Media Double-Standard?
I routinely engage (and enrage) my attorney older brother on a wide range of topics. Today’s enlightened verbage was focused on a comment posted on Scoble’s web site on whether Job’s remarks were somehow throwing stones at the RIAA while sitting comfortably on the Disney board. The obvious implication here being whether Job’s was implying that music should drop their defense shields, while he would allow movie’s to remain comfortable behind their IP shields.
Glass houses and all that. Ok.
The discussion with my brother turned into whether this was a fair transformation of the axiom from one industry to the other. He says “No! It’s not. Music and movies are entirely different”. I disagreed (respectfully, even if a bit loudly).
Let’s digress a bit, shall we?
Both industries produce a product which is (a) sold on fixed media under a shrink-wrapped EULA which imposes limited “fair use” restrictions, (b) provides for public performance or display, (c) incurs royalties and fees for certain residual or incidental use, and most importantly (d) pursues legal action to enforce the right to maintain their revenue streams relating to their products. They employ standing legal protection from DMCA, copyright, trademark, and sometimes patent rights.
Both are arguably “suffering” the effects (lost revenue and profits) as a result of piracy. Both are trying to defend their IP rights while struggling to maintain a fresh, happy face in the media. Neither is succeeding much.
He (my brother) states that they differ purely because of the capital investment required for each respective product. “A movie” he says “costs much, much more to produce and deliver than a music CD does.” That’s it. I scoffed. Impossible. No, not the difference in cost (I am aware of that), but the notion that we could split these darling identical twins apart at birth just because one has a few more dollars stuffed inside their diaper. *gasp!*
Then, out of nowhere, my bro pulls out the A-bomb of his argument: some named legal statute which provides a basis for assessing the punitive assignment in a guilty verdict based, at least in part, on the relative net “worth” of the victim, or the victim’s loss.
In plain English, this means (according to my brother) that it is in fact perfectly legal for the judge to adjust sentencing or punishment based upon the economic status of the victim. Ok, plainer English, even I had a tough time with that one: … It means the judge can punish you more severely if the person you robbed or killed was rich. I’m not talking about differentiating LARCENY from GRAND LARCENY. I’m talking about the PERSON. If the PERSON is worth more, the judge can punish you more??? Huh?!
So, if I take that at face value: The head juror would stand up and declare you guilty of “x”, and then the judge might pull up his book-of-punishments and say “well, now, that incurs a sentencing of 5 to 10 years without parole. However, due to the extreme richness of the victim, I will hereby sentence you to 20 years! Case closed!” (bang-bang). Oh, yeah, that was the gavel banging. Dramatic effect. Sorry.
If this is indeed true (he is scrambling to find me a URL to prove this), we do not live under the “All men are created equal…” vision of our fore-fathers. We now live in a communist/socialist/oligarchical state. Maybe I’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid too long and didn’t pay attention enough. When did we start splitting laws based solely on the economic status of victims? That’s it. I’m voting for Alfred E. Neuman next election.
