Tehranian does something I've been hoping someone would do for years: break down how much copyright infringement one person takes part in on a given day. His conclusion? $12.45 million worth. Yes, that says million.
Anderson sums it up best:
"Tehranian's paper points out just how pervasive copyright has become in our lives. Simply checking one's e-mail and including the full text in response could be a violation of copyright. So could a tattoo on Tehranian's shoulder of Captain Caveman–and potential damages escalate when Tehranian takes off his shirt at the university pool and engages in public performance of an unauthorized copyrights work.
Singing 'Happy Birthday' at a restaurant (unauthorized public performance) and capturing the event on a video camera (unauthorized reproduction) could increase his liability, and that's to say nothing of the copyrights artwork hanging on the wall behind the dinner table (also captured without authorization by the camera)."
Tehranian really just does a wonderful job in showing the absolute lunacy of some of our nation's copyright laws. Take, for example, playing music on a personal music play, such as an iPod. According to our copyright law, by pressing the play button (keep in mind that this is whether or not there are even earphones, speakers, or anything of the sort plugged in) you have just begun a public performance of that music and, unless you have permission to do so, you have broken U.S. copyright law.
Just think about that for a second: listening to music (which presumably you paid for) on a personal music player, even when no one else can hear, is technically a crime.
Of course, society has evolved beyond these idiotic laws and it has become a societal norm to break these particular statutes. But how then can we complain about the downloading of music as copyright infringement? If the recording companies are going to complain about one form of infringement, shouldn't they complain about all of them?
Now, I know that it's quite a jump from listening to your iPod to downloading from LimeWire, but please forgive my sentiment. I find the arguments of the recording companies and movie studios utterly lacking in true reason for the prosecution of downloaders. I think the downloading of music and movies is used much more as a previewing system than a circumvention system.
Let's take an action blockbuster, for example, 300. Let's say I have a fixed budget (which, presumably, most college students–the main group under investigation–do) and I just don't know if I can spend $14 (and they say we're stealing from them) to see a movie at the AMC down the street. If I download 300 from LimeWire and watch it and enjoy it, I'm going to go spend those $14, because I'll want to see it in a clear version (because no download is film quality) on a large screen with surround sound. But if I don't enjoy it, why should I spend $14 to see it in the theater? If I buy a film at Best Buy and I don't like it, I can return it. But theaters don't have refund policies.
And I know what some of you are saying: "Well, buyer beware." You know what? That's exactly what I'm doing. I'm protecting my investment in a movie or film.
I mean, if you're getting so upset over $14, why not go after the $12.45 million?
--
j.
No comments:
Post a Comment