Slashdot Mirror
Open Debate Between RIAA VP And DMCA Critic
A GW student writes "The George Washington University's School of Engineering and Applied Science along with the Cyberspace Policy Institute are sponsoring some kind (hasn't really been decided yet) of debate between Stanley Pierre-Louis, Vice President Legal Affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America and Professor James Boyle of Duke Law School. Remember, Prof. Boyle just received an anonymous $1 million to fight the DMCA. The event is open to the public. It will take place on Tuesday October 8 in Washington, DC on GW's campus. The abstract and other details are here. Stick around, and the next day you can go to the Supreme Court to see Lawrence Lessig argue Eldred v. Ashcroft."
...the debate should be recorded, mp3 encoded and distributed all over the Internet...
I would assume that there are a few slashdot users out there, who work in different mainstream media outlets. Maybe your in the news department or in tech support. Try and bring this event to the attention of a news director, or reporter. Digital Music is hip and sexy, but the DMCA is invisible. There is what about a 1% penetration in to the American conciousness about it. Sadly nobody cares unless Stone Phillips tells them to. Lets get the word out people.
Tensions between Free Software and Architectures of Control", which is very informative, as
well as quite funny in parts.
Everyone knows the RIAA is trying to "protect" the financial security of the music industry. The big selling artists pull in millions for record labels. Less popular artists at least shouldn't lose money for the label given that many artists run under independent labels and still make a decent living. That and a record label is not a government agency; there should be a certain level of efficiency. If executives' salaries are tapping funds, fine, they should be paid less. Either way we need to consider what's behind the collective habits of those that copy music.
One of the biggest problems I see with music copying is that US culture and the music industry have a symbiotic relationship. We crave and pay for entertainment that's snazzy and cool which the industry provides. However, many people don't want to pay for the one hit wonder and the grossly commericialized entertainer (ie Britney, NSync, etc.) since they know they won't listen to the record in 3 months anyway. On the other hand they do want the convenience of hearing the hits they want to hear when they want to hear them. Whether this insatiable demand and need for instant gratification is good is up for debate. On this basis though, the problem is that without a lot of money coming in it is difficult to feed the public more Britney, more NSync, etc. If that's what the public really wants, then they need to pay for it. The old model of deliver obviously doesn't jive with the new trends in demand. What's needed is a new platform and a new way to pay (ie. pay-per-play). Consider a best selling CD. Many people will only listen to every song once while they will listen to one or two of them over and over and over. Very very simply put the industry can calculate the current cost of a record subtract basically the net gain from lower production costs and add the amortized costs of additional infrastructure. The desired result? The public should be able to pay about the same for more accurately what they actually want to hear.
What do I do? Although infrequently, I download songs that I will listen to once or twice. These are generally the Top 40 songs you hear on the radio. I don't know why I listen to them at all. I don't particularly like any of them but whatever. Stuff that I will listen to for a long time (Elliott Smith, Lou Reed, Pearl Jam, etc.) I buy.
sig
Anyone renember studying the older debates between anti-slave and free slave supporters, or more recently the debate between communisim and capitalisim. It wasn't long before each side was avoiding debates, or getting into worthless squabbles. It's just a fact of life, sometimes only action can resolve problems.
With both issues, people would cry out, if we could only get along! If we could only communicate! but the problem was not commnication, it was that one side is trying to gain benefit at the expense of others by force or coercion.
The same is true here. There is no equivalancy relationship here. There is no misunderstanding between civilized individuals. There is simply a raw conflict of interest and no amount of debate is going to change that. We should not be debating with them, but within ourselves - what are we going to do about them? How can we break, beat, or contain them?
Im convinced that the only way to do that is by insisting on civil-disobedience of copyright laws whenever possible. It is only then, when we drain them of their revenue stream and power that we will win - otherwise we will just be feeding and strengthening the beast intent on killing us.
That's a very progressive policy. I know they have more patience than I do. When one of the employees at work was completely using 100% of our T1, I just blocked his Kazaa port completely. Fuck em... You are supposed to work at work (or post on Slashdot), not download movies at 170KB/Sec, killing the bandwidth for everyone else.
I think selective blocking abusers isn't too bad a policy.
P2P clients are just so incredibly wasteful, and have so many connections going at a time that it's hard to throttle them or limit their bandwidth.. I think it's incredibly shitty that this Kazaa2 will maliciously circumvent bandwidth limits... at what point does something cease to be legitimate traffic and become more like a virus?
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
However, I do buy records. Will you argue that the RI has lost a sale because I didn't go out and purchase a new CD? None of that money I spend at thrift stores and garage sales finds its way to artists, labels, or distributors. Yet I get to hear lots of great music for 50 cents an album. Would I have purchased the same album on CD for 9-17 dollars? No.
CDs ARE too expensive. Recent 'Big Label' music is for the most part uninspired and focus group driven. Radio has been taken over by a marketing company. Whether or not you agree with me doesn't change the fact that the RIAA is trying to remove my ability to create and distribute my own music. They are trying to kill first sale rights (allows used cd/record stores.) and fair use (my ability to copy a CD FOR MY OWN USE).
They are extending copyrights far longer than most people live. They are looking out for their OWN interests, yet still want me to eat up the insipid pap they ram down the public's throat.
I make music. So do many others. The RIAA would have it that I would have to go through them (certificates, licencing, copy-restrictions) no matter what I want for the music I create.
To answer your subject's question: "What is wrong with Copyrights?"
Nothing. Copyrights were 'invented' to give an author of a work exclusive use of his/her work for a *limited* amount of time. The copyright would expire after the author had had ample time to make money from their creation. The work would then be placed in the public domain and others could use it as they saw fit. The work could be changed, reworked and released as a wholly new creation. Copyrights prevented someone from taking a work, placing their name on it, and calling it their own. These are the things that copyright was intended for. Your subject and the post that follows are two separate issues.
Copying a CD is not the same as shoplifting a CD. It is the difference between removing a physical item and duplicating a physical item.
(Simile time) The first is like stealing a dollar. The second is counterfeiting a dollar.
I agree that either one denies the author of the work his/her due payment for making the work available. (They didn't have to)
Long winded rant over. Mod to your heart's content.
I must concur, but in this case I don't even think it's would be akin to counterfeiting a dollar. Because as you mentioned early on, they wouldn't have gotten your money anyway.
Case in point, I downloaded the Christina Aguillera song Dirty (I know I know, its just so damned catchy, I hate it), I would lop off several of my own apendages before I would throw away my money on one of her CD's, however, that song, for whatever horrific reason, stuck in my head and I like to listen to it. Bear in mind that this is the same song I can pop a tape in the radio and copy off the radio and playback to my hearts contents. But they say that I cannot take this same song, download it in MP3, and listen to it that way....why????
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."