tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post8081201418823676410..comments2024-03-23T13:09:54.464-04:00Comments on EXCESS COPYRIGHT: My Response to Prof. Charles Nesson re TenenbaumHoward Knopfhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18321190334597129416noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-16444250907688716162009-08-25T10:52:01.171-04:002009-08-25T10:52:01.171-04:00thanks howard, i've responded on my blog, http...thanks howard, i've responded on my blog, https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/nessoncharlie nessonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-32359386823876470122009-08-25T02:49:45.432-04:002009-08-25T02:49:45.432-04:00The “Fair Use” argument you made here HK is extrem...The “Fair Use” argument you made here HK is extremely relevant. I’ve spent 2 years collecting data in my blog, and through the research I have done, there is absolutely no evidence that can support the music industries claims in revenue losses with respect to file sharing alone. In fact Liebowitz refuted claims found in the Anderson/Fritz study (done for Industry Canada), however not only can Liebowitz be called as an expert witness, so too should research done over at the UNCTAD. One of the UNCTAD researchers personally backed up the Anderson/Fritz study personally by quoting research they have done in comments to Anderson’s response to Liebowitz’s attempt at discrediting the Industry Canada report. Both Anderson’s rebuttal, and the researchers remarks can be found here:<br /><br />http://www.dime-eu.org/node/477<br /><br />As Industry starts to get past the evil nature of file sharing and better understand what’s actually taken place, there is a clearer picture emerging on the cycle of creative destruction that most industries are currently faced with due to the digital revolution. PRS for Music in Britain recently reported increased earnings of 13% within the industry as a whole, which does support Zeljka Kozul-Wright comments with respect to identifying the "Creative Destruction" process in the Anderson rebuttal in the above link:<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/nww8dd<br /><br />It is virtually impossible to prove on industries part that in fact a file shared is a sale lost, in fact the burden of proof in Canadian courts lies on the Plaintiffs if memory serves me correctly. What we are starting to see is the birth of a “pay for consumption” model the market is ready for vs the dying model of “pay per copy” as it relates to the digital paradigm. Meaning SAC’s proposal is the most appropriate in the current market. A similar understanding has also been presented by The Institute of European Media Law:<br /><br />http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/05/11/the-world-is-going-flat-rate/<br /><br />Eventually industry will have to adapt to this model of consumption. Governments or courts can do very little to force the market back to the way it was in the 90’s. The “the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work” is still there, just shifted to a different model of consumption, which is currently not supported by industry or law and should be! Engaging in the activity of file sharing is basically following what everyone else is doing and where the market currently is located, nobody should not be penalized for it. Legal defense teams in the US have done a very piss poor job at researching this. A lot of the research out there is now close to 3 years old, and could have been applied in the Thomas-Rassat, and Tenenbaum cases. In fact the rulings set out by the court in these cases could serve to hurt these industries if the deterrent actually worked. From the looks of it the P2P networks are emerging as an integrated part of industry wanted or not.<br /><br />If this had gone on during the industrial revolution and black smiths were doing what the music industry has done here today, we would have cars with horse shoe’s attached to the wheels. This is ridicules, in large part due to the poor defense of these people the media industries want to make an example of. What’s worse, is I’m not in the legal profession and I can see what’s going on here. Good job HK on the letter!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20803105.post-22486338686176983872009-08-24T14:14:42.590-04:002009-08-24T14:14:42.590-04:00I couldn't understand why the RIAA wasn't ...I couldn't understand why the RIAA wasn't compelled to prove:<br /><br /><b>1) Actual distribution...</b><br />Distribution has not only an "origin" (Joel), but also a DESTINATION (who received it, other than the spying firm?).<br /><br /><b>2) Actual damages...</b><br />No documented proof of costs incurred or provable sales losses were offered or asked for.Devil's Advocatenoreply@blogger.com