|
Michael Fricklas, Viacom's Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, commented on my IPcentral post. Defending against unauthorized uses is expensive - only the biggest of companies can afford the apparatus to do it.
Allowing distributors and end users to freely override the creator's choice of licensing models means that the independent artist must accede to free distribution or have no distribution at all. But if the artist wants to pursue the rational business model of using the free internet to distribute promotional material and then licenses or subscriptions to get paid? - your approach is to make that impossible!
Better to empower the artist with tools to transact as the artist sees fit - and therefore prevent "new channels of distribution" built on free-riding and overriding -- as a way to ensure the robust creation of the content that the new channels of distribution depend upon.
You can't forget that the internet runs not just on technical innovation but on the constant creation of new works. And while some parasitic behavior can be tolerated- too much parasitic behavior kills not only the host but also the parasite! Right on... Fricklas raises a number of good points. First, that independent creators may benefit from aggressive copyright enforcement by larger entities, as that enforcement can deter broad illegal activity that small creators cannot combat. Second, creators should be able to tap the Internet for revenue. Third, the Internet's value lies partially in how it enables the creation of new works, and its ability to do so rests on how well creators can leverage it.
posted by Noel Le @ 3:28 PM | DMCA
Link to this Entry |
Printer-Friendly |
Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)
|
