now is 100 years.
What about P2P or content sharing in general — it's not just music on those networks anymore, it's TV shows and movies. Is this discussion moot because it's too late to control any of that?
Waagner: I don't know. If people are given an opportunity to abide by the rules. . . . I don't think anyone would feel infringed upon if their cable bill went up $5 a month and they felt that they could legally go online and watch movies and listen to music. I think that would be a solution that would create revenue.
I really think that the longer the media companies fight to try to contain it, and fight with the people that they ultimately need to support them, I think it's a can't-win situation.
Lessig: I agree. There will always be kids who are able to get access to whatever content they want. If you think the objective is, "How are we going to stop that?" you're never going to stop that.
But I think the real problem is that the war against alternative ways of producing and distributing content means that nobody can go into a business that builds upon these alternative ways. You can't stop the kids, but you can stop the investors and you can stop the businesses. And you'll only get something amazing and new if businesses are allowed to innovate and build on top of these alternatives.
Waagner: I made the comment once that [the RIAA battles are] kind of like the railroad industry trying to shoot down airplanes. They're just so freaked out by the competition that they'll do anything — they don't care if what they're doing is moral or right. Not that they ever have, but [now] it's just an "at all costs" battle..... There's much more, click over and check it out.
Article comments
1 - Martin Blank
I think without a doubt the Internet can be employed as a fabulous tool to promote bands to semi-stardom who otherwise would have never been heard anywhere, anytime, outside their home towns and perhaps a very tiny worldwide cult following. But, I firmly believe that the amount of play in copyright and licensing is up to the artist -- music, literature, film, etc. This is why the "mash license" intrigues me: it gives the original artist greater flexibility in saying, You can use this for reasonable interpretations, or, without issuing such a license, You may never use this under any circumstances whatsoever without paying me.
I further believe that Cory Doctorow is a hack and a blemish on contemporary literature -- granted, I am no doubt overly picky when it comes to novelists -- but he has done the writing community a great service with his most recent book: he proved that you can release a novel for absolutely no cost via the Internet and not remarkably undermine retail sales of the book.
On the other hand -- one must love symmetry! -- the fact that you may so freely publish books or music on the Internet, no editorial and production talent involved, puts the onus on the unwashed masses to separate the meritorious from the schlock, to send the *real* hero up the pop charts. Are the filthy rabble up to the task?