Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Amendment Proposed For UK
Grumbleduke writes "During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticized Digital Economy Bill, the unpopular Clause 17 (which would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favor of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. The new amendment known as 120A sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees. This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party, which had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and with the Conservative party supporting them. The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticized this new amendment."
Bollocks. Make better, less formulated music, don't compress the hell out of it, and sell it online so people can use it in their iPods and in-dash MP3 players. As for doing nothing, that's what you want to do, right? Not change? Your old business model doesn't work any more, so man up and deal with it. Improve your marketing and online distribution, stream it from your site for a taste, and sell CDs and whatnot online. Christ, you bitch about lost sales but you don't even have a link to your website in your profile!
You'd rather fuck the entire online communication revolution because you can't compete? No. We (the entire technically literate world under 40) won't let that happen.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
Seeing zero reporting on this in the media (apart from the excellent interviews professor Geist linked on his blog). Big media all for this. The majority of "big media" business models are based on artificial scarcity. That is, big media charge for the packaging and distribution of bits and bytes as a if these things are scarce commodity. Note that I am not talking about the actual artistic content creation, but only the packaging and distribution. Packaging and distribution are certainly value adding exercises, but when talking about digital media, the cost to reproduce and distribute is a fixed cost or as close to fixed as you can get (see wikipedia article reference - "duplicated billions of times over for a relatively cheap production price (an initial investment in a computer, an internet connection, and any power consumption costs; and these are already fixed costs in most environments)").
It is physically impossible to maintain the current (substantial) profit differential between charging for the packaging and distribution of each digital item as if it is a scarce commodity, while running that part of their operation at or very close to fixed cost (The most profitable and central part of big media). Any other business model that embraces the digital medium for what it is (a fixed cost medium for duplication/distribution), and not based on artificial scarcity simply could never maintain the same levels of profitability they currently enjoy.
They only have one choice if they wish to maintain their currently profit levels: Legislate scarcity into the digital medium (hence we see secret ACTA treaties and other morally questionable political clout being thrown about in favor of this goal)
If we actually talk about the artistic content creation part of the business model, that could be considered and entirely different issue. Big media obviously pay artists to produce content. The interesting "moral high ground" issue that both sides of the debate are claiming revolves around the question of if Big Media should also be allowed by society to charge for artificial scarcity well into the future (even well beyond the original artists death!) because they also happened to contract the artists to create the work to begin with. Big Medias defense so far seems to me to be a "muddy the debate" tactic, ignoring the artificial scarcity issue entirely and just shouting "your damaging the artists" in an effort to maintain the moral high ground.
Michael Geists recent 20min presentation to American Uni, Washington College of Law was very interesting, he basically says that ACTA is a sly underhanded run-around of existing treaty. If I understood correctly, big media/content producers did not like having to negotiate using open democratic processes built into existing agreements - so they sponsored ACTA to subvert the democratic process. Worth watching to understand where ACTA is coming from.
Eventually people will start realizing that infringing is illegal and it prevents many of us (music producers) from making a living.
Why should I care whether you can make a living or not?
I might care about the continued production of content (the music itself), but you most certainly are not necessary for that to continue. You might believe you are and you might believe you are entitled to make a living doing what you've always done, but that in no way makes it so. Many industries have changed over time and left people out of work and their old roles redundant -- we didn't legislate to keep those industries in limbo and those old roles viable -- nor should we legislate to keep your industry in limbo or your role viable.
It's the, "but, but, we're so important" attitude that really bites my ass. No, you're not -- you're Artie Fufkin -- now bend over and ask us all to collectively kick your ass. C'mon, for a man -- do it.
Thought thinks itself.
In Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea,New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States in theory you can find the political party and minster linked to this.
Stay on public property and expose them.
Never drive to an event, they will note all car license plates in the area.
Read out the laws they are working on in your name in dark places.
Speak some truths at their next walk about, meet and greet, mall trip or suburban town hall meeting.
Have a few friends around you to film the response of their public security and party helpers.
If they allow you to protest, keep on showing up.
If they get physical you have some great clips for the local news, youtube and keep on showing up.
File complaints about your mis treatment, turn up in court with video evidence and a real lawyer.
Always ask for the collar numbers/shoulder number/badge number of anyone without it on display.
Make sure your friends record the reaction.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Your assuming that a decrease in price point won't increase sales, by a similar ratio. In other words if they cut the cost by 50% and the sales increase by a little over double( double would assume that the cost to them was 0 per copy), then the profit margin would not change.
That is only based on the assumption that only "they" can distribute the media - so we are back where we started - legislating artificial scarcity into the unlimited copies, fixed cost distribution medium so that only those who are allowed by law to distribute can profit - everyone else cannot benefit from the Internets innovation. In the "normal" scarce goods model, distributors (companies running trucks, boats...) all take their cut of the profits for moving the physical goods around (and employed people outside of big media in the process). Big Media does not need those distributors anymore, at least not like they needed them before to before move CD boxes around. However In the Internets fixed cost distribution medium *anyone* can distribute, and redistribute for fixed cost. Without ACTA and legislation there is no massive profit for moving bits and bytes around. The power to reach people goes back to the artist and is no longer solely in the hands of of a few big media companies who used to be the only ones who could facilitate the distribution of their artistic works to the masses. However the artist can't try and ride on the next to free fixed cost distribution but charge for artificial scarcity either - profit is no longer in distribution (without ACTA and strict laws forcing artificial scarcity into the internet, that is).
I have some news for you: Music is nice to have, but I value my freedom and the Internet more. If you're going to stand between me and that, you're the one I can do without. And if you somehow succeed in instituting draconian laws, I'll make sure that not a cent of my money goes to you, and will simply find some other way to entretain myself.
If you want me to buy your music, make quality, unrestricted music. Drop the awful compression, drop the DRM, and drop the bullshit. Offer FLAC for download with no strings attached, selling individual tracks, and I could be interested. Sell DRMed stuff, and I definitely won't be.
BTW, I'm surprised you complain yet miss such an obvious chance to advertise your work. What do you make?