Money, greed, power. These are words are often used, none more prevalent than the music & movie industry. You have these big industries that have had there way within their own realms for years. Making so much money that if we added it all up, we couldn't even fathom.
Controlling and monopolizing information. Yes, that's all of this is. They own this information they say. It's copywritten. The industries want things to stay the way the used to be. You and I know, that can never be. Technology has gotten to the point where the public will not stand it anymore. I should be able to get any information and copy it and use it for my own use. Period. Technology has given me the means. It's just information. Who are they to say anything?
Laws need to be adapted and changed to accommodate the future. These industries need to adapt. However, these industries need to get used to the idea of not making the gross sums of money as in the past. Honestly, whatís wrong with these industries making regular sums of money, the kind you & I make in a year. Artists will still have fans that go to their concerts, so as long as they are touring they are making money. Having the music in a nicely packaged CD is still a valued product. Going out to see a movie on the big screen is also reasonable way to spend your hard earned cash.
Oh the humanity...could you imagine all of the great works of the past millennia, that could have been destroyed had they not been copied. How far back in the dark ages would we still be if could not pass along information. They cannot stop us, we won't let them!!
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
Mr. Sassen addresses a very important issue: Copyright laws vs. ethical use of developed media. Be it music or video or games, those who generate the end product are deserving of protection of their intellectual capability and product, but to what end point?
The issues Mr. Sassen speak of are really covered by laws that may or may not be proper; but laws exist and will be exploited by 'greed' (or what ever motivaions). Many laws fail in that in trying to stop bad intent they stop logical intent to protect our investment, that is making a copy of a DVD/CD/Game to protect the original (backup).
I will speak of what I mean using games for an example.Certainly music and videos/movies have similar arguements. If a game company does not invest millions of dollars there will be poor games. There are arguements that the fancy graphics and so forth are very expensive to generate/create but for those of us who remember the original Zork series of Text games, game play is far more important that pretty blood spattering gore. The game play creation (intellectual property of high value I think) is protected inheritantly in that the skill and imagination of the creator can not be copied. The resulting game is made desirable to buy because of it's value and fun. (Music and movies if they're good also will be purchased. Who wants a ripped version of a DVD for a collection?)
To copy the disk a game is marketed on is not the problem, it is the illegal sharing/selling of the game that is the real problem. I see no problem lending a game I bought and backed up to a friend to play. I won't be using the game while my friend is so there is no problem. However, to give a copy to said friend so we can both play is wrong expecially if it circumvents this friend from buying the game. The difference, I belived, is intent. My intent to provide copies to both parties is wrong; to lend my copy of the game is fine. Many times friends have tried a game and bought it, returning my copy. This should make the industry happy. (Note: when the orginal Napster was stopped, Music Sales Declined dramatically!)
Finally, with EULAs citing non-ownership of whatever software but you are purchasing a license to use/view/listen to said software there is a possible course to pursue. How many of your cassette tapes failed over the years? You don't own the music on the cassette you bought but are not licensed other that for that particular cassette. (apply to CD/DVD/LP, etc). "They" can't have it both ways. "They" sell a medium (disk/tape) or sell the product (game/music/video). Just try to get a replacement copy. The music and movie industries should be class-action sued for breech of contract. I know I had to buy more than one of my favorite LP's in the past as playing them wore them out. (I know, like cassette tapes, old technology). But know what? I have DVD's that got damaged and don't play right, too. Know what? A Backup copy would have saved me.
You know what I just heard last night. Some East Indian fellow in the United States, who has built a Yoga empire, has just won a case in which his actual Yoga positions are copywritten. So instructors are not allowed to teach this, unless they pay him money or something.
Can you imagine?!! Are certain medical surgeries subject to this? What about other things? Help me out here guys. I think I will copyright my lame White Boy dance. I will visit white weddings and sue every bastard that dares to try to employ my moves. I will make Billions!! It shall be known to be the B_RAD.
Copyright laws aside, can you make any money with your dance? Suing is fine if those whom you sue have any $ to lose... :^)
I was rather wordy in my initial post, but I want to add that Music (especially) requires free sharing to allow it to be known for what it is worth. Mozart (etc.) is free to listen to or play on your piano. It elevates our lives to hear. The real problem is the junk Meta**ica produced is continuing to make them money whilst masquarading as music. [They were leaders in the anti-original-napster lawsuits]. Greed has diminished many wonderful musicians' music. The 'problem' with copyright (and related) laws are far more damaging than ethics and cash loss. Morals (sorry to use such inflamatory ideas here) and cultural history are effected in these 'legal battles'.
That Yoga guy is rich beyond our dreams. Yoga is also a philosphy (not that I'm a Yoga expert) and basically, in my view, this guy is totally diminishing the very essence of his teachings by limiting its use for the sole purpose of greed. Please don't argue back with "Well that's the law" because there are bad laws. Times are changing but I do see a future where copyright evolve with the technology.
No one can stop me from copying stuff that falls in my hands. I will share with whoever I please. I will say whatever I want. Government and Big Business can stay out of my business.
We have had a similar instance here in Australia recently . We have had ugh boot for decades (at least 4)with many manufactures and some stupid idiot at out trademarks office allowed some aids virus (a*sh**es are usually useful once a day) from th USA to register the name Ugh and then they try to stop an old industry using a generic name here in Oz. The law and our institutions are asses and they need to sit down and workout what they should be doing. To be fair they will always play catchup but they are so slow.
Refuse to buy. This is always an option. It is also the position I take when I have a disc in my hand that states that the disc has copy protection incorporated into the content. I am referring to a music cd here. I don't mind the new oversized FBI (here in the States) copyright warning plastered on the disc sleeve. Apparently some people have no idea what constitutes criminal activity and must be educated. Regardless of how I feel regarding the musical content of the disc or the musicianís right to receive just payment for their work, I refuse to be dictated to on whether I have the right to protect my investment by making a back up copy. I have bought some of the music in my cd collection multiple times. The older stuff on vinyl, then on cd when that transition came about, then again when damaged, lost or stolen. As many as four times for some albums. I want this stuff for life and, in my opinion, I rarely buy crap.
I definitely like Sander's idea of making the industry responsible for fulfilling my right to use the content, for life, on whichever medium is my current standard, once I have purchased said rights. I'm sure that would cut into the industryís profit margin far too much, forcing them to provide consumer with a much more robust product with longevity in mind. It would mute all the legal arguments that the industry continually drones on about. Might also keep the lawmaker from infringing, YET AGAIN, on my personal freedoms. Where's the down side?
It seems to me that copyright law is not being used the way it was intended, yes, it is supposed to protect the rights of the artist but no it's not supposed to limit use. It's original intent was to insure that the artist got credit and yes money when someone used his or her work. NOT to prevent access to it but to make it more accessible while ensuring that the artist was paid and recognized for their work.
The RIAA is not on the side of the ones who make the music or act in the movies, they are on the side of the middlemen who take advantage of both the artist and the end user in order to secure the fruits of that labor for themselves.
In the end, there is no law against copying media but only not paying for the privilege to do so, or at least that seemed to be the intent.
One more point about the dark ages, the church burned people alive for copying the bible. Times haven't changed much only tastes.