The current DVD interface protocols is your perfect example. Withouth DeCSS, you might never be able to watch a DVD on anything other than a MPAA approved device even if the DVD's copyright had already expired.
I only have one question for you. What happens when your copyright expires (oh yeah, it is not permanent, it has terminationdate)? Then what? are you going to provide a digital key to all users to be able to see it? How are you planning to insure that your encrypted stuff REVERTS to the general public when the copyright ends?
There is a big difference between Telephone and E-mail. Telephone (specially for long distance calls)had a relatively high transaction cost associated with each phone call which relegated it for special ocations or important issues. What is the first thing that comes to mind if you receive a phone call at 2 AM? E-mail on the other hand does not have that associated transaction cost. You do not see or feel the cost of sending and e-mail. Sending an e-mail becomes as natural as speaking because it is so effortless you can take it for granted. That is the difference
If we really want to fulfill the basic premise behind copyright laws: to motivate the content creator so that he creates more, then it is time to separate Content Creators from Content Distributors.
Just like banks and insurance companies were separated at the beginning of the century because they could not be trusted together, just like AT&T was split because it could not be trusted to handle both Long Distance and Local traffic, it is time to split the Content Creation from Content Distribution. A company can Create new Content, or a company can Distribute such a content, but it cannot do both nor can both types of companies be part of the same consortium. In plain English: Disney can create new movies, but Disney cannot distribute it. Same thing with the record labels. No distribution company could hold any copyright to anything but their own name.
By freeing distribution companies from the burden of copyright problems, they will concentrate on ways and means to make the content more accesible to the masses. They would earn their profit from making content available. Instead of one napster, we would see a million napster and the impulse to fiber-optic every house in order to deliver the best quality content to the house.
On the other hand, content creators will dedicate their time to make new creations to entertain a ever more sophisticated public, to make new things. There will be a stop to those hurry up jobs, quick compilations, those CDs with one hit and 11 fillers. If the work is not good, distribution cannot sell it and there would be no demand.
Right now the marriage of content creating/distributing conglomerates is what forces such low-quality, high-priced content into the public, where the sheer force of distribution on one side and copyright misuse on the other side deprives the general mass public from qualifying what is worthy and what is not.
My two cents.
Great! Now you just killed your own argument.
'To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Did you notice the authors and inventors thingy? It says nothing of their children. It is YOU who are allowed to profit for a limited time and pass on the dole you made to your children. If your children are creative enough then they will have a protection on their own inventions, but their parent's inventions go on to enrich the general pool of society's knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
The current DVD interface protocols is your perfect example. Withouth DeCSS, you might never be able to watch a DVD on anything other than a MPAA approved device even if the DVD's copyright had already expired.
I only have one question for you. What happens when your copyright expires (oh yeah, it is not permanent, it has terminationdate)? Then what? are you going to provide a digital key to all users to be able to see it? How are you planning to insure that your encrypted stuff REVERTS to the general public when the copyright ends?
There is a big difference between Telephone and E-mail. Telephone (specially for long distance calls)had a relatively high transaction cost associated with each phone call which relegated it for special ocations or important issues. What is the first thing that comes to mind if you receive a phone call at 2 AM? E-mail on the other hand does not have that associated transaction cost. You do not see or feel the cost of sending and e-mail. Sending an e-mail becomes as natural as speaking because it is so effortless you can take it for granted. That is the difference
Just like banks and insurance companies were separated at the beginning of the century because they could not be trusted together, just like AT&T was split because it could not be trusted to handle both Long Distance and Local traffic, it is time to split the Content Creation from Content Distribution. A company can Create new Content, or a company can Distribute such a content, but it cannot do both nor can both types of companies be part of the same consortium. In plain English: Disney can create new movies, but Disney cannot distribute it. Same thing with the record labels. No distribution company could hold any copyright to anything but their own name.
By freeing distribution companies from the burden of copyright problems, they will concentrate on ways and means to make the content more accesible to the masses. They would earn their profit from making content available. Instead of one napster, we would see a million napster and the impulse to fiber-optic every house in order to deliver the best quality content to the house.
On the other hand, content creators will dedicate their time to make new creations to entertain a ever more sophisticated public, to make new things. There will be a stop to those hurry up jobs, quick compilations, those CDs with one hit and 11 fillers. If the work is not good, distribution cannot sell it and there would be no demand.
Right now the marriage of content creating/distributing conglomerates is what forces such low-quality, high-priced content into the public, where the sheer force of distribution on one side and copyright misuse on the other side deprives the general mass public from qualifying what is worthy and what is not. My two cents.
Great! Now you just killed your own argument. 'To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Did you notice the authors and inventors thingy? It says nothing of their children. It is YOU who are allowed to profit for a limited time and pass on the dole you made to your children. If your children are creative enough then they will have a protection on their own inventions, but their parent's inventions go on to enrich the general pool of society's knowledge.