French Showbiz Fears “Sovietization” of the Arts

From the desk of Chresten Anderson on Fri, 2005-12-30 12:47

The French government tried to crack down on digital piracy but the plan backfired last week. The government had proposed that people caught pirating copy-protected material would face $360,000 in fines and up to three years in jail. A parliamentary committee of the French National Assembly, however, endorsed amendments to reverse the legislation by legalizing the online sharing of music and movies rather than punishing it.

French consumers, like all other European consumers, have the right to make copies of their music and videos for private use. This was not enough for French consumer groups, who pressured lawmakers to amend the government’s proposal. The government had proposed to give illegal downloaders two warnings prior to prosecution. Instead, the endorsed parliamentary amendments legalize file-sharing by anyone paying a monthly royalties duty estimated at $8.50.

France’s largest consumer group, UFC-Que Choisir, says that the new proposal will create a “new area of freedom allowing Internet users access to cultural diversity and fair payment for creators.”

The use of the word “fair” with regard to payment for any product should set off alarms for any supporter of free markets and private property. Usually it means that governments set prices. According to Bernard Miyet, president of the French music composers’ and publishers’ organization SACEM, “You’re talking about an administered price, set by a commission without regard to the music and film economy.” He said the proposed royalties duty amounts to a “Sovietization” of the arts because the industry would have to agree.

A song on Apple’s I-tunes costs 99 cents, hence the proposed monthly royalties would cover app. 9 songs at the market price. French actors and musicians say that the legalization of the downloading of music at next to no cost will kill their work. Music labels and movie distributors argue that the amendments are in violation of international intellectual property laws.

Normally people who buy a CD or a DVD movie engage in a contract with the seller not to re-distribute this material. This is the basics of the copyright protection of music. If you do not like that contract, you do not buy the CD. It is that simple! The French government, however, sought to target the downloaders, most of whom would probably know that the music is pirated. The people who should be punished are the sharers, because they are the ones who violate the contract.

The parliamentary amendments, however, are not yet final. The final vote in the plenary session of the National Assembly is not expected until after Jan. 17, when deputies return from their winter break, while the Senate will also have to approve it. If, however, France accepts the amended bill it will mean the death of France’s music and audiovisual industries. And it will not be capitalism that has killed it, as some French cultural protectionists have been warning for decades, but the “sovietization of the arts.”

The problem with copyright

Submitted by dof (not verified) on Sun, 2006-01-01 10:05.

The problem with copyright is not so much moral as practical: how do you enforce copyright if the tools of reproduction are moved from factories to individual homes?

Add to that various levies on empty media (in Belgium 0.59 for a DVD and 0.12 for a CD) and the individual consumer is likely to get the impression he is allowed to make copies, given the fact that he has allready been taxed.

Copying, Distributing, and Copyright Law

Submitted by Don Rosenberg (not verified) on Sat, 2005-12-31 21:08.

In US copyright law there is no contract when you buy a book or a CD: there is only copyright law. The license of the book (or CD) publisher from the copyright holder gives him the right to publish the work (copy and distribute the work). The publisher paid the copyright holder a fee for this license.

The copyright holder did not give you those rights when you bought the copy of the book or CD in the store. If you publish (for example, make mp3s of the CD and post them on the Internet for others) you are infringing the copyright holders rights because you are publishing without a license from him. Likewise, if you publicly perform the CD in your restaurant you are infringing the copyright unless you pay a license fee to the recording industry cartel that administers fees for radio, restaurants, concerts, etc.

Under copyright law, the doctrine of Fair Use allows you to make copies for your own use; a court can decide how many copies and how they are used if the copyright holder charges you with copyright infringement. Publishing the work in question is of course not Fair Use.

P2P mp3 publishers are copyright infringers. But the French government is make the same sort arrangement for them that we in the US have for radio stations: if you pay the In US copyright law there is no contract when you buy a book or a CD: there is only copyright law. The license of the book (or CD) publisher from the copyright holder gives him the right to publish the work (copy and distribute the work). The publisher paid the copyright holder a fee for this license.

