...could do more damage to the PR side of P2P than anything the RIAA or MPAA could hope to accomplish.
Could that be the intention? Hell, it could be an RIAA paper. Remember, the idea here is to get rid of P2P in any way possible. The whole piracy thing is used to get more public opinion on their side, and it's gotten people here just as riled up about it, and it's gotten us off track of what the real issue is. These people don't want you to share or upload anything. They want you to read what's on cnn or fox dot com, and to buy from walmart.com. Nothing else. Personally, I couldn't get past here, "...all kind of social interesting information." in the abstract.
1. Apple 2. LiveCD - Knoppix or Slax. I prefer Slax. It fits on a mini CD, but Knoppix is more complete. Both work right "out of the box". I simply boot the CD and, viola, instant 'net. The sad thing is that most people are going to demand a legal "solution" that could never work. They will also demand "Trusted Computing". This will provide the "ShoppingNet" that they really want. This way they'll have "DisneyNet" and the rest of us can enjoy "TimesSquareWithAllTheHookersNet" with our bootleg machines.
Great. Then let me have a temporary monopoly on your car after I fix it. Say for a day or two just to run a few "errands". Yeah that's it. You wouldn't mind if I take a dump and use the shower after I fix your plumbing, right? If I fix the oven or your fridge, I'll be expecting a nice turkey dinner and breakfast for a week at least. Any electrical work should net me the use of the TV for a month os so. There's just no reason to treat your work any different than mine. IP is a gov't subsidy just like tobacco, dairy, and oil. Once we remove the ability to speculate on IP the way we do with real estate, we will progress so much faster. IP law does not encourage innovation. It promotes speculation and squatting to the benefit of nobody but the speculator. If a guy spends years producing a new algorithm because he needs a new algorithm or someone contracts him to do so(without exclusivity), then I'll believe it will be a good algorithm. If he produces it simply on the hope he'll makes tons of money, he's probably selling junk. Like too many others, you seem to think we would still be in the stone age without IP. Well, I contend that we are still stuck in the "horse and buggy and other useless contraptions" age precisely due to IP.
And just what would stop me from reverse engineering or disassembling it and getting the source that way? They can't stop me from using and copying it. There would be no loss. They can try to sell it, but there's nothing to stop me from giving it away. If you want to be a stickler to the law, their insertion of GPL code into their program or their code into a GPL program just made their program GPL and open to all.
What happens the fist time some one breaks into one of the DRM servers, and convinces it that all wma files are pirated?
Have no fear. Microsoft will have a patch out by the first of the month.:-) Other than that, I suppose that DRM servers and the like will work in a distributed fashion where, if one is compromised, the others can take over. They would constantly check up on each other to make sure they are "healthy". With sufficient redundancy they'll have no trouble with attempted break-ins. Another solution for them would be for them to run on liveCD's. It's pretty difficult to compromise a read only system.
Sony are not a technology company any more, they're a content company.
Who can blame them? They're just following in the footsteps of the RIAA and the FCC. They both used to be more interested in tech also. At least Ma Bell is still...oh wait...nevermind.
The laws coming out of congress document their allegiances very well. Anyone with any ability to read and understand them(the laws) can provide lots of advice as to what's happening.
I, for one, believe that the hobbyist developer would thrive under this, and real wireless could help them produce an "alternet". They won't necessarily grow into huge numbers or anything, but the ones that are doing it will have a wonderful time. Software quality won't matter much because they will develope their own. There won't be much commercial software that runs on a hobbyist's box. It will be homemade hardware nad software. Most regular users on the other hand just want a box that does what it says it does in the brochure. They are the extremely vast majority that will buy DRM junk and convince the market that this is the way to go. The hobbyist trying to save general computing from its coming deevolution(are we not men?) are like the general aviation pilots trying to save Meigs Field(small airport near downtown Chicago) or other small airports. The numbers just aren't there to have any influence. Their only hope will be homespun computers and software. The "computer" appliance will be secure and reliable(unless Microsoft buys QNX:)), and people will stop looking for alternatives as soon as these things hit the streets. The hobbyist will continue to do what all hobbyists do. They'll keep on tinkering because that's they like to do, and they'll print a magazine called "TCP/IP" or "General Computing-What Happened?" or "QoS", and they might put up a site on their wireless internet. They could work real close with the hams on that.
