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!
Loading ...