Betamax ruling under fire in p2p case

[Tyler]

We all love our free music, movies, etc.  We like to tape our tv shows when we can't watch them.  We really love to buy DVDs.

We can do these today legally because of the Betamax decision of 1984.  This allowed copying of copyrighted material for personal (not commericial) use.  These has helped the p2p companies from being torn apart in the courts, because it can be argued that we download this music for personal use.

Tomorrow the U.S. Supreme court will begin the trial to decide once and for all in the U.S. if the Betamax decision protects the p2p companies and the individuals using them.

This is a pretty important trial because it could set some pretty important precidents.  Imagine if you couldn't tape your favorite tv show anymore because of fear of copyright infringement.  Or if you couldn't even buy VCRs anymore.  It would be a pretty scary place in colleges if p2p technology was outlawed entirely.  Of course I'm sure something would pop up in its place the next day, but that's a different story.

Let's just hope the Betamax decision holds up, because the world would sure suck a lot more if it doesn't.

More info here

[Oxnard]

If I'm not mistaken you're referring to the grokster case.  This is more of looking at technology that can be used for legal p2p or illegal p2p and where the guilt lies.  Is it with the server/source of the program or with the person sharing the file?

This has long been an issue that has been solved by congress.  I would like to see the same thing happen with the court turning it back to the people who make law.

Although our current political system is wrought with folks who answer only to the dollar that is offered by political donors I like to think that anyone can recognize that a law that makes everyone outlaws is simply not a good law.

This is not an easy question to answer.  Do we overturn a history of copyright law or do we evolve with technology.  If there were a new America I do believe copyright law would be much smaller in scope.  How is it stealing if no one loses anything material?  I thin this is how China feels with it's IP law.  No one loses real dollars when I download a song.

Information is becoming more free every day.  It started with the printing press and has yet to stop.  Everything that can be turned into ones and zeros is going to become property of all of the public regardless of nation.  Everything we do to stop it is as sad as 18th century european mercantilism.

[William Grim]

No one loses real dollars when I download a song.

I'll tell that to my kids some day when they are wondering why we don't get any money from the media we develop after all the long hours that are spent in creating it.  Because, you know, man power is totally free and time is worthless.

Information is becoming more free every day.

Only because people feel like making it so.  Information is not free for just anyone to have.  It is only free for those who work hard to get it.  For everyone else, there are prices to pay for all the hard work done by others so they don't have to work as hard to get it.

Information that is freely available is, again, only there because someone felt like they should make it available.  There is no inherent right to you to tell someone else it is yours because you feel like it should be yours.

I disagree with the patent and copyright laws on many counts.  However, these are exactly the reasons we have it.

[Tyler]

I currently have ~1600 songs on my computer.  If I had to pay for these, I would not have gotten them.  Most of my songs I could do without.  If I had to pay $1 (99 cents) a song, I would have very few (if any).  I may be alone in this regard, but at least from me, it is no real lost revenue, because I wouldn't pay for it if that was my only choice.

Not to mention, I have no sympathy for the big names that can no longer afford their 2nd Bentley because I downloaded their music off emule.  Nor do I have any sympathy for music execs like Simon Fuller (not Cowell) who make millions (billions?) because they trap American Idol contestants (Kelly Clarkson, Clay Aikin) in crazy contracts and take HALF OF THEIR EARNINGS FOREVER!!!!  

The other artists I download are in music not for the fame, but for the LOVE OF MUSIC, which I believe is what it's all about in the first place.  Many of the bands I like have no tour bus, no reality tv show, no all night parties at a Hilton after a show.  They are in it because they love to make music.

This is somewhat off-topic, I will admit, but I find it interesting that much of the advances in technology--hard disk capacity, cdrs, cdrws, dvd, dvdrom, dvdrws, iPods, broadband internet--have all had a substantial push by the "illegal" downloading of music, porn (you all know you do), and movies.  I for one would have no reason for a 120Gb drive and a backup 40Gb drive if I didn't have all this music.  I also would have no real reason for my dvd-rom/cd-rw. So I think it's important to consider what we owe to Napster and what would happen if the technology as a whole gets labelled as illegal.  I would hate to see where technology would be right now without Napster in '99.

[Oxnard]

My arguments of information becoming for free refer to the cost of transmitting and holding data.  Fifty years ago how much would it cost to copy and move all of the data in the Library of Congress?  I have no idea, but today it would cost something in the scale of tens of dollars.

This represents a shift in how we as people interact with information.  By information I mean anything that can be represented in ones and zeros.  The printing press was probably the last innovation of transfer of information before the Internet.  The printing press changed how people learn and get access to information, just like the Internet.

I've thought about music/movies and how someone can make money and have freedom of information.  With music it isn't hard; touring makes money.  There is no reason musicians need to make a bajillion dollars a year at the cost of freedom.  Movies is harder.  I would like to think that the best, only the finest directors/writers, would have no problem financing their movies.  I don't know if this is a fact but I've downloaded music and then bought the album later.  I like having the real product and supporting music that I like.  I don't watch movies at all in my real life so it is harder to identify with this medium.

If I were dictator here is my solution.  Information may be given at a cost of nothing.  No advertising, no subscriptions, no revenue at all.  This stems the tide of people who are making a buck off of other peoples work but allows me to send a friend a song I like.

This is a dangerous medium we are talking about.  The United States of America is founded on freedom.  We need to protect that aspect of our nation.

[Tyler]

Very good points.

I would just like to point out the DVD sales have been up continually over the last few years, in spite of the p2p craze and "free movies off the internet".