-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
Many years ago (c.1999?), I had a proposal for dealing with the then-new problem of digital music-copying. The industry went the other way (authoritarian control instead of enlightened negotiation), but maybe now it’s time to suggest it again.
What makes the status-quo even more deceitful for the younger generations is that they are not oblivious to the hypocrisy of it all. The people who create laws and regulations are the ones who stand to profit the most. The people who belly-ache about the economic impact on their industry are the wealthiest among us. The politicians who lay claim to nobility are the ones who are quick to claim that they “have done nothing illegal” as if the societal values of ethics and morality simply aren’t relevant. After securing huge sums from us to supposedly bail them out of their own greed, the financial community continues to arrogantly line their pockets with our money and smirk at our stupidity.
And that’s the essence of it, isn’t it? Our younger generations have few, if any, role models at the government and big-corporate level. This “nation of laws” does not create equality or even nearly that. It’s created a smoke screen behind which the elite do their business.
So we expect our youth to respect laws written by the unrespectable? Hardly. There simply are too few precedents in current culture that equate morality with success. Indeed, the precedents, the examples, are quite the opposite.
Well put. I really liked the article.
Can you help the novices among us understand why why the music industry is going after the downloaders instead of the downloading services. Was there one important case that absolved the P2P networks of responsibility, or are they still liable? I would think it easier to cut off the head of the monster, than to go after its many arms. Additionally, can you recommend a good book that talks specifically about the music industry’s legal battles (in the context of P2P)?
In the midst of all we heard about Obama’s progressive stance during the campaign we are now faced with his appointments to the Justice Department. If confirmed, which is likely, Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general will set a precedent for what Obama’s position on Free Culture will be for the next four years. It also sends a reassuring message to the recording industry and Big-IP that this administration has their back, and cares not for a more fair and equitable system of copyright and intellectual property law. I fear for the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, Jammie Thomas and anyone who is sued by the industry giants with or without cause. Now I wonder if Obama will take a similar 180 degree approach to health care reform.
Corey A. Hines
In the midst of all we heard about Obama’s progressive stance during the campaign we are now faced with his appointments to the Justice Department. If confirmed, which is likely, Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general and David Ogden for deputy attorney general will set a precedent for what Obama’s position on Free Culture will be for the next four years. It also sends a reassuring message to the recording industry and Big-IP that this administration has their back, and cares not for a more fair and equitable system of copyright and intellectual property law. I fear for the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, Jammie Thomas and anyone who is sued by the industry giants with or without cause. Now I wonder if Obama will take a similar 180 degree approach to health care reform.
Corey A. Hines
Thank you. I have found your blog and comments very useful, but short sighted and missing the bigger picture…
I feel the need to add my voice to the discussion at this point.
I work for a company which protects the works of a large portion of one of the industries discussed on this forum. Based on the format of the discussion, I feel it is important for the readers to understand that this is a world wide epidemic, not a localized one.
Digital counterfeiting (ie. filesharing/ripping/copying without having purchased the original work) is rampant and more profuse than most would expect. I can say this from personal experience because I had a very different view before I entered this line of work.
The very nature of this issue is bringing home to me the fact that a true free market system will either work or fail independant of the laws that govern it. In china, there are multiple factories producing DVD rips of professional quailty grade, in numbers of nearly astronomical proportion. These rips are sold at prices so low, that even with shpping costs included, an individual in the US can make a profit by selling the product at a fraction of what the copyright holders authentic version would cost you at Walmart on sale. Granted there are quality issues, and you dont’t get all the bells and whistles that might come with the true original, but you still get the main product at a fraction of the cost.
If we were in a truly free market, the original copyright holder would have to lower their prices to get that portion of the business. To drop their prices they would have to start cutting costs. Salaries would have to go down for: All forms of staff (managers, writers, directors, actors, cameramen, soundmen lightmen, set designers, coustume, wardrobe, makeup, effects and stunt people…) the legal and distibution departements would get hit, the manufacturers and distributors, the art and packaging departments, catering… all across the industry… lots of jobs would be either lost or nullified, the product quality would probably waiver for awhile… but the market woud determine the price, not the industry.
As it is, the industry determines how much it can make based on the current market, and projections of how much a certian product might make in revenue through theatrical and DVD presentaions for Movies, or from advertising and DVD sales for television series. Yet the market still has a say.
Now how would the market react if the counterfeits were totally removed from the picture?
What if instead of DVD’s and Blu-Ray’s, the companies in the television and film industries simply did not provide the public with copies of their works? What if you had to purchase (or rent) a single device that could recieve but not record visual/audio material that you would have to have if you wanted to be able to view/listen to it? What if the companies maintained control of their works but did not have to allow the public to view their works without paying for it?
There is no future for publicly owned media — if you have grown accoustomed to having a physical or digital copy of your favorite song/film/tv series, well, be prepared for future shock. In the future, each company or individual will possess the right and the ability to allow or prevent use of their owned material. Prepare for the way of the recordable device to go the way of the dodo. When the companies (and rights holders) control the delivery system, we will be at their mercy, but we will still retain the right and ability to either pay, or not — and yes the market will still be at play then… and I’ll have to find a new career, because the change… is closer than you think….
So forget about copyrights in the digital age. The rule of possession being 9/10’s of the law is coming to fruition.
“In the future, each company or individual will possess the right and the ability to allow or prevent use of their owned material. Prepare for the way of the recordable device to go the way of the dodo.”
yeah, because fritz hollings is going to push his damned chip into every dac converter, so that when you aim a camcorder at your screen it won’t copy, and when you aim your cassette recorder microphone…
you know what you’re talking about xrati? mathematics. all your protection ultimately relies on oe simple premise: that your numbers are bigger and better than someone else’s numbers. your 640k will be enough to stop anybody.
copyright law can’t stop people from counting. it can’t stop people from doing math. and people will, for whatever reason, always break your locks. future shock nothing, this is same-old-bs shock. go back to the 80s with your copy protection, and back to marconi and tesla with your ridiculous propaganda about how streaming will end media.
at the end of the day, there will be more people that want to record than the number of people that want to stop them. in a free country, that’s what counts. so take your ip-final-solution and stick it back where you pulled it from. you aren’t going to fool enough people for it to matter in the long run, and the more you lock up your media, the less relevant what you’re “protecting” will be. you’re the dodo, now please go the way of one.