Chris Dodd's Email Reveals What MPAA Really Thinks of Fair Use
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
[1]: https://torrentfreak.com/google-mpaa-censorship-150303/
[2]: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-mpaas-att...
I think what the MPAA is worried about here is that if US fair use standards are exported to all TPP countries, then decisions in US courts come to cover a much larger part of the world, with potentially unpredictable economic effects. In this case, they're arguing for not changing the copyright laws of the other countries.
> In this case, they're arguing for not changing the copyright laws of the other countries.
They are perfectly fine with changing those laws, as long as they make them worse (lengthen the copyright term, more DRM anti-circumvention idiocy and etc.). They obviously don't want to change them when it goes in the different direction. However it has nothing to do with economic unpredictability.
It's pretty simple. They support what gives them (MPAA) more control, and they oppose what reduces their power. However their control has no positive effects on economic benefits of the creative community. If anything, it hurts it, since they stifle innovation, lock up culture and are acting in backwards thinking and crooked manner in general. MPAA are parasitic, but always try to come up with new ways to justify their existence in the eyes of the actual creative community (because more and more people there understand that their existence isn't justified).
As an indie producer, do I think my interests are coincident with those of the major studios, no. But they're not entirely orthogonal to them either. If you're going to come back with the line that nothing really original or creative comes out of the major studios, that's a tired old 'No True Scotsman' fallacy and the conversation isn't going to go anywhere. The fact that the industry is lopsided and dominated by a small number of big economic interests who wield disproportionate influence isn't inherently bad, taht's actually a pretty normal and expected outcome of any given system.
If anything, it hurts it, since they stifle innovation, lock up culture and are acting in backwards thinking and crooked manner in general.
Yeah yeah, wake me when the revolution comes. It's going to be a while, because nobody has come up with a good way to monetize content at scale yet outside of the regular distribution channels (even companies like Amazon and Netflix basically operate within the traditional model in terms fo content acquisition and so forth). The reality of film production is that the manufacture of a good quality product still requires a lot of capital up front, ie in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and up.
Ultimately, it is the distributors that write the checks. And considering the total film industry involves ~$100 billion in revenues, with the US being by far the biggest producer (capturing more than a third of that), I don't think that's going to change all that quick.
> The fact that the industry is lopsided and dominated by a small number of big economic interests who wield disproportionate influence isn't inherently bad, taht's actually a pretty normal and expected outcome of any given system.
It is pretty bad, since they weild too much power to screw up the legal system, and this has negative effect on everyone, way beyond their own industry.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/mar/10/blurred-lines-p...
1st paragraph: 1 time
2nd paragraph: 1 time
3rd paragraph: 2 times
4th paragraph: 3 times
Total: 7 times
Fair Use doesn't even get used in Colleges and Universities since there is such fear of litigation. How about we secure the fair use in our school first and than we can start talking about Fair Use for International Treaties.
So can we have fair use in education? The treaties cut down what even counts for fair use.