Bangkokpost Editorial

[bartender100]

Hope Alan Darson does not mind me posting here,it would be ironic if he did,sorry its long,but if you are interested in this type of thing its a good read

COMMENT / INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

Entertaining ideas of greed

The entertainment industry likes to hold things back, yet inevitably profits when they move forward

By ALAN DAWSON

If you are under 35, you probably grew up with a video player and recorder attached to a television set in your home _ it may still be there _ and used it for recording shows so you could watch them at a more convenient time, or because you weren't home when they showed. You certainly watched movies on it, rented or bought or traded.

Yet if the movie, music and television companies of the 1970s had got their way, videotape machines would not exist today. These businesses sued Sony Corp in a number of courts to ban the new technology because it was clear that many people would use video recorders to make copies of movies from the TV screen and from their friends' tapes. This would mean no one would go to movies any longer, and the entertainment industry would die.

In the landmark court case, the US Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that people had the right to use the new video machines and Sony had the right to sell them. Then three things occurred. Sony's Betamax video machines flopped and VHS video became the standard. The sales of videos and music and TV advertising grew at a record pace, and more people went to the cinema than ever. And Sony became a ``content'' company, producing music and movies and TV shows, only to become a major litigant in the landmark case of internet copying in 2005 _ a demand that the US Supreme Court make file-sharing over the internet illegal.

The entertainment industry has in fact launched lawsuits at every stage of technology in the past 100 years. The industry sued to make radios illegal because people would not go out to listen to live music any longer. It sued to make car radios illegal, recorded TV shows illegal, the showing of movies on TV illegal. A long series of lawsuits argued that jukeboxes would be the death of the entertainment business. And so on.

Four years ago, the Recording Industry Association of America sued a small company called Rio, intimidating it into stop making a small and portable machine that could copy and replay digital music. Rio went out of business. Apple Computer began making such machines, a decision that turned into the iPod and boosted sales of music by 100 million songs at the Apple iTunes website alone, making millions of extra dollars for the music industry, and in some rare cases even for the artists who wrote and recorded the music.

Now on April 26, the entertainment industry and its highly paid lobby will declare World Intellectual Property (Wipo) Day. You will be instructed to support copyright, oppose piracy, and also, as the Wipo lobbyists put it, ``mount an essay competition in local schools'', or ``organise workshops on how businesses... can benefit'' and, of course, ``work with local newspapers to publish editorials encouraging respect for the rights of creators''.

These are all worthy tasks. Pushing your newspaper for another editorial is even logical. We depend on copyright to make a living, after all. You may steal this newspaper and get away with it, but you cannot successfully steal and reprint and sell this newspaper's content.

But here are some other ideas on how you can celebrate International Wipo Day, which even has its own website at tinyurl.com/6dgrp. In fact, you can start by organising a discussion on ``How does this Wipo website and posters and proclaimed days exist?''. Wipo says it is a UN-specialised agency with 1,000 employees, several diverse tasks and ``largely self-financed''.

Discuss the meaning of this term. Investigate whether Wipo produces any income, or whether it only uses money. Speculate whether any of this money comes from the entertainment industry and thus does not go to the starving artists and authors mentioned in the editorials.

Kamal Idris, the head of Wipo, has a glowing tribute to intellectual property idealism. ``Our goal for World Intellectual Property Day and beyond should be to encourage young people everywhere to recognise... the artist within themselves. From the classrooms of today will come the entrepreneurs, the scientists, the designers, the artists of tomorrow. Wipo is committed to promoting a culture in which young people can realise this potential.''

Excellent words. Wipo itself is not quite that open or open-minded. At two Wipo meetings this month, all 182 member nations will discuss intellectual property enforcement and its effect on development, and on developing countries. Mr Idris and his board decided to bar participation by the top experts in the field: public interest groups. They are not permanently accredited by Wipo, and apparently it is a full-time job to observe the UN body if you want to give your opinion about its work.

The European office of the watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation said the decision is a backdoor slap at consumers. ``Without the public interest organisations, the discussions will be heavily weighted towards major motion picture studios, broadcasters, pharmaceutical giants and other powerful interests that want to expand copyright and patent law.''

The always puckish Need To Know internet journal suggests those who support copyright hold book-burning parties on April 26. No, not that kind; ``burn'' some of the tens of thousands of wonderful books out of copyright on to CDs so others can read them for free. Get some of the most popular at www.Gutenberg.org.

Get on the internet and visit two new websites. At Peer Impact, you can download music and get discounts if you let other people download from you. Ourmedia.org actually encourages Mr Idris' young people to recognise the artist within themselves by letting them post their music, videos, writings and other intellectual property to let others share it.

The purpose of intellectual property rights is nowhere better defined than in the American constitution, which states authors and inventors should enjoy exclusive rights for a limited time only, because the value of IP is ``to promote the progress of science and useful arts''.

Record companies receive profits for taking a chance on new artists, but they do not have the right to those profits forever. That is not intellectual, only greedy.

The entertainment industry has attempted to ban every new technology since the megaphone. They have failed, thankfully, and every new technology has brought new customers and higher sales to the entertainment industry _ no exception. If the US Supreme Court shuts or muzzles the peer-to-peer file-sharing, then the entertainment business will tighten its grip, increase control, but lose customers and sales.

And if the ban succeeds, then current technology like the iPod and TiVo digital recorders will fade and die, and no further development will take place.

Pirates use internet peer-to-peer services without doubt, and for now probably are the biggest users. If you are over 30 you remember when pirates were the biggest suppliers for Thailand's video recorders and players. But pirates also use Bangkok office buildings and street stalls, killers use knives, wife-beaters use football boots and bank robbers use computers. Banning the technology won't prevent the crime. BANGKOK POST

[stumonster]

The entertainment industry has in fact launched lawsuits at every stage of technology in the past 100 years. The industry sued to make radios illegal because people would not go out to listen to live music any longer. It sued to make car radios illegal, recorded TV shows illegal, the showing of movies on TV illegal. A long series of lawsuits argued that jukeboxes would be the death of the entertainment business. And so on.

Except now america has FTA's which will allow the companies to wield their sticks outside the boundries of the USofA

Now on April 26, the entertainment industry and its highly paid lobby will declare World Intellectual Property (Wipo) Day.

they should have made it April 1st

[waldwolf]

I've always found that those who attempt to dictate policy, for personal gain, usually end up the loser.

In the early days of television, most movie companies refused to allow their films to be broadcast, as they feared people would stop going to theaters (cinemas). That didn't happen.

Same occured when cable TV came out. That didn't happen.

Same occured when first home VCR's came out. That didn't happen.

Music industry sales declined 15-20% following the demise of the original Napster and like P2P systems. Today, many industry insiders reluctently admit music sales were actually helped by those P2P services.

And.....as for movies in general.......today, 60% of motion picture industry profits come from video sales, with less than 40% profit coming from movie theaters, TV or associated product (toys, etc.) sales.

Many times, one can end up ones "worst enemy".