For the people who really want to use good programs...
That would be the hobbyist. Sure, they'll find a way into the net, but that's such a tiny percentage. The vast majority will buy the "New and Improved Walmart One Stop Shopping Appliance". They(Walmart) alone might be enough to make the thing take off. You know how when the cashier at McDonalds punches up you order and it appears on the screen in the uh..."kitchen". The new Walmart machine just transmits the order directly to the factory on China, and overnight delivery takes care of the rest. For people with fat bank accounts, this will be as close to a replicator as we'll see in a long time. So be careful in what context you might say "all the tea in China". The machine might deliver. At the very least, it can tell you the "price of rice"(I sure hope the mods can understand the context of that statement. You know...like "What does that have to do with the price of rice?" It had nothing to do with groups of people who grow and eat lots of rice. You pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?).
If they want to "work" with the WTO(or the World Bank or whoever is running the world these days), they put in all the DRM required. If they don't, the gov't is likely to ban it, just like full spectrum scanners and various other electronic devices.
Home users will complain that things don't work correctly.
Home users might find that this will be the first "computer" that does work correctly out of the box. This will be the computer appliance that they're looking for. The "hood will be welded shut", and that will be just fine with most users. Real computers will become the hobbyist's toy, just like short wave radio. Just as we have less people that know morse code, we will have less people that can work a keyboard. It will look like a McDonalds cash register with lots of pretty buttons(or more likely a touch screen), and will probably only connect to shopping sites.
Unfortunately, one billion other people WILL buy something like this. Put the right spin on it, and they'll demand that you buy one too. Let's hope the hardware hackers and hobbyists(?) are working on alternatives and uh..workarounds.
Copyright law is as it was intended. It restricts the average person's access to high tech. It restricts a person's right to speak freely(See Scientology). It restricts access to wide distribution. It's very clear that the "Ancillary Products and Services" model is the only viable, durable, and fair business model, but the unpredictability mentioned in the paper may keep it from becoming the standard. It's unfortunate that people may go to jail for infringement just for the convenience of businesses to be able to predict its profits with less effort.
I just got done telling you that piracy is not the issue, and yet that's all everybody is STILL talking about. These people(RIAA et al) don't care about piracy as long as it's their stuff being distributed. Believe me. They are crying crocodile tears over it. They want their stuff, and only their stuff to be widely distributed. They don't care how. They do not want you or me to distribute anything without going through them. They want to decide what we see and when we see it. They use piracy as just another part of the process. Where is the difficulty in understanding that? Is the smoke that thick?
If you think China is really communist, then you know very little about China, or possibly even less about communism. China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Soon the U.S. will be the same. Their illusions of communism are similar to the illusions of freedom that you maintain in the states. Sounds like you got your info about that from some 50's era propaganda films.
If everything is in the public domain, how is any "mega-corp" going to be able to market anything for billions? With your present system of IP, it's happening now. It has victimized many people already. I would like to know how that would be possible without IP. With everything in the public domain, I wouldn't care what happens to my ideas. I really don't now. I value my ideas for themselves, not the potential millions I could make exploiting a corrupt system. Let them have whatever they think they can make from it. The ideas are still available to me, and that's good enough. I'm not so greedy as to have any desire to keep others from using anything I may discover.
...And the fact that it's still around after all these years says something about what the 51% think about it. Sorry to say, but you're in the minority on this one.
Well, I guess being outside that 51% would put me into the minority now, wouldn't it? Very profound. Again, basing your morals on the whims of a majority provides a pretty flimsy foundation. It's not a good idea to confuse a person's inaction or failure to vote for change with approval of their situation. It usually just means that they are content with the way things are and don't want to rock the boat. It's that "devil you know" thing. Many people don't like change or uncertainty. And 200+ years isn't very much time. I think the Roman Empire lasted a little longer. Were their morals any better or worse than ours? I'm sure you don't believe it(or maybe you think it's ok), but we are living in a world where might makes right. It has been that way since we crawled out of the slime, and there's no indication that it's going to change anytime soon.
In many states, deadly force can be used to prevent such illegal use of one's property. Just something to think about.
Oh, I do think about it. It shows that you value property rights above human rights. Feel free to make all the wars you want to keep everybody off your property. I'll be kicking back on the beach, drinking my beer, and watching your petty battles on the TV. Let me know when you win, and won't be having to constantly look over your shoulders for trespassers(or, as the case may be, paying somebody else to do your looking for you). You're just showing that we spend the vast majority of our time and energy trying to keep everything for ourselves to the exclusion of everybody else. The only way you are maintaining your stature above others is by using things like IP law to keep them down and out as much as possible. Keep those barriers as high as you can. You seem to believe that what's good enough for you is good enough for them. Heaven forbid that anyone might be able to live as well as you do. BTW, I do re-evaluate my morals every day, everytime I come across new ideas. That way I can check to see how they hold up. People who don't evaluate their morals because they belive they come from some "superior" force are the dangerous ones. Right or wrong they'll stick to those morals to their own(and many others) detriment.
Power does not necessarily mean it's a right. You can go on and believe that your constitution is infallable, but the only power it has over anybody is the faith that people have in it. The moment that 51% of the people say it must go, it's gone. Same applies to any of laws you may hold dear. So maybe you should look for something more structurally sound to base your laws and morals on.
When the law goes to the highest bidder, I no longer consider it at all. When the law doesn't apply to everybody, you can't apply it to me. So all your legal definitions mean nothing. Many people have spelled out very eloquently that copyright is theft. Nobody has the right to control how intellect is distributed. It can't be anyone's exclusive property in any sense of the word, any more than a human can be considered property. Your logic would apply more respect to the property rights of the slave owner, with little or no consideration of the human rights of the slave. So I can't steal what isn't theirs. If they are going to claim it's theirs, then as far as I'm concerned, they're trafficking in stolen property. They stole it from the public domain for personal profit. You also have no idea of the alternatives I employ to defeat it. You may have the guns on your side, but that's all you have. Again, copying is not theft. I took nothing. Their claim to ownership is theft, aided and abetted by a gov't that does not have the best interests of its citizens in mind. That most people meekly accept it doesn't make it right in any way.
It may be difficult to create a business madel that maintains the control they desire to keep. They might not consider it viable if control is lost, even if profits increase. It may be possible that it's not the industry itself that wants to maintain this control, but the government's desire for it. Like in the original copyright law, these laws are designed control access to high tech. It's in the government's interests to have a "gatekeeper" to control what gets distributed to wide audience. It's very little different from what the Chinese are trying to do with the net itself. The Americans have to be a little sneakier about it, so that it doesn't appear to be censorship. So everything becomes copyrighted and controlled by private industry not under the influence of the American Constitution. The "church" of Scientology makes good use of these laws in the attempt to stop criticism leveled against them, for example. Keep possibly embarrassing information under copyright, and there you go.
Work to get the law changed, or move to another country.
That's what the industry did, but they didn't work to get it changed. They simply paid for the law. When I have Disney's money, I might start thinking about changing the law myself. Bribing(I believe your word for it is "donating") legislators to get the law to go your way is not a legitimate business practice. And please, stop with the drivel trying to equate copying with theft. The analogy doesn't work.
Rather, what the recording industry is trying to do is stop people from using P2P.
Absolutely right. I would advise poeple to stop using commercial P2P products at this time until we can verify that they're safe, and to use open formats. I believe that some of these P2P companies are also trying to poison P2P in general. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that these are products of the industry itself, made for this purpose. Come to think of it, isn't Napster an RIAA lackey now? Can it still be used as P2P or is it just client-server, with the company being the server? It shouldn't really matter. There's lots of private P2P'ing going on all around us, and there is little chance of stopping that. These trojans shouldn't affect them. This will only get the "teeny boppers" and top 40 downloaders. P2P will and should continue unabated. You won't hear about the good ones in the news.
