> What's really interesting is that the RIAA and MPAA are > constantly bitching about p2p ripping them off but in almost all of > the big cases recently (Harry Potter, Madonna) the cat's been out > of the bag before the film or CD was even released. So yes, they > get p2p traded, but DRM wouldn't have helped a bit. Apparently, commercial pirates (those with their own pressing plants) have targetted the workflow systems that studios use to distribute material internally. You can buy an encrypted workflow system designed just to address this problem. However, I can't help guessing that most of this material is either a) released onto p2p deliberately to help build pre-launch hype or b) sold by someone within the industry to pirates. I think a) is much more likely than b) because anyone involved with b) will never work in the industry again. I saw a copy of The Two Towers before it came out - lent by a friend - that appeared to be a preview copy for the Oscars. Perhaps there's a member of the Academy who owes their dealer a lot of money... > I actually don't > understand the MPAA's position on DeCSS. As a Region 1 customer it probably doesn't make sense, but here in Region 2 we are supposed to wait a year to see the movie you are talking about today, then pay more for it. Needless to say, region-free hacks are taken for granted here. > > Actually Disney have a long history of suing parodies - Air > > Pirates being the most famous I think: > > > > http://reason.com/links/links011703.shtml > > I haven't seen this, however, if they were using the name Mickey > Mouse and/or making the character look almost exactly like Mickey > Mouse then that's not a parody and they should lose. I'm not sure where you can draw the line on parody, but my point was that there are some organisations who are very keen to take material from the cultural commons, but are not at all keen to see the material return to that commons. It's a bit like taking free software, changing it a bit and releasing it as proprietary. > > To illustrate the point, the RIAA > > could now sue an original Delta bluesman with a freely downloaded > > Clapton track on his hard drive. Doesn't that possibility, albeit > > theoretical, strike you as a bit odd? > > Not a bit. Each song, with the exception of near duplicates (My > Sweet Lord) is a unique work of art. Again I think it's hard to draw the line, but I don't think 'unique' is a word you could use to describe the songs in the pop charts. Derivative might be a better term, and there's nothing wrong with that - as long as you acknowledge the fact and credit your sources. > Whether you like his work or > not, Andy Warhol was an artist. Did the guy that originally did > the Campbells Soup labels sue him? I think that's a good point - it sounds like a ridiculous idea, and yet that's what the intellectual property industry is all about. If Warhol was around today and came up with those paintings, he would either be sued, or worse still adopted as a corporate artist in residence! Cheers Daniel