P2P mp3 publishers are copyright infringers. But the French government is making the same sort arrangement for them that we in the US have for radio stations: if you pay the requisite fees, you may freely use the music on your radio station. In France, if you pay the fees you can have a P2P music node. The rub will be in the distribution of those fees to the copyright holders by the cartel or other authority. Will the little people be fairly paid, and how will they be able to tell?

--dkr

Mozart vs. Beethoven

Submitted by Cogito on Fri, 2005-12-30 20:53.

I think though that copyright is counterproductive.
Mozart wrote 44 symphonies.
Then the copyright was invented.
Beethoven only wrote 9, and didn't even finish them.

no such thing as a contract

Submitted by dof (not verified) on Fri, 2005-12-30 15:07.

"Normally people who buy a CD or a DVD movie engage in a contract with the seller not to re-distribute this material. This is the basics of the copyright protection of music. If you do not like that contract, you do not buy the CD. It is that simple!"

Well, it's not that simple.

For instance, if I'm playing a CD and the phone rings, how can I prevent the caller from making a recording? Same thing with a DVD: am I legally obliged to position my TV in such a manner that noone can look through the window and watch and/or record the contents?

Add to that various time- and format-shifting rights and it is not at all clear what is or is not legal use.

The re-distribution contract

Submitted by Chresten Anderson on Fri, 2005-12-30 18:51.

Ad previous comment.

The contract you enter with the seller of the CD is not one where you are to turn of your TV or Stereo when someone else might listen in, but one where you promise not to download the music onto your computer and then let millions of internet users get the music of your computer.

If someone breaks into your house and steals your CD's that is not your responsibility either.

My point is that when you buy a CD then you engage in a contract not to intentionally re-distribute the material.

Another way of "sharing" copy-righted material is to burn CD's and re-sell them at a slightly lower cost than that of the music store. Is that reasonable - I think not.

Ad the first two comments.
To me it is rather simple if you walk into a music store (or buy something on Apple's website) then you agree to the purchasing agreement whether or not you really like it. That makes it a contract.

If the seller (the music industry) makes use of an outdated technology - then you as a consumer has the option of not buying the product, but you can never have the option of ignoring the agreement into whch you voluntarily entered.

The right of the consumer is to voluntarily enter into an agreement or not.

An example might illustrate my point. My grandmother recently sold her house, but as a stipulation in the sale, she demanded that the new buyer didn't alter the exterior of the house while she was alive. (My grandother built that house) The result was a substantially lower price for the house.

Now would it be fair if the new owner - altered the exterior of the house, and violated the contract with my grandmother. No it wouldn't be.

It is the exact same situation (but with a different product) where two parties enter voluntarily into an agreement, and then neither party has the right to alter the agreement without the consent of the other party.

Pendulum swinning back

Submitted by Bart Vanhauwaert on Fri, 2005-12-30 13:38.

It's well known that the audio-visual entertainment industry in the past has been the supporter of some fairly nasty anti-free trade legislation. Most obnoxious are the monopolies of organisms like Sacem, the levying of a tax on all blank media to pay for 'lost royalties', price fixing, perverting the system of time-limited state protection by unilateral extensions and a constant push for the most restrictive interpretation of fair use rulings.

As always when one partner goes overboard trying to abuse its position the pendulum will swing back. With a vengence in this case.

For sure, a state imposed price for legal filesharing is not the right way to solve this conundrum. But before pointing to the evil anti-trade consumers, the entertainment business should start an introspective and begin answering hard questions. Like why is their intellectual property so special that it deserves state protection up to the point where it starts infringing individuals rights, a protection that goes beyond what any other industry gets.

Both consumers and producers are making a mockery of the principles of an open and fair working market, for years already. I feel it is shortsighted to evaluate this proposed amendment without making the connection to equally anti-free-trade legislation that favors producers over consumers like this article does.

(It is especially galling to hear a representative of that price fixing state supported monopoly called SACEM complain about price fixing by state fiat)