As the generic generalization for 'Megacorp media distributors' the RIAA has accumulated much public ill-will. Between media distributors historic association with organized crime, manipulation of copyright legislation by lobbying and campaign contributions, and overt threats to individuals, they (companies which are represented by the RIAA) are feared and hated by a great many of their potential customers.
Some portion of public (copyright violating) file sharing is directly caused by this resentment. Nonetheless, copyright has a purpose and few could argue that SOME form of protection for artists AND distributors is required.
The digital age has changed the foundation beneath the tower of legal precedents, and thus created unenforceable laws as currently interpreted.Why not reform copyright law to appropriately reflect society's interests? Allow public debate and informed arbitration, to BUILD a system that most people could accept.
Public domain should apply in a much shorter time than current law stipulates. Criminal piracy should be distinguished from Non-monetary file sharing. Criminal penalties should apply, and be enforced, against those who steal for profit, and MINIMAL civil penalties should be enforced against those who are merely competing for egos sake. Furthermore, there should be taxes (or fees) imposed on mass distributors of data (read ISP's) which would support regulation and enforcement of public access to copyrighted materials.
None of this would interfere with huge media collections or fair use in any form, be it educational, religious, or merely personal.
If the publics right to share materials was recognized exhaustively, the media companies would have a many more supporters of THEIR rights. Fair isn't difficult to understand. Neither is opressive inequity, however disguised by legislation.
so you think Orrin Hatch believes in 'intellectual property' strongly enough to be the RIAA's legislator of choice (point man) WITHOUT their considerable economic support?
Oddly enough, I happen to think he's bought, or at least rented. I guess we'll just have to differ.
aight, a tangle of issues. first, No I don't respect the RIAA and think current copyright law is inequitable. Second, lots of musicians gain popular attention BECAUSE of 'free' (sometimes pirated, not always) distribution of mp3s. Third, Big distribution companies have built a system that supports legislation (and legislators) who support them, to the detriment of fair use. Fourth, ALL the 'legal' enforcement of 'anti-piracy' legislation and enforcement by the RIAA companies comes OUT OF THE POCKETS OF ARTISTS. Not the salaries of executives. Artists are paid by royalties (after expenses) and executives aren't. One wonders just what the lawyers who file these cases charge, and how many artists that might support.
And.. just for hypothetical.. did an artist (under exclusive contract) EVER bootleg a few CD's at a show and fail to inform his distributor? Hmm? I don't think artists are immune from such behavior, just guessing.
Bottom line, it's a tangled mass of issues, but as far as 'who started it' and 'whose fault it is' that depends where you stand and when you start counting. Fairly well known fact that organized crime and media distribution have been entangled for decades, and I certainly didn't see any headlines they've gotten out of that business.
Fair use would allow copying to any format, fair business practice would allow dormant copyrights to lapse some reasonable time after the artists death (10 years? unless a nominal transfer fee paid).. and no criminal prosecution for distribution that had no monetary gain involved.
If you want laws to be respected, make them worth respect. If you want to make theft unpopular, make equity obvious. Lacking that, it takes very little effort to ignore them, and that rapidly becomes a habit.
Its about time folks started running this country OF the people, For the people, *BY* the people.. Big business has lied, manipulated, extorted, coerced, 'spun' and defrauded, WITH the implicit consent of what passes for a representative government SO LONG that it's just 'business as usual' , Nothing can be done, 'what'dya expect from lawyers and politicians' as a response. Good People, you are getting the political treatment you have accepted.. might not be what you deserve, but it sure as HELL is what you've led the thieves in office to believe they can (and have, and expect to continue) get away with. IF you really don't like it, FIX IT.
Slashdot Mirror
As the generic generalization for 'Megacorp media distributors' the RIAA has accumulated much public ill-will. Between media distributors historic association with organized crime, manipulation of copyright legislation by lobbying and campaign contributions, and overt threats to individuals, they (companies which are represented by the RIAA) are feared and hated by a great many of their potential customers.
Some portion of public (copyright violating) file sharing is directly caused by this resentment. Nonetheless, copyright has a purpose and few could argue that SOME form of protection for artists AND distributors is required.
The digital age has changed the foundation beneath the tower of legal precedents, and thus created unenforceable laws as currently interpreted.Why not reform copyright law to appropriately reflect society's interests? Allow public debate and informed arbitration, to BUILD a system that most people could accept.
Public domain should apply in a much shorter time than current law stipulates. Criminal piracy should be distinguished from Non-monetary file sharing. Criminal penalties should apply, and be enforced, against those who steal for profit, and MINIMAL civil penalties should be enforced against those who are merely competing for egos sake. Furthermore, there should be taxes (or fees) imposed on mass distributors of data (read ISP's) which would support regulation and enforcement of public access to copyrighted materials.
None of this would interfere with huge media collections or fair use in any form, be it educational, religious, or merely personal.
If the publics right to share materials was recognized exhaustively, the media companies would have a many more supporters of THEIR rights. Fair isn't difficult to understand. Neither is opressive inequity, however disguised by legislation.
so you think Orrin Hatch believes in 'intellectual property' strongly enough to be the RIAA's legislator of choice (point man) WITHOUT their considerable economic support? Oddly enough, I happen to think he's bought, or at least rented. I guess we'll just have to differ.
aight, a tangle of issues. first, No I don't respect the RIAA and think current copyright law is inequitable. Second, lots of musicians gain popular attention BECAUSE of 'free' (sometimes pirated, not always) distribution of mp3s. Third, Big distribution companies have built a system that supports legislation (and legislators) who support them, to the detriment of fair use. Fourth, ALL the 'legal' enforcement of 'anti-piracy' legislation and enforcement by the RIAA companies comes OUT OF THE POCKETS OF ARTISTS. Not the salaries of executives. Artists are paid by royalties (after expenses) and executives aren't. One wonders just what the lawyers who file these cases charge, and how many artists that might support.
.. just for hypothetical.. did an artist (under exclusive contract) EVER bootleg a few CD's at a show and fail to inform his distributor? Hmm? I don't think artists are immune from such behavior, just guessing.
.. and no criminal prosecution for distribution that had no monetary gain involved.
And
Bottom line, it's a tangled mass of issues, but as far as 'who started it' and 'whose fault it is' that depends where you stand and when you start counting. Fairly well known fact that organized crime and media distribution have been entangled for decades, and I certainly didn't see any headlines they've gotten out of that business.
Fair use would allow copying to any format, fair business practice would allow dormant copyrights to lapse some reasonable time after the artists death (10 years? unless a nominal transfer fee paid)
If you want laws to be respected, make them worth respect. If you want to make theft unpopular, make equity obvious. Lacking that, it takes very little effort to ignore them, and that rapidly becomes a habit.
ms may (will) do this, and they probably will accomplish it,.. but it won't be here. i'll buy something else..
Its about time folks started running this country OF the people, For the people, *BY* the people.. Big business has lied, manipulated, extorted, coerced, 'spun' and defrauded, WITH the implicit consent of what passes for a representative government SO LONG that it's just 'business as usual' , Nothing can be done, 'what'dya expect from lawyers and politicians' as a response. Good People, you are getting the political treatment you have accepted.. might not be what you deserve, but it sure as HELL is what you've led the thieves in office to believe they can (and have, and expect to continue) get away with. IF you really don't like it, FIX IT.