Don't Take Our Word For It

Testimony from Mr. Rogers (yes, that Mr. Rogers) from the Betamax case:

"I have always felt that with the advent of all of this new technology that allows people to tape the 'Neighborhood' off-the-air, and I'm speaking for the 'Neighborhood' because that's what I produce, that they then become much more active in the programming of their family's television life. Very frankly, I am opposed to people being programmed by others. My whole approach in broadcasting has always been 'You are an important person just the way you are. You can make healthy decisions.' Maybe I'm going on too long, but I just feel that anything that allows a person to be more active in the control of his or her life, in a healthy way, is important."

Extended excerpts from a recent Boston Globe column by Hiawatha Bray, a huge opponent of filesharing. If he doesn't even agree with this bill, then no one should:

Last week's ruling in the Grokster case was lucid, logical, and unanimous. Peer-to-peer file-sharing programs like Grokster, Kazaa, LimeWire, and all the rest, used by millions worldwide to exchange pirated copies of music and movies, do not violate federal copyright law.

...

For those of us who despise the file-swappers as larcenous hypocrites, it's not a happy verdict. But it's well nigh impossible to dispute it. The judges simply pointed to a crucial 1984 Supreme Court decision that protected the rights of Americans to own videotape recorders. The movie industry scowled that these devices would enable people to practice a lively trade in pirated movies. The court responded that VCRs could also enable a fellow working the night shift to watch "The Waltons" when he got home. And because the technology had "substantial noninfringing uses," VCRs could not be banned, even if they could also be used for illegal purposes.

...

Hatch went out on a limb a few months back, proposing a federal law that would ban products that sought to "induce" copyright violations. In this space, I defended Hatch against the scorn of outraged technologists, who insisted the new law would have stifled the invention of the Apple iPod and other tech goodies.

But I changed my mind when Marybeth Peters, the chief of the US Copyright Office, praised the Hatch bill because it would undermine the Betamax case. If that happened, the next generation of digital marvels would be buried in an avalanche of injunctions, depositions, and discovery motions. No thanks, Marybeth. We'd rather learn to live with digital thievery.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an Internet civil liberties group, plotted the file-swappers' victorious legal strategy. The foundation also has a plan for the future of recorded music, a plan that gives artists and producers a hope of collecting at least some money for their work.

It's simple, really. Everybody who uses peer-to-peer software would pay a nominal monthly fee into a fund owned by the music industry. The foundation figures $5 a month. After all, those who pay are now allowed to download all the music they want. And there'd be no restrictions on what they could do with the files. They could make as many copies as they wanted, and play them on any device. Meanwhile, a computer would keep track of which tunes were downloaded, and the money in the fund would be doled out in the right proportions to artists and publishers around the world.

From Sony's Corporate History (ironically, Sony is now on the opposite side of Betamax as members of the RIAA and MPAA):

"If the plaintiffs' contentions were upheld, Sony would have to stop selling VCRs in the United States. Unless the law was revised, the future of the VCR would be in doubt. There was also the question of damages."

"Led by Morita, Sony was ready to sacrifice the time to defend its position. Sony's future and the future of a vital part of the world electronics industry were at stake."

...

"There was the additional burden of dealing with the motion picture studios, which traditionally had very strong political ties. If the law was amended to allow reproduction for private use, the potential volume of lost royalties was enormous. There was no way motion picture studios were going to sit back and let this happen without a fight. Sony thought the best way to combat the political influence of the studios was to appeal to the people who put politicians in power -- the voters."

Now are you convinced? Sign up for the call-in on the sidebar above.

Fighting for Betamax is so retro... but so necessary.