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and Industry Relations at Ericsson, explains how copyright holders themselves actually breed pirates by clinging to outdated business methods.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.'"

Comments

easy to judge others

[cheeks5965]

It seems that whenever someone has the solution for copyright problems, it always involves somebody else making sacrifices. no surprise, hmm?

Re:easy to judge others

[Opportunist]

It's no surprise that such a statement doesn't come from one of the big copyright holders, it would be self defeating. I'm also not really so sure that they don't know themselves that the whole copycrippling is at the very least part of the copying problem. I'm also not so convinced that the goal is money. The goal is control.

Having a resource that is abundant and easy to multiply is useless. Because the abundance and ease of multiplication makes the resource worthless. Supply and demand at work. Someone selling simple air (not something fancy like pure Oxygen or "clean" air, just the stuff that's all around us) won't make a big deal. And that's basically what the content industry has without artificial shortening of the supply: Thin air. With content protection and keeping it in artificial short supply (i.e. monopolizing the seller's position), they create value.

Now, this makes inherently very little sense. If the whole ordeal only serves the purpose of driving people away from legally buying and only drives them towards copying, where's the gain? Where's the profit? Fewer people buy their stuff if they keep up this scheme. And I am fairly sure they even know that but have no choice.

The reason is the shareholder value of their stocks. What's their "assets"? Basically, thin air. They have nothing. Nothing but content. Nothing but a commodity that is easily multiplied and hence worthless. If they now don't at least TRY to limit the supply, analysts might catch up.

Re:easy to judge others

[VAElynx]

Really? I don't know about you, but when i do some work , i only get paid for it once, not for years to go.
Why should i support folk who are far more privileged than myself - they get paid for the same work for years!?
In other words, you can take all the paycheck i'll get in 20 years for work i do now - all of the zero bucks.

Re:easy to judge others

[molnarcs]

No! Don't buy, don't pirate! If you download the media you're still endorsing the RIAA and MPAA. You're demonstrating that they're the ones creating the content that people want and you're still legitimising what they produce.

I see your point, but most of the music I listen to are indies. Lounge music, nu-jazz, jazz, etc. I pay for that stuff whenever I can. Occasionally, I stumble upon something that's actually good and I want, but comes from a RIAA label. Look, RIAA is a fishing company. For every good artist they find they create nine crap ones - assembly-line celebrities, basically. And when you pay for that one good artist you are also supporting nine crap ones. That's a rotten business model - and choosing to pirate is still the more ethical choice.

yup

[Anonymous Coward]

Far too often the pirated product is the superior product.

Re:(c)

[betterunixthanunix]

is the ability to copy something an inaliable right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

if somebody else made something, they have a say over how it's used,

"Made something" -- you mean like, if I made a hammer and sold it to you, I could dictate how you use it? Oh, wait, we are not talking about making "something," we are talking about copyright law, which restricts the ability of people to speak freely (yeah, that does include repeating what someone else told you i.e. making a copy). The point of that restriction is to encourage artists and writers; nobody has a natural right to copyrights, it is just a compromise that was originally intended (in America) to ensure that people would have access to literature, art, and so forth.

Re:Groups

[Opportunist]

It's not sensible to abolish copyright. Content is no longer "art", the work of passion of a single person who might do it for the expression of their creativity. You have a lot of people involved in the process of creating what we today consider "good entertainment". From music to movies to games. Trust me, writing games ain't half the fun that playing is. It's a lot of crunch, a lot of stress, a lot of "why the fuck did I decide to get into this industry". These people want to get paid for what they do, and without copyright, there is very little chance that they can be.

What's wrong with copyright is not its existence. It's that copyright got out of control. It is no longer an incentive for the creative mind to create. It's an incentive to NOT create and live off a single cash cow to milk forever. Imagine I'm the greatest composer of all times. Mozart, Beethoven and Lennon rolled into one. And I create that ultimate, timeless and superawesome piece of music that EVERYONE loves. EVERYONE just wants to hear this style suddenly, and nobody can hit what people want as good as I can. But ... why should I keep working, why should I, the best person to ever write music in the history of mankind, write any more? I can milk that song forever. People will go ahead and remix it to get some breadcrumbs of the success, and I'll always cash in when they do. From now 'til I die. And beyond.

What's my incentive to create?
`
Copyright has to exist so people want to get together and create something special as a collective. If they can't reap the rewards for it, they most likely won't do it, or at least it will take a horribly long time since they can only do it in their spare time after they've done something to generate money so they can afford having a hobby. But it has to be limited so the best and brightest actually have a reason to continue creating. If I get more money from one creation than I could spend in a lifetime, why bother working anymore?

Re:Groups

[Dishevel]

Please do not listen to the "Fucking Idiots".
AKA. Those who want to "Abolish" copyright.

Copyright is good. Limited copyright encourages creation of new content. Then the new content gets to move to the public domain
after a period of time. This is awesome. Tons of new stuff pouring into the public domain. Enriching all with its wonders.

What copyright has become though is never ending. Nothing flows into the public domain anymore.
Hell a story not to long ago about the courts pulling shit out of the public domain.

We have to go back to move forward.

Re:What's up with Ericsson of late?

[gstrickler]

Given Sony's other actions, I would expect them to put an end to such "foolishness" from Ericsson soon.

Until then, keep up the good work Ericsson.