Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

balkin.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 40 posts

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#31

Post by MichaelSalib »

pigbucket wrote: post #28
MichaelSalib wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a rhetorical trick: copyright is only constitutional BECAUSE it promotes knowledge and learning. The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant. And to be honest, I'm not sure it is physically possible to learn such things without committing any infringement. You might be able to do so without committing any infringement that…

The fact that there are ways to learn and develop knowledge without infringing on an absurdly over-broad copyright are irrelevant It's relevant to the extent that it would have to be true in order to argue that the $150,000 fine promotes learning. The fact that I make that argument as "devil's advocate" and that I've got to sing "Like a Virgin" as an allegory of finding Jesus means I accept the law might be absurd. I…

The author is actually a friend of mine; if you want more substance, you check out the slides for a longer form presentation on copyright reform that she did; see http://cmmulligan.com/?page_id=27

Alternatively, Jessica Litman's book Digital Copyright is short and a good exposition of these issues.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#32

Post by DrSprout »

jbarciauskas wrote: post #19
natrius wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article talks only about recordings and mashups. The former aren't covered by such an agreement, and it's not clear if the latter are.

Huh? It's talking about glee clubs, and in particular the glee club on Glee, who mostly do live performances. The article begins, "For a show that regularly tackles thorny issues like teen pregnancy and alcohol abuse, it’s surprising that a million dollars worth of lawbreaking would go unmentioned." But this premise seems to be faulty - there's no indication that there is a million dollars worth of law-breaking invol…

>and most glee clubs probably don't make videos either so it seems fairly moot.

Half of them are carrying video recorders in their pockets. Sure, it's very low-fi stuff, but you're remarkably out of touch if you think that teenagers don't record themselves performing and upload it to YouTube and Facebook.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#33

Post by sliverstorm »

tjmaxal wrote: post #11

You have to remember that Glee is backed by the RIAA, they make money off of the show so I doubt they will cover an issue that makes them look like the bad guys.

Interesting...

Obviously the actors aren't liable if they have RIAA's support. But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff in what effectively would amount to propaganda (regardless the reason why) and then sues people for doing exactly what they were promoting... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#34

Post by ZachPruckowski »

abstractbill wrote: post #22
axod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point, but it would actually make a pretty good episode. Here's my attempt: * RIAA baddies turn up in suits demand money * Glee club hasn't got the money * Will asks for money from Sues budget. Obviously she says no way. She needs to save for the hovercraft. * They decide that Glee club can no longer sing copyrighted music * Your task for the week? "Original song". Compose an original song. * They…

I'd prefer a script where the RIAA gets some kind of comeuppance, but your version is probably more believable ;)

The only non-news show that I've seen actually get a non-satirical swing at their corporate overlord in the last few years is Leverage. Leverage, which runs on TNT, absolutely savaged CNN's Nancy Grace last summer in "The Three Days Of The Hunter Job". Of course, News Corp only owns an indy label, not one of the big ones.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#35

Post by sliverstorm »

dunham wrote: post #6
billturner wrote: post #2

I have a feeling that printing, filling out, and then mailing off a mechanical license for every song, and then waiting by the mailbox for the results won't make for compelling television. I understand the message behind the weblog post, but I think it's asking a little too much for them to tackle copyright on Glee.

Funding is a key plot point. As far I recall, this has only manifested as "we can't afford pretty costumes and special effects" (and a "we can't rent a bus" episode). In reality, if they were tight on funds, the teacher would be telling the kids "we can't afford to do that song." I'm sure the writers and producers are well aware of the issue - they have to deal with this stuff in producing the show. The cynic in me s…

> "we can't afford to do that song."

The thought of being unable to sing a song because of licensing fees/fines literally sends chills down my spine.

Especially because half the time I sing compulsively, without consciously realizing I'm doing it.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#37

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sliverstorm wrote: post #33
tjmaxal wrote: post #11

You have to remember that Glee is backed by the RIAA, they make money off of the show so I doubt they will cover an issue that makes them look like the bad guys.

Interesting... Obviously the actors aren't liable if they have RIAA's support. But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff in what effectively would amount to propaganda (regardless the reason why) and then sues people for doing exactly what they were promoting... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

>But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff [...] ... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

Just immoral unfortunately.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#38

Post by pyre »

pigbucket wrote: post #23

So you tell me — what promotes knowledge and learning: letting people rearrange music and learn to use a video camera, or threatening new artists with $150,000 fines? Since this is a relatively cheap rhetorical question, let's play devil's advocate: 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously good in the way of promoting learning; 2) you can learn technique without using protected content 3) there are already…

"People can eat other types of food," is not in itself a justification for banning a certain type of food.

  > 1) forcing people to make new content is obviously
  > good in the way of promoting learning
You could also make the assertion that a blanket ban on fast food restaurants would be a good thing because it would force people to eat healthier.

You can't defend a system just because there are ways to not bump up against its limitations. That argument should be about whether we gain any benefit that is worth its limitations.

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#39

Post by mhartl »

I'm sympathetic to the argument in this article, but like virtually all such articles it misses the underlying problem. Copyright law isn't the way it is because of misguided lawmakers or greedy corporations, or, rather, those are only the proximate causes. The ultimate cause is that representative government is unstable against the formation of special interest groups. Explaining very clearly to people why they're a bad idea, and even convincing them that you're right, won't solve the fundamental problem. The Mickey Mouse Protection Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act passed for the same basic reasons that ethanol and mohair subsidies persist: those who benefit have a concentrated interest to game the system; those who suffer have a greatly diluted interest to resist.

By the way, you may be aware that the infamous mohair subsidies ended in 1995. Alas, this was not the equilibrium, and you can see the grinding of the implacable gears in this sad story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohair#US_subsidies_for_mohair_...

Re: Copyright: The Elephant in the Middle of the Glee Club

#40

Post by alanh »

sliverstorm wrote: post #33
tjmaxal wrote: post #11

You have to remember that Glee is backed by the RIAA, they make money off of the show so I doubt they will cover an issue that makes them look like the bad guys.

Interesting... Obviously the actors aren't liable if they have RIAA's support. But if the RIAA is promoting mash-ups and stuff in what effectively would amount to propaganda (regardless the reason why) and then sues people for doing exactly what they were promoting... That's got to be some kind of illegal, right?

If the government were doing this, you could make a case for entrapment. (IANAL)
Post reply on HN