Thursday, June 25, 2009

LGJ: If 24 songs = $1.9 million, then 1 game = ?

On this week's LGJ, a discussion of the RIAA's recent victory and what it may mean for statutory damages across the board.

Read on!

1 comment:

MN said...

I'm a student and I've been very slowly studying the prospects for a new copyright regime, which I am tentatively calling Dynamic Copyright.

Keeping in mind the original premise of copyright law was to benefit the state (such as by trade revenue from innovations as with the Italians, monopoly in Elizabethan England etc.).

The premise here is basically that there is a sliding scale or a "windfall" provision. Artists or copyrightholders who have not had their works earn a lot of money will have more protection, but once their work becomes more monetarily successful, they already have incentive to continue to create future works and the eventual errosion of their rights as their work becomes successful results in a spur to further creative growth: no more families spunging off 1 creative idea their grandfather had, or companies extending their copyright indefinitely (the result of the Sonny Bono treason of 90s).

The difficulty of course is two fold 1) creating a sliding scale that properly balances revenue and protection, 2) getting it through politically where those who favor indentured servitude in response to violations having much more power with legislators.

Yes, I'm using lots of rhetoric but it's the internet. The paper will be a bit drier.

Anyhow, I'm favorting this blog.