Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: NY Times editorial on Napster & ilk
Author: Russell Lipton Posted: 6/11/2000; 12:32:10 PM Topic: NY Times editorial on Napster & ilk Msg #: 17721 (In response to 17720) Prev/Next: 17720 / 17722
I find myself agreeing with some of the writer's positions but finding his statement of the facts ambiguously accurate, at best.I don't find Lessig's books or articles to be anti-copyright. True, he believes copyright law is on the verge of jumping the cliff - so?
And why does "transmission want to be free"? Is he referring to AOL or other ISPs? Phone lines? Satellite dishes? Postal carriers? Delivery boys on bicycles? Aside from NetZero and compatriots, I haven't noticed a revolution in transmission costs. Someone clue me in, pls.
It is true that the Internet has temporarily scrambled some distribution monopolies, the music mafioso among them. Distribution channels will find a new level of readjustment based on reasonable value arrangements between the players as they better understand the medium.
The Internet may perhaps (despite the hype, I know as a writer that the jury is still out) enable some of us to reach our audiences directly but that ain't no easy trick. Distribution expertise commands a legitimate price.
Meanwhile, information does not want to be free, but it would be nice if it were re-valued according to the dynamics of this new medium. The real disconnect is not with copyright but with a new perspective on those "values". Not surprisingly, "values" that seemed defensible in print or TV media feel "out of balance" on the Internet. Give it time.
The copyright issue is moot in the sense that the Net does not alter the requirements for fair protection of creative content. What does "fair" mean here on the Net? We'll hammer it out over the next twenty years - that's life.
Meanwhile, I vote for opening up distribution channels that suit this medium (thanks, Userland). I vote for tools that make it easy for writers, film auteurs and musicians to create content for these channels (thanks, Manila and others).
And, I vote for as much reasonable flexibility as possible for me to determine how restrictive or open my content should be to others. If I (or Metallica) want to shut access, why is that anyone's (or Napster's?) business? Whose intellectual property is it anyway?
(Cf the ambiguous brouhaha about open source software).
Whether Metallica is stupid for taking this position is another matter. I think they're stupid. But I believe they are stupidly within their rights.
In that sense, Napster, as Rothstein points out, is taking a bit of a sly road - and university students are gleefully ripping off all the intellectual property they can in the name of anarchy.
Finally, the design and networking principles behind Napster and work-alikes are a different story. Cool. They are not incompatible with reasonable, fair copyright protections, or with "transmitters", distributors, authors and readers negotiating a finite but flexible range of mutually beneficial value arrangements.
aka HeadDuffer
duffer.editthispage.com
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:55:21 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.