Slashdot Mirror
Copyright Common Sense From Telecom Ericsson
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from a story at Torrentfreak:
"Entertainment industry lobby groups often describe file-sharers as thieves who refuse to pay for any type of digital content. But not everyone agrees with this view. Swedish telecom giant Ericsson sees copyright abuse as the underlying cause of the piracy problem. In a brilliant article, Rene Summer, Director of Government and Industry Relations at Ericsson, explains how copyright holders themselves actually breed pirates by clinging to outdated business methods. The most vocal rightsholder groups would ideally turn the Internet into a virtual police state, and at the other end of the spectrum there are groups that want to abolish copyright entirely.'"
It seems that whenever someone has the solution for copyright problems, it always involves somebody else making sacrifices. no surprise, hmm?
-- Flame me and I will happily flame you back. Bring it!
Let's hope that if enough of those with different interests to RIAA-like scum, and with full wallets to actually persuade the important folks up there will hold opinions like this, the situation will begin to change
Telecoms are quite the profitable enterprise and copyrightists are slowly beginning to step on more and more toes in their mad race for more profits.
there are groups that want to abolish copyright entirely.
Actually, only one group wants to abolish copyright. That group is known as Sensible People.
Far too often the pirated product is the superior product.
Either tell us how to copy it right or kindly give us right to copy :D
I'm eager to see if Sony (as in Sony/Ericsson) might have a response to this.
This week the online community managed to get the attention of the lawmakers in Argentina and paused the approval of a law that would instate a private copy levy on MP3 players, CDs, DVDs and even hard drives. This law would be similar to the ones already in place in Europe and that are being contested by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Those of us who got informed in time were able to watch the session of the Congress during which the proposed law was presented and different groups that represent copyright holders (record labels, filmmaking producers, etc) expressed their views about it. Many representatives of these groups were over 70 years old. By repeating phrases such as "artists have a right to make a living" they were continuously showing that they have no grasp of the current market. It was clear that most of them were there to be shown in camera and to be certain that their groups got included as recipients for the levy. There were no dissident voices, not one member of Congress or representative of technology groups that expressed arguments against the approval of the law. In fact, the only congressmen present were "ready to approve the law tomorrow" as one said.
Lobbying at its finest.
...As capacity on networks and hard drives increase exponentially , sharing is going to expand.... exponentially.
Once upon a time, it would have been idiotic to claim that anyone that might hear a song as they walk down the street should pay a fee to do so. Content is increasingly moving through the population much faster/easier/pervasively than the sound of a performance. How the heck can anyone expect every transfer of content to result in a payment to multiple parties?
Oh, you would like EVERY SONG EVER RECORDED in the 1900's? Indexed? With reviews? Here, make a copy of this [ some future tech memory flavor ] card. You don't think that will be possible? You are not paying attention.
Copyright NEEDS to go away. It only exists to promote the production of content, and there isn't a shred of evidence that content is promoted by copyright today. There is every evidence that content is HINDERED by copyright.
I would like to podcast my Church's services. Can't, Copyright
I would like to listen to any radio station in the world over the Internet. Can't, Copyright, Broadcast right
I would like to toss my cable subscription in favor of streaming shows. Can't, Copyright and License restrictions.
I would like to record the occasional HD broadcast (given I have to have cable). Can't, Copyright and License restrictions and broken DVR by AT&T
I would like to listen to a book read to me while I drive from my Kindle. Can't Copyright
And even as I say I can't have all these things, really I can by just downloading what I want into the appropriate application. Today. Without any permission to do so from anyone.
And it is just going to get easier.
Content will be produced even without copyright, because content drives attention, and attention drives sells. Sells of what? Anything. Everything.
And people will ALWAYS pay modest amounts for packaged content. Because they are buying "ease of use", and "time". Why spend hours collecting and organizing pirated content when I can buy content already collected and organized? But mostly we CAN'T get our content packaged the way we want because of copyright. Because Big Content wants the past to continue. We pirate because we can't buy content at prices we can afford, and can't get it in the form we want to consume it in.
Big content wants to swallow the reductions in cost provided by the Internet (Little distribution costs, no manufacturing costs, no retail costs) but collect the same level of revenue on every sell. They want NOBODY else to make a dime. They want it all, mailed to them with a kiss, without providing any value to the consumer. Sorry, but that isn't the way it works.
