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and Industry Relations at Ericsson, explains how copyright holders themselves actually breed pirates by clinging to outdated business methods.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!
Sensible people?
I had a job producing copyrighted content (video games). Believe me, nobody would have invested in creating these in the first place without the guaranteed monopoly that copyright protection provides.
If you don't like copyright, then that's fine. I can point you to a whole load of games that are actually pretty good fun that would have been produced with or without copyright protection. The thing is, the existence of copyright in no way harmed these efforts, just like it doesn't harm fan produced films, free music or other types of free software.
The thing is, some of us like the media that's produced as a result of the industry that relies on copyright protection. I don't think it would be at all sensible from my point of view
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.
How about the fact that copyrighted DVDs frequently come with "structure" DRM, in an attempt to discourage ripping (which is legitimate for personal use e.g. to play a movie on a tablet that doesn't have a DVD drive)? Or the fact that DVD players are designed to force people to watch certain tracks on the DVD before they can see the actual feature? Or the fact that DVD players refuse to play DVDs from different "regions?"
With DVDs alone, there are plenty of reasons that a person might opt to download "pirated" copies instead of dealing with the hassle themselves.
Palm trees and 8
The article is written from a European perspective. I live in Sweden - if I want to watch a televised game of rugby from the UK - the only way that I can do this is to connect to an "illegal" p2p stream. There is no rugby at all on Swedish TV - not even 5 minutes a month. The reason is that the rights holders refuse to allow the distribution of the games outside of the traditional catchment pool that they know they can sell to. They are not interested in selling to a small expat audience in a foreign country. Its artificial border like restrictions like these that he's writing about. Ask why is the BBC restricted solely to the UK? - and everyone in the UK will answer - because we have to pay the licence. Why not allow a licence across Europe though? Why artificially control the audience without providing any legal means to view the content to those you chose to leave out? The result is that the BBC content is widely pirated.