sivasubramanian muthusamy on Thu, 9 Jul 2020 10:16:34 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Commercial publishers sue Internet Archive over lending

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:58 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy <> wrote:

> This may not obey current legal conventions and the perception of what is
> tenable in a court of law:
> Why not get together and sue commercial publishers for commercializing
> copyright-expired content?  Why not sue publishers from profiteering from
> copyright-free works and TV / Cable networks for bundling copyright-expired
> cinema as part of copyrighted movies?

(i.e.,  as part of a bundle that is typically meant to be chargeable
content )

> If the copyright lobby places too much restriction on copyrighted
> content,  why not assert that they should make NO COMMERCIAL USE of all
> content

(any content)

> that is free of copyright for which copyright has expired? (The moral
> rationale here is that if you are rigid in prohibiting non-commercial use
> of any copyrighted material, you ought to be in turn prohibited from making
> commercial use of free material)
> Take away and set aside rigidly for non-commercial use,

(perhaps by a form of global trusteeship of all free content) - this might
strangely imply a "global public copyright for free content" -

> all books and movies and news articles on which the copyright has expired,
> or on which there is no copyright claim.  What do you think the cable
> networks are left with?  Often you pay a monthly subscription for a movie
> channel, that is supposed to stream about 10 movies a day for 365 days, but
> of these, how many are current by copyright standards, and how many come
> from the free-for-anyone zone?  Over half, or more than a half of what a
> cable network or a typical book publisher offers is free content - for a
> price.

( by way of a channel bundle ) -  In India I subscribe to Tatasky (a
typical example here),  even if I do not want a premium channel,  the
design of subscription plans is so clever that I MUST pay about $4 a month
for a bare minimum bundle, which is mostly all-free content.  There is no
option to elect to have all free channels and pay zero fees.  There is some
justification in the name of "air time / connectivity charges"  but not
quite.   If my choice happens to be for one or two additional 'premium'
channels,  I count a maximum of 2 or 3 new movies a month, the rest being
movies that are run down, over and over again.

> Sue to prohibit the copyright lobby from bundling free content with
> copy-righed content, they will stop harassing archive,org and the pubic
> libraries.  Also, YouTube could cease offering free-streaming for
> promotional teasers of copyrighted content.
> Sivasubramanian M

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info:
#  archive: contact:
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: