Slashdot Mirror
CFP 2002 Wrapup
Roger Clarke is an computer scientist who attends many of the CFP conferences, and more importantly for our purposes, takes notes. His notes for this year's conference make good reading and cover a wide variety of issues that Slashdot touches upon. Privacy, biometrics, domain names, the digital divide, intellectual property, it's all here. NTK this week has a nice quip on the conference: "And the more the CFPers confer, the more they seemed to realise that Hollywood is going for the hat-trick: taking away freedom, privacy *and* computers. Pretty impressive. But only if they manage it."
Ofcourse he was. But there's one thing I don't get. Maybe he explained this to you, and in that case you might inform me.
The MPAA and RIAA says we don't buy the product but a license to the use of the content. So we don't actually own it, we just own the right to use it, under their terms. Isnt that sweet? :)
Sweet because that would imply that if I loose a CD or a DVD that would mean I should get a new one for free, right? I mean, I got the right to view the content, right?
If I wasn't getting a new one for free, that would conclude I actually bought the product, not just a license to use it.
So in order for the MPAA and RIAA to validly claim that we only buy our license to view the content, any dealer would be obligated to give us a new copy for free, if we loose or damage ord CDs and DVDs, right? (And he should ofcourse be given a refund for the lost/faulty product)
I think this claim makes sense.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
Associated Events
EFF Pioneer Awards
Norwegian teenager, Jon Johansen, and Writers of DeCSS (which makes it possible to play encrypted DVD movies on a Linux machine). Because of the corporation-protective and person-abusive provisions of the DMCA Act, he was advised not to risk arrest by coming to the U.S. for the ceremony
guess the U.S will start having to ask for extradition on foreigners who seek to allow fair-use now.
And don't we already have laws in place crimializing file sharing? Copyright laws? Funny, if they can't adequately prosecute people under the existing laws, that's their own fault, not the law's.
Frankly, it's not their content they're protecting, it's their outmoded business model. Their content is already protected by a myriad of laws. Yes, they need to make money, and yes, the artists need to have their work protected. But the current run of laws which are ostensibly for the latter, are really for the former, and make no mistake.
Allowing me to play DVDs on my system of choice, or copying my CDs to my computer for my personal convenience, while not my right per se, is actually in the best interest of the companies currently trying to outlaw such things, because it makes me more likely to puchase more of their product.
Region encoding and broken audio formats aren't protecting the artist from illegal copying. A bit-wise copy of some media on to other media can't be stopped, it simply has to be caught, which takes money and effort which the MPAA and RIAA aren't prepared to put forth, because laws are cheaper and require less effort to purchase. In any case, these two methods are merely for the protection of a business model. A bad business model, some may argue. The business model is dying, and rather than coming up with something else, the business is alienating it's customers with draconian tactics. Ultimately, these tactics will cut into their revenue far more than copyright infringements will. Selling one copy to an infringer is better than not selling any to people who despise you.
Do not touch -Willie
Flash back a century. "Motor car owners need to remember that horse-buggy makers and the horse-buggy industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."
Or maybe a bit earlier? "Electric lightbulb users need to remember that oil-lamp makers and the oil lamp industry employ thousands - if not millions - and generate huge revenues for the US."
Get the picture yet?