Comments on: The intellectual property racket http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/ The independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:42:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: crankyoldnutcase http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/#comment-910 crankyoldnutcase Sat, 03 Oct 2009 04:16:39 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=4369#comment-910 The answer is The Pirate Party. All of the other parties depend on "Entertainment Industry" funds to help get elected, and therefore you end up with things like the DMCA in the US or Bill C61 in Canada. The only political party dedicated to restoring the traditional balance between consumer and creator rights is the Pirate Party. If you want change, volunteer for them, write articles about them, donate money to them (the RIAA and the MPAA sure won't) and vote for them. The answer is The Pirate Party. All of the other parties depend on “Entertainment Industry” funds to help get elected, and therefore you end up with things like the DMCA in the US or Bill C61 in Canada.

The only political party dedicated to restoring the traditional balance between consumer and creator rights is the Pirate Party. If you want change, volunteer for them, write articles about them, donate money to them (the RIAA and the MPAA sure won’t) and vote for them.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Scott http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/#comment-878 Scott Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:39:28 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=4369#comment-878 These kind of licences began as a system to regulate the way businesses charge each other, they were never intended to be interpersonal The above story is a classic example of a business law being used in a context where it doesn't belong and was never intended to be. The licence in question makes perfect sense to regulate a business that shows films (the if-you're-making-money-from-our-stuff-then-we-want-a-cut principle) but a bunch of people watching their own DVDs together is not the same thing by any stretch. This kind of EULA on goods is preposterously counterintuitive and anti-consumer. Would it seem ok if you were told that you could only share the food you buy with certain people, or groups no larger than five? It's just sad that reasonable and normal sharing of legally purchased goods suddenly turns into illegal activity once you past an arbitrary amount. FWIW: I only know the details of the story from this article, but I'm curious to know if the club was shutdown by Disney (or its representatives), or by the university because they worried about lawsuits from Disney. These kind of licences began as a system to regulate the way businesses charge each other, they were never intended to be interpersonal The above story is a classic example of a business law being used in a context where it doesn’t belong and was never intended to be. The licence in question makes perfect sense to regulate a business that shows films (the if-you’re-making-money-from-our-stuff-then-we-want-a-cut principle) but a bunch of people watching their own DVDs together is not the same thing by any stretch.

This kind of EULA on goods is preposterously counterintuitive and anti-consumer. Would it seem ok if you were told that you could only share the food you buy with certain people, or groups no larger than five? It’s just sad that reasonable and normal sharing of legally purchased goods suddenly turns into illegal activity once you past an arbitrary amount.

FWIW: I only know the details of the story from this article, but I’m curious to know if the club was shutdown by Disney (or its representatives), or by the university because they worried about lawsuits from Disney.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: senshikaze http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/#comment-877 senshikaze Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:19:42 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=4369#comment-877 So, CB, what constitutes a large group? 10? 15? 100? There is no reason I couldn't play a film at my house and have a group of friends, of any size, over and watch it. This is IP law for the rich. This "large" group of people more then likely either alreadyown the film or weren't going to buy it, either way Disney wouldn't be getting any more money than they already have. All this is doing to destroying the fair use rights we all have to legally purchase goods. So, CB, what constitutes a large group? 10? 15? 100? There is no reason I couldn’t play a film at my house and have a group of friends, of any size, over and watch it. This is IP law for the rich. This “large” group of people more then likely either alreadyown the film or weren’t going to buy it, either way Disney wouldn’t be getting any more money than they already have. All this is doing to destroying the fair use rights we all have to legally purchase goods.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: kingstu http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/#comment-874 kingstu Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:05:15 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=4369#comment-874 "In the end, the movie companies are just trying to make a profit and pay the set designers, directors, producers, etc." Where does it end? They made money with theatre showings. They made money selling rights to pay per view. They made money selling DVDs. They made money selling rights to TV. They made money licensing merchandise. They made money renting DVDs (usually revenue sharing with rental companies). If the studios could enforce it, they would charge each DVD owner a per viewing charge. It’s time to inject some sanity in the IP debate. “In the end, the movie companies are just trying to make a profit and pay the set designers, directors, producers, etc.”

Where does it end? They made money with theatre showings. They made money selling rights to pay per view. They made money selling DVDs. They made money selling rights to TV. They made money licensing merchandise. They made money renting DVDs (usually revenue sharing with rental companies).

If the studios could enforce it, they would charge each DVD owner a per viewing charge. It’s time to inject some sanity in the IP debate.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: CB http://www.studlife.com/forum/2009/09/21/the-intellectual-property-racket/#comment-720 CB Tue, 22 Sep 2009 05:02:51 +0000 http://www.studlife.com/?p=4369#comment-720 DMAC was a great club, but you can't blame the licensing rights. The club wasn't stealing anything from Disney, but they were showing the movies to large audiences using just a DVD, which are sold under the agreement that it'll be for private use. In the end, the movie companies are just trying to make a profit and pay the set designers, directors, producers, etc. DMAC was a great club, but you can’t blame the licensing rights. The club wasn’t stealing anything from Disney, but they were showing the movies to large audiences using just a DVD, which are sold under the agreement that it’ll be for private use. In the end, the movie companies are just trying to make a profit and pay the set designers, directors, producers, etc.

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>