Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!
Log In to post a reply
24 messages
View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

revox
revox
800 posts

Re: Youtube vids increased Monty Python DVD sales by 23,000% on Amazon !!!

hito wrote:
revox wrote:

...The point is, the item has been bought in a legitimate transaction and, just as you may loan your own genuine original of a cd, lp, tape to someone else, the library has the same privilege.

However, a library is not accountable for unlawful copying of items that are 'loaned out', any copying and sale or distribution of books, cds, tapes etc by a member of the public carries certain penalties - this is especially the case for individuals that use the library (public) stock for large scale personal profit by bulk copying (if they are 'caught' of course).
...

Radio stations pay a license fee - I'm not going into detail - a play list is generally created before it is broadcast and a 'royalty' fee is paid via an administrative process.

If a Radio station pays no license fee (pirate) then "'they'" do go after them.

~8^)>


The point is that both radio and libraries allow people to enjoy other people's art for nothing and no-one complains. Whether it has been sanctioned by the powers that be or not is irrelevant.

This thread is about how allowing people to access things for free is not a problem and potentially beneficial. It was not about the legal structures in place that legitimise one form of free consumption over another.

Just because libraries pay for the CD or book that someone borrows does not make its subsequent free consumption any more ethical than an individual who buys and rips a CD then puts it "on" soulseek for all to access. Surely JK Rowling should hate libraries as much as Metallica hated napster.

The point that was being made was that people with a simplistic understanding of marketing have taken it upon themselves to rip stuff off youtube that has been added by nobodies who simply like it. The earlier posts pointed out that this was foolish and futile. Flying Circus showed that youtube was actually beneficial to sales as opposed to the myth of the "pirate" stealing from the poor studios.

The point about libraries and radio is that the free distribution of art has been going on for years but now "they" hate it because they took too long to catch up with the changes in technology and they see every illegal download as a lost sale. On the other hand "they" see radio as good PR and hustle programmers to get their product on the air. To me - and many others - there is a base contradiction here that needs to be exposed.


It isn't 'for nothing', it only appears to be. There are indirect payments made via local taxation of adults or through license fees. The 'powers that be' have made it their business, over a long period of time, to make issues like this irretrievably relevant, irrespective of individual principle or public opinion.

re: what the thread is about - the actual content of the op's link to Monty Python's vids suggests that there is definitely a problem. The streamed vids were made available for reasons stated most obviously, and those reasons do not include the words 'not a problem'. In fact the text from the site, "None of your driveling, mindless comments. Instead, we want you to click on the links, buy our movies & TV shows and soften our pain and disgust at being ripped off all these years.", does not say 'not a problem', to me (and I am familiar with Python's take on humour).

re: libraries paying for books/cds - ethics do not enter into it. Taking most torts into account, ethics takes a very low place when compared to financial harm. Contracts and IP law are complex. JK Rowling, for example, has a contract with a publisher, it is the publisher that determines how much her cut is from outlets such as libraries.

re: the point being made - I am not really clear as to the point being made by the op if, other than to stimulate debate, there was one. The sole point being made seems to be that one in the third response, by yourself. The reply I posted was to outline that there are devices in place to cover radio broadcast and public library stock. I see no posts with regard to content on YouTube added by 'nobodies' that has proven to be 'foolish' or 'futile' - what evidence is there to quantify this?

re: the final point & base contradiction - there are many areas of employment reliable upon each other, distribution, packaging, graphic design etc etc. The promotion of arts on the medium of radio feeds the whole machine: illegal downloads do not. I believe that there is likely to be more of an issue of avoiding torts as a result of graphic designers, printers (the very fonts on our computers have licenses attached to them) and packaging manufacturers using their contracts with corporations to seek recompense for what they may perceive as a lapse in contractual duty to protect the interests of all concerned. It is unlikely to be purely a case of being a 'lost sale'.

Retail outlets are in decline, as more people use the internet to meet their requirements, either knowingly acquiring legal content or not, the future of IP Law is assured and, as with most laws, ignorance of it will be no defence. I think that it is becoming the growth industry of the next 5 years.

~8^)>

Feb 13, 2009, 23:49



________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Topic Outline: