I'm not sure a compulsory licensing scheme would necessarily work but there ought to be some framework whereas the claim of infringement is related to actual availability. So if a studio fails to make its content legally available online, it should have no standing if it is made available in some other way until the studio decides to make the content available. Otherwise, one could demonstrate that their failure to provide the content in the first place is what led to it being pirated.
As much as I hate our current IP mess, this doesn't seem like the right answer. I'm saddened I didn't get to see Chuck this season, but it is WB's property. Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to? Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it (obviously not apples-to-apples, but I think it is close enough for this discussion).
I wish I was smart enough to come up with an answer, and I really wish I could consume other's content exclusively on my terms (and I'm more than willing to pay!), but it is their content, not mine. They don't have a God-granted right to make money, and I don't have a God-given right to do anything I want with their content.
Maybe the problem is intractable.
P.S. Most content is available online. People just don't like the terms (I'm one of them!). If this kind of a law came to fruition, it would be trivial for all content to be available. You just have to pay (even more) outrageous fees for it.
P.P.S. I am not a supporter of our current IP laws in any way (see my comment history). I just think the argument can't be solved until both sides are communicating and not talking past each other.
Why should they be forced into giving me their content in a way they don't want to?
Take a step back: the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works. Assigning property rights to ideas is the means, not the end. If we believe compulsory licenses would ultimately promote the creation of more works, that trumps any property rights argument.
Would you be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release it's source code, you are ok to hack into their site to get it [...]
No, but I would be OK with the government saying "if a company won't release its source code, you are free to reverse engineer it."
"""the purpose of intellectual property law is to promote the creation of works"""
Perhaps the whole problem would go (almost) away if IP terms were made a reasonable length again. No, I don't think so, either, but it should still happen. Copyright started at 14 years in the US. As distribution got better, it should have gotten shorter not longer.
Maybe we really are reaching a point that IP should not be protected by law anymore. Coca Cola has kept their formula secret for over a hundred years. Many companies do not patent certain pieces of information, preferring to keep them trade secrets. The fashion industry never had IP protection (beyond trademarks that apply to everybody).
This would mean 37 Signals can get angry about somebody using their design (like they (any clothing designer) did) but they would have no legal recourse to do anything. I don't know if 37 Signals has any legal plans, but it would surprise me (a lot...who wants that kind of distracting mess? Oh, wait, Apple seems to). Personally, as much as I love my iPhone, I couldn't care less if Cupertino no longer had a foundation (outside of trademark, which still has value, IMO) to sue over the iPad's and iPhone's design.
Agreed. For things like pharmaceuticals, where there are lives in the balance, absolutely. But for all the hullabaloo and crap that the MPAA throws up about its industry, it's still entertainment.
Just as nuking the internet isn't an acceptable way to deal with the MPAA's problems, dampening property rights isn't a responsible way for me to insist on watching my TV shows (no matter how tempting it gets).
your analogy to breaking into a site is very valid here, which gives me pause.
But one way I would look at it is that if, let's say, Apple were to produce a great piece of software and say "you have to come to Cupertino to use it" and then someone broke into the Apple's site and made that piece of software available on a P2P network, would the analogy still be valid?
I agree with you communication between both sides must exist but, in this case, the tech industry is actually providing a number of LEGAL ways for Hollywood to provide its content online (either per subscription or pay-per-view) and Hollywood is still saying "NO". It feels as if only one side is trying to find a compromise here.
Compulsory Licencing of Patents DOES work this way: they MUST offer terms that are reasonable or they can't prevent people from using the patent (for many countries)
"Some countries have "working provisions" that require the invention be exploited in the jurisdiction it covers. Consequences of not working an invention vary from one country to another, ranging from revocation of the patent rights to the awarding of a compulsory license awarded by the courts to a party wishing to exploit a patented invention. The patentee has the opportunity to challenge the revocation or license, but is usually required to provide evidence that the reasonable requirements of the public have been met by the working of invention."
Copyright and Patents aren't property the same way land or chattels are. They're time limited monopolies granted on the works of art.
Here is another compulsory license already in law:
"There are several different compulsory license provisions in United States copyright law , including for non-dramatic musical compositions,[9] public broadcasting,[10] retransmission by cable systems,[11] subscription digital audio transmission,[12] and non-subscription digital audio transmission such as Internet radio.[13] The compulsory license for non-dramatic musical compositions under Section 115 of the Copyright Act of 1976[14] allows a person to distribute a new sound recording of a musical work, if that has been previously distributed to the public, by or under the authority of the copyright owner.[15] There is no requirement that the new recording be identical to the previous work, as the compulsory license includes the privilege of rearranging the work to conform it to the recording artist's interpretation. This does not allow the artist to change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work.[16] In order to take advantage of this compulsory license the recording artist must provide notice and pay a royalty. The notice must be sent to the copyright owner, or if unable to determine the copyright owner, to the Copyright Office, within thirty days of making the recording, but before distributing physical copies. Failure to provide this notice would constitute copyright infringement.[17] In addition to the notice to the copyright owner, the recording artist must pay a royalty to the copyright owner. This royalty is set by three copyright royalty judges.[18] Though the compulsory license allows one to make and distribute physical copies of a song for a set royalty, the owner of the copyright in the underlying musical composition can still control public performance of the work or transmission over the radio.[19] If the underlying musical work is well known, the work can be licensed for public performance through a performance rights organization such as ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC."
Pump the fees higher than anyone is charging now, make the market all about negotiating lower fees while allowing the creativity of everyone to create ways to distribute this content far far far and wide.
Funny thing is I search these services first. If I don't find it, I go to usenet and usually find it. Since it's SSL my ISP doesn't throttle it and the downloads only take maybe 30-50 minutes. Unlike torrents I can watch while it downloads. They really should adopt streaming and move on.
Compulsory licensing seems fundamentally broken in multiple ways. First, it provides an air of legitimacy for the claim that purchasing a copy doesn't automatically provide all the "license" you need to do whatever you want with it. It ought to suffice to purchase as many copies as you simultaneously stream; streaming should not require a magic "streaming license", especially not one that costs more than just buying a copy. And second, the concept of any kind of compulsory transfer of rights for a legislatively fixed amount of money seems fundamentally opposed to the concept of a market, and accepting that in the realm of copyright seems like a dangerous precedent.
It's important to remember that copyright in and of itself is an antifreemarket creation. More specifically, it is a government granted monopoly (about as antifreemarket as you can get). I agree that the idea of compulsory licensing rubs me the wrong way, but pretending that we're actually operating in a freemarket is dangerous too.
It breaks down by studio: Disney, Paramount, and Columbia are purchase-only while Warner, Universal, and Fox are generally anti-Internet. Movies that are available for streaming/rental are indies.
That's not entirely true. Disney is not anti-streaming. They appear to be anti new release streaming. Toy Story 1 and 2 are available for rent. So is Cars 2. Curiously Monsters Inc is not so its still a little random.
Sorry. I should have specified that the list was based on availability in the US iTunes store. Another oddity someone pointed to is that "Scott Pilgrim vs. the world" is on the iTunes OK store too but when I checked it wasn't in the US one (it's a fact that annoys me as I'd be happy to buy that one :) )
