| Prendergast & Keating on IP: A Response |
 |
 |
|
I welcome their responses in this or any forum. They assert: "Most people understand the need to reward artists and innovators for their creations and to respect the rights of companies to patent their innovations. Unfortunately, intellectual property rights are under attack here in the United States and abroad. We are all too familiar with the stories of bootleg DVDs on the street in Shanghai and the rampant use of pirated software. According to some reports, almost 98 percent of the software used in some former Soviet republics is pirated...." I already think his views are suspect, and have the suspician that he is either grossly uninformed on this issue or is engaging in mis-information. This is because he intentionally (or ignorantly) decided to equate non-commercial downloading/distro/possession with the VERY commercial act of bootlegging DVDs (i.e. - forgeries made to sell). While an argument can be made that they are both illegal (or should be), there are still not the same thing. They assert: "Countries that don't take measures to protect IP put their economy at risk. And those that support ideas that undermine IP, such as mandating the exclusive use of Open Source Software over commercial software, do the same..." Straw-man. Open Source software is not necessarily opposed to commercial software. In fact, there is nothing that says Open Source need be free of charge. It is only necessarily "free" in the sense that one has open access to the source code so that one can alter/improve the software. Nothing stops anyone from selling it. They assert: "Prendergast examines open-source advocate Richard Stallmans arguments for Cyber-socialism... I am unaware of Mr. Stallman referring to his politics as "socialism" (cyber or otherwise). One can assume (since he digs Kucinich) that he tilts left, but let's drop the name-calling unless we can back it up with facts, boys. The cold-war is over; the "red scare" is far less useful than it used to be, but the disingenuousness of using such a tactic stands as strong as ever. That said, I care little for whether he is a socialist or not. His view is "socialist" only in the sense that their retort is "classist" or "imperialist". These words have no meaning here. Let's discuss the issue rather than trying to couch someone's views in easily holed catagories which do nothing to add enlightenment...and infact work against any real understanding. They assert: "(Stallman) seems to feel that anyone with a CD burner has a right to duplicate commercial CDs as long as he gives them away free, never mind the royalty rights of the recording artists or the investment of the recording companies..." Assuming this correctly outlines Richard's views, it is yet another disingenuous remark. I will address the various revenue streams of artists & labels in a forthcoming piece (and have outlined some below), but I suspect the information I will provide is nothing new to the authors. They assert: (quoting Stallman) "There has to be a minimum freedom that everyone must always have for any kind of written or artistic work," he said in a recent interview in Asia. "And that is the freedom to non-commercially distribute exact copies." Now let's think about that for a moment. Imagine that I've got a million copies of the new U2 CD that I just copied at home. According to Stallman's definition of freedom, I've got the right to do that and hand them out free to people outside stores that sell CDs. This might be a bonanza for the U2 fans passing by that day, but it would trample on the intellectual property rights of the band and it sure wouldnt encourage U2 to create another CD anytime soon...." Again, he is clearly mistaken. 1) Artists will create regardless of financial incentives. MOST artists create with ZERO hope of financial gain, and it has always been that way. 2) As an example: Madonna, despite low CD sales (I assume in reference to her re-mix collection, not her 2003 release "American Life") that had critics & record execs stating publicly that her career was drawing to a close, just completed her world tour a bit ago. Guess what? It was the most financially successful tour of 2004. Billboard reported her tour topped the charts, earning over $125 million. Prince, who hasn't had a top seller in years, was in second place with tour receipts bringing him in at over $90 million. So much for their careers being over... ...and so much for artists stacking all their financial incentive on CD sales. I wonder how much U2 will pull down in CD sales, and by comparison, how much they will take in from touring, publishing, merchandising, mechanical rights, and the like. They assert: "Likewise, the innovators in the U.S. information technology industry won't be encouraged to roll out new generations of technology if we trade away the value of their intellectual property and replace it with the philosophy of people like Stallman. Oddly enough, the next site I trekked over to had an article on IP, too. Townhall.com featured Intellectual Property and the International Marketplace, written by Raymond J. Keating, who is Chief Economist with the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. Keating begins his work by pointing out the chief irony that Mel Gibsons Passion was one of the most pirated movies globally... " Hard to argue that "piracy" hurts the market when Gibson's movie raked in around $700 million in 2004. Anyone seen total income from this one, including theater, VHS/DVD rentals, sales, broadcast rights, etc....not to mention ancillary income (movie soundtrack & merchandising, for example)? They asert: "Such theft is rampant in Russia, where nine out of every 10 DVDs and six out of every 10 CDs sold are counterfeit copies..." Stop right there. Again, we seem to be equating non-commercial file-sharing with commercial forgery & counterfeiting. Must we continue to build straw men? Can we not have a sensible, reasonable, and (most importantly) honest discussion of the issue? They assert: "And he quotes Kamil Idris, the director general of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on how IP benefits society (even the world): The premise underlying IP throughout its history has been that the recognition and rewards associated with ownership of inventions and creative works stimulate further inventive and creative activity that, in turn, stimulates economic growth..." It was none other than Thomas Jefferson (among others) who attacked this premise. The simple fact is that anyone who believes this is not an artist. While artists might like the idea of earning a living with their art (and many do), the reality is that the notion of copyright or even financial incentive has nothing to do with artists creating their art. While a handful of politicians may wish to disagree with me, I stand on the side of every artist who has labored for bliss: from the cave painters to the minstrels to the GNU free developers to the weekend garage bands. Sometimes we can turn our love into occupation while more often than not it remains avocation. But we create none-the-less. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites          Add your comment
|
||||
