A blizzard of court papers blew out of the entertainment industry yesterday in anticipation of peer-to-peer file sharing’s big day in court. Shouts of “piracy!” and “stop thief!” were common themes in this choir of outrage, whose ranks ranged across the legal, political and entertainment worlds, from Kenneth Starr to Orrin Hatch to Avril Lavigne. The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing oral arguments on March 29 in the case that pits Grokster and StreamCast against such industry heavyweights as the RIAA and MPAA.
What’s needed at such a critical junture is an extended, nuanced discussion on the nature of intellectual property in the digital age, and on how these powerful new sharing technologies can be reasonably tempered to ensure that artists receive compensation for their work while preserving the dynamic modes of exchange. But what seems more likely is a big judicial slugfest.. brace yourself for a bloody spring.
if:book
A Project of the Institute for the Future of the Book
ahh, you said one key thing in your post that glazes over the real, underlying issues:
“… ensure that artists receive compensation for their work …”
In the greater scheme of this entire affair, the artists are not the people who are losing the most money, it is the music companies.
That’s certainly true. But shouldn’t this be more about the artists? Both the authors of the original works in question, as well as those who follow in their steps – re-mixing, re-using, re-inventing..