Big content wants to make us all criminals by making content effectively illegal in the ways we want to consume content, unless we pay, and pay big. Higher prices even as the magnitude of available content explodes? How does that work with Supply and Demand? Oh wait! Copyright ISN'T about Supply and Demand, but how much Government Granted Monopolies can make the population pay for their content!
If you dig conspiracies, then Government wants the consumption of content illegal so they can be bigger, and can selectively put people in jail they don't like, and to suppress free speech, and as an excuse to exert more and more control over the population as a whole. If you don't care for conspiracies, then our politicians just want the contributions from Hollywood. Either way is bad for the common man.
We need to vastly cut back copyright, or accept that any of our children will have their future selectively demolished over copyright should they cross someone that doesn't like them. We need to cut back copyright unless we accept a desert of legal content in an ocean of available content. We need to cut back on copyright unless it is okay to censor the Internet and censor free speech and silence the citizens because some copyright might be infringed upon.
This is a rant. Yes, but it is also the truth.
Sony Ericsson launches a boot loader unlocking program for their Android phones (and launches the pretty sweet xperia line). And now Ericsson takes a non facist stance on copyrights.
I don't know who kicked some sense into those companies, but whoever it was; thanks!
I don't respect copyright any more than I worry about sodomy laws when I sleep with my wife or think of the sabbath when I buy alcohol on Sunday. At the very beginning of this "era" of copyright holders versus consumers I started with a simple idea. I want files. I don't want to buy anymore tapes, records, discs, mini-discs, or anything else the content owners can think of. I want files.I want to buy things once and be able to use that one purchased piece of music, television show, movie, e-book, whatever on any device I please. To me that's the whole point of this excercise. I can certainly see how the content owners don't want to give up their model of selling you the same shit every few years when your copy wears out or the technology changes but once we get to "files" that shit comes to a screeching halt. The way the content owners have fought to control what people do with the content has in my opinion created the environment we live in today. Now consumers resent that control to the point where they'll ignore the law without reservation to get out from under them. Appeal to us on the basis of "but you're stealing this artists work" and we don't care. The people accusing us if stealing from the content creators are themselves epically famous for fucking those creators out of every penny they could. I think the record labels, movie studios, game companys, and publishing houses have made things the way they are and I think that it all must eventually change if anyone is to continue to make money in these businesses. You can copyright something if you like. That doesn't mean you're assured of being able to profit from it. You need a market for it and you have to find a price point that market will accept. The $5 games you see in the iTunes store, the $1.29-.99 songs that are no longer tied to an album of material, and the $1.00 movie rentals of today could have probably headed off a lot of this if they'd appeared on the scene back when this all seemed to start with (roughly) the arrival of napster. I guess the tipping point was on them before they knew it but even today they fight to hold on to the kinds of profits they've come to expect. I'm sorry, they just aren't going to be there anymore.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
> The copyright to your churches services are held by your church
Not necessarily so, at least in their entirety. Perhaps they sing Happy Birthday (or some other music under copyright) as part of their church service?
> As far as cable-subscriptions, why not watch hulu or hulu plus
Perhaps the poster doesn't live in the US?
> I've listened to plenty of audio books from the library - and I don't even have to drive
> to the library to get them; I just download them directly from the library website at a cost of zero dollars
Kind of curious, which library is that? Please post its URL?
Slashdot posts a lot of these articles legitimizing the pirate way. Be careful of getting into the echo chamber, because a lot of sites won't give you the story from the other side. First of all, I can't even figure out what the article's author is talking about. There's plenty of places to get stuff off the internet via legal means. You'd think that this article was written 10 years ago - before channels started streaming their programs on the internet, before iTunes, before internet radio, before Amazon mp3 downloads and Video-On-Demand. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of people who pirate because they: get access to stuff they wouldn't have paid for *AND* because they get stuff for free that they would've paid for -- and free is always better than paying. To say that it's about reasonable prices and the ability to buy it on the internet seems ridiculously out of touch with the modern state of affairs. Does this guy know how much piracy there is of, say, the Humble Indie Bundle? That was easy to get on the internet and it was pay whatever you want. But, some people seem to act like "pirates pirate because they don't want to pay" is the conclusion that must be avoided at all costs, even when there's plenty of evidence.