Like so many others, you choose to mis-interpret and mis-represent what was said. Never did I say you shouldn't get paid. My complaint is the manner in which you want to get paid. Copyright is a corrupt way of going about it. Well, hell, I want royalty payments for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. Man, I'll be super rich if I were to get paid that way. Did I install Linux on your machine? Then you owe me for every hour that the thing is turned on. All these rules apply even if you sell the machine. The new owner must continue to pay me. You want to paid without copyright? Easy. You can get paid to work as a studio musician if you don't like crowds or working outside. Otherwise get your ass out and perform in front of an audience, and quit pretending that your CD's are anything more than advertisement. As I've said before, I'll pay you if and when I go see you perform. That's the only way you'll get my money. That's the way I get my money. I've already explained too many times why copyright is not a right, and lots of other people have also, much more eloquently than I ever could. You've also never seen my take on "GPL source code theft", so you couldn't possibly know if I was hypocritical on the subject. They can have all they want. That doesn't stop me or anybody else from using it, so we still benefit. Also as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to enforce copyright law, if they "improperly" use GPL code, then their program just became GPL'd. Of course that works without copyright law also. Stealing GPL is impossible. To steal it you would have to be able to stop me from using it. People make money from my work all the time. If they do it here...great. More power. I make money from my work also, so it all balances out. I'm not going to be a control freak about it. The work's done. I'm paid. Time to forget about it and move on to the next project. So if you like to play music all the time, go out and perform instead demanding that the gov't grant you entitlements for your demos.
This whole piracy thing is so silly. It's wierder than "terrorist". Both terms depend on who they are working for. If they're working for the "competition"(so to speak), they're pirates and terrorists. If they're on "our" side, they're distributors and freedom fighters. Do you know who will be the first to go out of business when P2P really takes off? The pirates. The guys out there selling millions of bootlegs. Most pirates usually sell the top 40, RIAA stuff, so they also "controlled" who was distributed, but they are the most expendable. Hell, they're off the books, so who's gonna care? Most people understand that P2P will increase record sales and concert attendance manyfold. This isn't just about money. Control plays a bigger role here. Just like both sides use terrorists in a war, both sides use pirates to distribute their wares. It seems to be mutually parasitic. What I'm trying to say here is that piracy is a diversion, a smokescreen used by those who want to control distribution of information(text, audio, video). It's little different from those who use terrorism to create unjust laws.
(kind of offtopic) I sure wish the ptroleum industry was as concerned about the leaks in their distribution system as the content industry is about theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
...could do more damage to the PR side of P2P than anything the RIAA or MPAA could hope to accomplish.
Could that be the intention? Hell, it could be an RIAA paper. Remember, the idea here is to get rid of P2P in any way possible. The whole piracy thing is used to get more public opinion on their side, and it's gotten people here just as riled up about it, and it's gotten us off track of what the real issue is. These people don't want you to share or upload anything. They want you to read what's on cnn or fox dot com, and to buy from walmart.com. Nothing else. Personally, I couldn't get past here, "...all kind of social interesting information." in the abstract.
1. Apple
2. LiveCD - Knoppix or Slax. I prefer Slax. It fits on a mini CD, but Knoppix is more complete. Both work right "out of the box". I simply boot the CD and, viola, instant 'net.
The sad thing is that most people are going to demand a legal "solution" that could never work. They will also demand "Trusted Computing". This will provide the "ShoppingNet" that they really want. This way they'll have "DisneyNet" and the rest of us can enjoy "TimesSquareWithAllTheHookersNet" with our bootleg machines.
Great. Then let me have a temporary monopoly on your car after I fix it. Say for a day or two just to run a few "errands". Yeah that's it. You wouldn't mind if I take a dump and use the shower after I fix your plumbing, right? If I fix the oven or your fridge, I'll be expecting a nice turkey dinner and breakfast for a week at least. Any electrical work should net me the use of the TV for a month os so. There's just no reason to treat your work any different than mine. IP is a gov't subsidy just like tobacco, dairy, and oil. Once we remove the ability to speculate on IP the way we do with real estate, we will progress so much faster. IP law does not encourage innovation. It promotes speculation and squatting to the benefit of nobody but the speculator. If a guy spends years producing a new algorithm because he needs a new algorithm or someone contracts him to do so(without exclusivity), then I'll believe it will be a good algorithm. If he produces it simply on the hope he'll makes tons of money, he's probably selling junk. Like too many others, you seem to think we would still be in the stone age without IP. Well, I contend that we are still stuck in the "horse and buggy and other useless contraptions" age precisely due to IP.
And just what would stop me from reverse engineering or disassembling it and getting the source that way? They can't stop me from using and copying it. There would be no loss. They can try to sell it, but there's nothing to stop me from giving it away. If you want to be a stickler to the law, their insertion of GPL code into their program or their code into a GPL program just made their program GPL and open to all.
