Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
At present the suit is just a few bands but is seeking class-action status, which could lead to a lot of artists claiming that they didn't get their rightful shares. Specific charges are that Sony has been passing on a mere 4.5 cents of its 70 cent take from selling a downloaded single. Claimants The Allman Brothers and Cheap Trick assert that they were due to get 30 cents.
The question of whether the higher rate is due depends on whether you think the download is more like a license for use (such as in a movie or TV show) - expensive - or more like a CD sale - cheap. The artists claim the former; Sony is claiming the latter.
At this point, those of you who have been following along should be sitting up like me and saying "Wait, isn't the point of the DRM on downloaded tunes precisely to enforce licensing terms?" And "Wait, isn't the consumer complaint about DRM that it restricts them from doing with downloaded music what they're allowed to do with CD tracks? Hmmmm. Seems to me that's pretty much de facto evidence that the download is indeed much more like the license for use than it is like the CD. If in court the plaintiffs use and the judge buys this reasoning it's going to be sweet irony.
If a person receives a legitimate copy, any license they receive in addition can only grant them MORE freedom than copyright otherwise removes.
Unless, of course, the punter enters into a contract to reduce their freedom even more than copyright does.
E.g. I hereby consent to receive this copy (or single-work performance device) on the basis it remains the property of the vendor, that it is only loaned to me, signed: a contemptuously deceived punter.
1. Crosbie Fitch on April 30, 2006 5:58 AM writes...
If a person receives a legitimate copy, any license they receive in addition can only grant them MORE freedom than copyright otherwise removes.
Unless, of course, the punter enters into a contract to reduce their freedom even more than copyright does.
E.g. I hereby consent to receive this copy (or single-work performance device) on the basis it remains the property of the vendor, that it is only loaned to me, signed: a contemptuously deceived punter.
Permalink to Comment