A while back, I remember talking to one friend of mine, and I was happy that Amazon was selling last year's best-selling albums for $5 each (for a limited time). Her response? "Meh, you can get it all for free on the internet." That's right: for many people, it doesn't matter what the price is or whether or not they are available (legally) on the internet because piracy is always free. For many pirates, the internet is like the world's largest free-for-all, like someone gave them a credit card with no limit and they can run through a store and take everything they want. I'm also sensing that this guy doesn't know much about the economics of content creation. But, then, maybe he's just looking out for his own interests: he doesn't want to be in the business of cracking down on piracy and piracy costs his company nothing (in fact, he might even make money if he can charge customers money for their data-plans), so he's willing to be oblivious to the economics of content creation.
I'd be rather you put your modeling skills to use in industry - stuff like finite element analysis and such.
Unlike the other two occupations, it's useful for something.
I said you can have all the paychecks i'll get in 20 years for work i do now. Because that's just what these folk get - money for work done long in the past.
Still made quite the money, as do plenty of Free To Play MMO's on the internet (eg. World of Tanks).
In other words, what you need is a) to adopt methods (as the above) that aren't endangered by piracy much, because you are providing an actual service, not just copiable data , and , on the other hand, notice that there's no use wanting it all - there will be some piracy losses, but there is such a thing as acceptable loss, where trying to fight it is unrentable.
Note Starcraft for example. It had primitive copy protection, and got pirated a lot, but it made Blizzard a profit and is sold in some numbers even now.
It's a brain-dead suggestion, but why can't YouTube have a "buy this track" button, and sell the music shown for say 50p or so. I'd buy tons of stuff, stuff I'd never have a chance of buying through any other means. I want convenience though. One or two clicks, and be able to save it as non-DRM mp3.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
My local library has tons of CDs and movies, between what's available there and online, I finally have reasonable access to almost any creative works I want.
Read the title initially as saying that Ericsson was trying to copyright common sense. Which seems pretty reasonable to me, there's definitely no prior art on common sense on the internet.
The problem is that copyright is too long: author's life + 70 years.
I think 20-30 years should be enough.
You obviously didn't RTFA and just jumped in for 1st post karma whoring (unless you consider a move to the modern age to be a sacrifice).
In the late 90s, when Napster first burst on the scene I sided with the rights holders. Now I'm mostly on the other side. Why? Because of the disproportionate punishments meted out, and the larger problem of corporations buying laws (e.g, Sonny Bono extension act).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Internet radio does exist but it might not offer all of the radio stations that you want. Additionally, you may need to purchase special hardware that supports it rather than your favorite Linux application that is free.
A/V Receivers from companies such as Denon have been supporting this for a number of years. I don't know what the economics are at the back end. Aside from buying a (then) expensive receiver that could connect to the Internet and Internet Radio, I've never had to pay any extra fees to listen to Australian and European radio stations in the USA.
who think every rusty scrap they have is worth 1000x what it is actually worth and get angry that no one wants to buy it.
If you want to consume media, then media has value.
And if that media has value, you should pay.
Stop being so hypocrite. Please.
Fashion industry never got copyrights. Why? They were so easy to copy. If the fashion industry did get copyrights and "counterfeits" were banned. You basically would have everyone wearing armani $5000 suits. So those in power said... 'you are too easy to copy so no copyrights for you'
Back then... songs and stuff were hard to copy... now they arent. Good by copyrights. Though admittedly this would be a hard sell. So it's a fair compromise is gross commerical copyright infringement stays illegal. Warez becomes legal.
I enjoyed the eloquent phrase "Digital Iron Curtain" in TFA. So right.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
http://journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
"It may prove difficult in the short term to reduce the term of copyrights which have already been extended. Also, the forces pushing perpetual copyright are strong. However, there is another route, which may be easier, employing the concepts of Aikido -- moving with the strong force and redirecting it in a better way. Rather than fight to reduce the maximum term of copyrights, consider that existing and future copyrights could be taxed annually just like real estate as long as they are kept from the public domain. This uses a market-based approach to limit the external costs of copyright monopolies."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Intriguing! I will pass it on.