Geez, how much hard-earned money should people give to others who get busted for infringement / contributory infringemet?
As much as I can. We should always help people being harmed by bad law. It's one way of helping to get them repealed.
China has "got to start putting people in jail" to...
expand the Walmart workforce.
Soon being in jail will mean being on the outside. Since they want to lock up all the non-violent people, being in jail will be safer.
What happens the fist time some one breaks into one of the DRM servers, and convinces it that all wma files are pirated?
:-) Other than that, I suppose that DRM servers and the like will work in a distributed fashion where, if one is compromised, the others can take over. They would constantly check up on each other to make sure they are "healthy". With sufficient redundancy they'll have no trouble with attempted break-ins. Another solution for them would be for them to run on liveCD's. It's pretty difficult to compromise a read only system.
Have no fear. Microsoft will have a patch out by the first of the month.
Sony are not a technology company any more, they're a content company.
Who can blame them? They're just following in the footsteps of the RIAA and the FCC. They both used to be more interested in tech also. At least Ma Bell is still...oh wait...nevermind.
The laws coming out of congress document their allegiances very well. Anyone with any ability to read and understand them(the laws) can provide lots of advice as to what's happening.
I, for one, believe that the hobbyist developer would thrive under this, and real wireless could help them produce an "alternet". They won't necessarily grow into huge numbers or anything, but the ones that are doing it will have a wonderful time. Software quality won't matter much because they will develope their own. There won't be much commercial software that runs on a hobbyist's box. It will be homemade hardware nad software. Most regular users on the other hand just want a box that does what it says it does in the brochure. They are the extremely vast majority that will buy DRM junk and convince the market that this is the way to go. The hobbyist trying to save general computing from its coming deevolution(are we not men?) are like the general aviation pilots trying to save Meigs Field(small airport near downtown Chicago) or other small airports. The numbers just aren't there to have any influence. Their only hope will be homespun computers and software. The "computer" appliance will be secure and reliable(unless Microsoft buys QNX:)), and people will stop looking for alternatives as soon as these things hit the streets. The hobbyist will continue to do what all hobbyists do. They'll keep on tinkering because that's they like to do, and they'll print a magazine called "TCP/IP" or "General Computing-What Happened?" or "QoS", and they might put up a site on their wireless internet. They could work real close with the hams on that.
For the people who really want to use good programs...
That would be the hobbyist. Sure, they'll find a way into the net, but that's such a tiny percentage. The vast majority will buy the "New and Improved Walmart One Stop Shopping Appliance". They(Walmart) alone might be enough to make the thing take off. You know how when the cashier at McDonalds punches up you order and it appears on the screen in the uh..."kitchen". The new Walmart machine just transmits the order directly to the factory on China, and overnight delivery takes care of the rest. For people with fat bank accounts, this will be as close to a replicator as we'll see in a long time. So be careful in what context you might say "all the tea in China". The machine might deliver. At the very least, it can tell you the "price of rice"(I sure hope the mods can understand the context of that statement. You know...like "What does that have to do with the price of rice?" It had nothing to do with groups of people who grow and eat lots of rice. You pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?).
If they want to "work" with the WTO(or the World Bank or whoever is running the world these days), they put in all the DRM required. If they don't, the gov't is likely to ban it, just like full spectrum scanners and various other electronic devices.
Home users will complain that things don't work correctly.
Home users might find that this will be the first "computer" that does work correctly out of the box. This will be the computer appliance that they're looking for. The "hood will be welded shut", and that will be just fine with most users. Real computers will become the hobbyist's toy, just like short wave radio. Just as we have less people that know morse code, we will have less people that can work a keyboard. It will look like a McDonalds cash register with lots of pretty buttons(or more likely a touch screen), and will probably only connect to shopping sites.
Unfortunately, one billion other people WILL buy something like this. Put the right spin on it, and they'll demand that you buy one too. Let's hope the hardware hackers and hobbyists(?) are working on alternatives and uh..workarounds.
