Monday, June 27, 2005

Look Out Grokster

The Supreme Court made it's decision today in the case which pits file-sharing kingpin Grokster against Film Industry Reps. Normally, I am opposed to legislation which has the potential to limit technological development, while being in favor of prosecuting individuals who use that technology for illegal purposes. However, it is important to be clear on exactly what the court has said in this case. They have not ruled against Grokster explicitly. They have only opened to door for Grokster to be sued, if and only if, it can be proved that Grokster intended to promote the use of it's products for illegal activities. The burden of proof is still on the plaintiff to demonstrate that this was Grokster's intent. This makes sense to me. If I drive you to the bank, and tell you that robbing banks is fun and profitable, put a gun in your hand, and give you the combination to the vault, I am just as liable, if you choose to rob that bank. The gun or the car manufacturer is not. There is a differentiation, and it needs to be respected.
Go make some back-up copies of your favorite DVD for your own personal use. Convert your CD collection for use on a new digital device. You should have those rights. But if you haven't purchased your own copy of the newest DVD, don't go surfing for it on Grokster. The hundreds of artists who worked on that film deserve to make a living too. Most of them aren't millionaires. All but a few of them are average people, just like you.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Problem is: how much of a $12 cd is going net to the musician's pocket and how much ends up in the Labels' pocket?
The prices of cd's are inflated; Too expensive for teenage kids, the biggest buying group still; adults don't buy so much relatively. Production costs are cheaper than ever with computers and samples. Pressing dvd's and distribution could be substituted for online distribution like iTunes. The problem is there's only one price for different sized wallets...

12:52 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

1.) CD's - not as much, the artists get a better share of concert ticket sales, I believe. However, CD sales are still very important for their on-going career potential; DVD's - more so, especially with Independent film where sometimes every crew member down to the last PA is working n a back-end deal. Piracy still hurts everyone, regardless of how many actual dollars and cents go to them from each sale. It's the collectly sales that justify salaries.

2.) For what you get, CD's are not over inflated. If the average price of a CD kept up with inflation, it would have been $33.86 in 1996, instead of the actual $12.75. And production costs are not necesarily cheaper, the money is just moving into different categories. Most of the cost of getting a CD to you is in Marketing and distribution, which has gotten much more expensive. 95% of CD's never turn a profit. It's the few that do hit big that pay for all the rest, and these are the ones most frequently pirated.

3.) Since when was anything sold at a different price for a different sized wallet? Unless you're being governemnt subsidized, and I don't think you'll be able to buy your new Eminem CD with welfare food stamps anytime soon. In any case, even if CD's were overpriced, it doesn't justify stealing. You don't need CDs to survive.

Also, just to clarify, I'm only talking about entertianment products. I don't believe that educational materials, including book or software, etc, should be subject to prohibitive copyright laws. I'm a big proponent of the open-source software movement, for example.

1:11 PM  
Blogger Matt said...

I really wish Blogger would add a spell check feature to the comments section, like they do for my normal posts. My own typing pathetic-ness annoys me. Sorry. I hope you can figure out what I'm trying to say. Is collectly a word? That should have come out as 'collectively.' Blah...

1:14 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home