State of Mind of The Art

I received a question regarding my last post:

How does this give the RIAA a way to use pre-texting to go after file sharers… can you explain the process to me?

Here’s the reply:

This part is US Code Title 17 sentence two:

“For purposes of this chapter … any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a)”

And here’s the proposed amendment: “except that the court in its discretion may determine that such parts are separate works if the court concludes that they are distinct works having independent economic value.”

This ambiguously termed and open ended amendment is not accidentally constructed. It allows sterilization of any argument against the proposition, because any use is speculative, and cannot be proved.  The only place this exception will show itself is in a courtroom, where the RIAA and MPAA are lobbying for stronger tactics in chasing file sharers.

If musical works and movies get deemed patents, intellectual property, or trade secrets instead of being covered under Copyright Law, then the RIAA and MPAA will push for the strongest possible protection of their intellectual property.  In an environment like this, they will be using any tactics (including pretexting) to pursue anyone who shares media.  Courts are becoming more concerned about invasion of privacy inside of copyrights.  They don’t have those concerns around giving Microsoft the right to protect source code, or Coca Cola’s formula.

My interpretation is that if a court finds a distinct (singular) musical work to have “independent economic value”, then the work is not necessarily covered by Copyright Law.  Major media companies would have a loophole to argue in court that the albums they own are not applicable to the particular rights of US Copyright Law.  They would then be able to argue for the legal protections that exist for other types of intellectual property.

Between positioning themselves as black box royalty collection for internet media and dismantling our right to share music, these major media companies are trying to to transform entertainment and art into a product.  As their catalogs of media are viewed as products instead of self expression, the right to pursue theft of their property grows.  It’s the same downward trend we see in freedom of speech.

The moral high ground stands with the public in a conversation about copyrights.  Once the conversation shifts into a more patent based or product based context, the legal arguments on how far companies can go to protect themselves shifts.  Altering the context of music and movies changes their legal existence.

Thanks for tuning in!

Spotted on: Passably News:

Have you ever heard of Pretexting? It’s a manipulation technique often used to fool organizations into disclosing private information. In December of 2006, a California Law was proposed: “…any person…obtaining or attempting to obtain…personal information about a customer or employee contained in the records of a business …by making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or representations…”. Although the bill was unanimously endorsed by members of the CA Senate, the MPAA stepped in and had the bill killed (see Wired Magazine, “MPAA Kills Anti-Pretexting Bill”, 12/1/06). To put it simply, the MPAA and RIAA demand the right to lie to us in the name of Copyright Protection.

It seems the RIAA and MPAA are willing to allow privacy laws to deteriorate for all of us to protect their profit margins. The question on my mind is: Why should the MPAA and RIAA get special freedoms to prosecute people for file sharing?

Back in 2003, the MPAA and RIAA filed for a permanent Antitrust exemption. The bill was sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch. It contains a revision to The Copyright Laws of the US in Title 17 of the US Code. Here’s the revised copyright law of the US according this (thankfully non-passed) bill by Sen. Hatch (the revision is underlined):

For purposes of this chapter … any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a) except that the court in its discretion may determine that such parts are separate works if the court concludes that they are distinct works having independent economic value.

These are the tactics of the MPAA and RIAA are using to transform entertainment. Creating exceptions to copyright laws and the having legal permissions to lie, cheat, and sue us into buying media for the prices they set, and in the forms they dictate.

21st century entertainment is not based on mafia style coercion by transnational media conglomerates. An outdated business model cannot survive by excusing themselves form laws the rest of us have to follow. Corporations are legally recognized as people. People cannot have laws rewritten for their personal benefit.

Polyvibe Records‘ response is our forward thinking business model. We do not take our artists’ copyrights. Our prices are set by the perceived value of our audience. Our digital albums are 100% MP3. And best of all, we make sure our artists’ are taken care of financially and personally. Taking copyrights from artists, then prosecuting others for sharing them is in the past. The future is ours.