Copyright law is as it was intended. It restricts the average person's access to high tech. It restricts a person's right to speak freely(See Scientology). It restricts access to wide distribution. It's very clear that the "Ancillary Products and Services" model is the only viable, durable, and fair business model, but the unpredictability mentioned in the paper may keep it from becoming the standard. It's unfortunate that people may go to jail for infringement just for the convenience of businesses to be able to predict its profits with less effort.
I just got done telling you that piracy is not the issue, and yet that's all everybody is STILL talking about. These people(RIAA et al) don't care about piracy as long as it's their stuff being distributed. Believe me. They are crying crocodile tears over it. They want their stuff, and only their stuff to be widely distributed. They don't care how. They do not want you or me to distribute anything without going through them. They want to decide what we see and when we see it. They use piracy as just another part of the process. Where is the difficulty in understanding that? Is the smoke that thick?
If you think China is really communist, then you know very little about China, or possibly even less about communism. China is an authoritarian dictatorship. Soon the U.S. will be the same. Their illusions of communism are similar to the illusions of freedom that you maintain in the states. Sounds like you got your info about that from some 50's era propaganda films.
...And the fact that it's still around after all these years says something about what the 51% think about it. Sorry to say, but you're in the minority on this one.
If everything is in the public domain, how is any "mega-corp" going to be able to market anything for billions? With your present system of IP, it's happening now. It has victimized many people already. I would like to know how that would be possible without IP. With everything in the public domain, I wouldn't care what happens to my ideas. I really don't now. I value my ideas for themselves, not the potential millions I could make exploiting a corrupt system. Let them have whatever they think they can make from it. The ideas are still available to me, and that's good enough. I'm not so greedy as to have any desire to keep others from using anything I may discover.
Well, I guess being outside that 51% would put me into the minority now, wouldn't it? Very profound. Again, basing your morals on the whims of a majority provides a pretty flimsy foundation. It's not a good idea to confuse a person's inaction or failure to vote for change with approval of their situation. It usually just means that they are content with the way things are and don't want to rock the boat. It's that "devil you know" thing. Many people don't like change or uncertainty. And 200+ years isn't very much time. I think the Roman Empire lasted a little longer. Were their morals any better or worse than ours? I'm sure you don't believe it(or maybe you think it's ok), but we are living in a world where might makes right. It has been that way since we crawled out of the slime, and there's no indication that it's going to change anytime soon.
In many states, deadly force can be used to prevent such illegal use of one's property. Just something to think about.
Oh, I do think about it. It shows that you value property rights above human rights. Feel free to make all the wars you want to keep everybody off your property. I'll be kicking back on the beach, drinking my beer, and watching your petty battles on the TV. Let me know when you win, and won't be having to constantly look over your shoulders for trespassers(or, as the case may be, paying somebody else to do your looking for you). You're just showing that we spend the vast majority of our time and energy trying to keep everything for ourselves to the exclusion of everybody else. The only way you are maintaining your stature above others is by using things like IP law to keep them down and out as much as possible. Keep those barriers as high as you can. You seem to believe that what's good enough for you is good enough for them. Heaven forbid that anyone might be able to live as well as you do. BTW, I do re-evaluate my morals every day, everytime I come across new ideas. That way I can check to see how they hold up. People who don't evaluate their morals because they belive they come from some "superior" force are the dangerous ones. Right or wrong they'll stick to those morals to their own(and many others) detriment.
This power is granted to Congress...
Power does not necessarily mean it's a right. You can go on and believe that your constitution is infallable, but the only power it has over anybody is the faith that people have in it. The moment that 51% of the people say it must go, it's gone. Same applies to any of laws you may hold dear. So maybe you should look for something more structurally sound to base your laws and morals on.
When the law goes to the highest bidder, I no longer consider it at all. When the law doesn't apply to everybody, you can't apply it to me. So all your legal definitions mean nothing. Many people have spelled out very eloquently that copyright is theft. Nobody has the right to control how intellect is distributed. It can't be anyone's exclusive property in any sense of the word, any more than a human can be considered property. Your logic would apply more respect to the property rights of the slave owner, with little or no consideration of the human rights of the slave. So I can't steal what isn't theirs. If they are going to claim it's theirs, then as far as I'm concerned, they're trafficking in stolen property. They stole it from the public domain for personal profit. You also have no idea of the alternatives I employ to defeat it. You may have the guns on your side, but that's all you have. Again, copying is not theft. I took nothing. Their claim to ownership is theft, aided and abetted by a gov't that does not have the best interests of its citizens in mind. That most people meekly accept it doesn't make it right in any way.
It may be difficult to create a business madel that maintains the control they desire to keep. They might not consider it viable if control is lost, even if profits increase. It may be possible that it's not the industry itself that wants to maintain this control, but the government's desire for it. Like in the original copyright law, these laws are designed control access to high tech. It's in the government's interests to have a "gatekeeper" to control what gets distributed to wide audience. It's very little different from what the Chinese are trying to do with the net itself. The Americans have to be a little sneakier about it, so that it doesn't appear to be censorship. So everything becomes copyrighted and controlled by private industry not under the influence of the American Constitution. The "church" of Scientology makes good use of these laws in the attempt to stop criticism leveled against them, for example. Keep possibly embarrassing information under copyright, and there you go.
Work to get the law changed, or move to another country.
That's what the industry did, but they didn't work to get it changed. They simply paid for the law. When I have Disney's money, I might start thinking about changing the law myself. Bribing(I believe your word for it is "donating") legislators to get the law to go your way is not a legitimate business practice. And please, stop with the drivel trying to equate copying with theft. The analogy doesn't work.
Rather, what the recording industry is trying to do is stop people from using P2P.
Absolutely right. I would advise poeple to stop using commercial P2P products at this time until we can verify that they're safe, and to use open formats. I believe that some of these P2P companies are also trying to poison P2P in general. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that these are products of the industry itself, made for this purpose. Come to think of it, isn't Napster an RIAA lackey now? Can it still be used as P2P or is it just client-server, with the company being the server? It shouldn't really matter. There's lots of private P2P'ing going on all around us, and there is little chance of stopping that. These trojans shouldn't affect them. This will only get the "teeny boppers" and top 40 downloaders. P2P will and should continue unabated. You won't hear about the good ones in the news.
Like so many others, you choose to mis-interpret and mis-represent what was said. Never did I say you shouldn't get paid. My complaint is the manner in which you want to get paid. Copyright is a corrupt way of going about it. Well, hell, I want royalty payments for every mile you drive your car after I fix it. Man, I'll be super rich if I were to get paid that way. Did I install Linux on your machine? Then you owe me for every hour that the thing is turned on. All these rules apply even if you sell the machine. The new owner must continue to pay me. You want to paid without copyright? Easy. You can get paid to work as a studio musician if you don't like crowds or working outside. Otherwise get your ass out and perform in front of an audience, and quit pretending that your CD's are anything more than advertisement. As I've said before, I'll pay you if and when I go see you perform. That's the only way you'll get my money. That's the way I get my money. I've already explained too many times why copyright is not a right, and lots of other people have also, much more eloquently than I ever could.
You've also never seen my take on "GPL source code theft", so you couldn't possibly know if I was hypocritical on the subject. They can have all they want. That doesn't stop me or anybody else from using it, so we still benefit. Also as far as I'm concerned, if we're going to enforce copyright law, if they "improperly" use GPL code, then their program just became GPL'd. Of course that works without copyright law also. Stealing GPL is impossible. To steal it you would have to be able to stop me from using it. People make money from my work all the time. If they do it here...great. More power. I make money from my work also, so it all balances out. I'm not going to be a control freak about it. The work's done. I'm paid. Time to forget about it and move on to the next project. So if you like to play music all the time, go out and perform instead demanding that the gov't grant you entitlements for your demos.
This whole piracy thing is so silly. It's wierder than "terrorist". Both terms depend on who they are working for. If they're working for the "competition"(so to speak), they're pirates and terrorists. If they're on "our" side, they're distributors and freedom fighters. Do you know who will be the first to go out of business when P2P really takes off? The pirates. The guys out there selling millions of bootlegs. Most pirates usually sell the top 40, RIAA stuff, so they also "controlled" who was distributed, but they are the most expendable. Hell, they're off the books, so who's gonna care? Most people understand that P2P will increase record sales and concert attendance manyfold. This isn't just about money. Control plays a bigger role here. Just like both sides use terrorists in a war, both sides use pirates to distribute their wares. It seems to be mutually parasitic. What I'm trying to say here is that piracy is a diversion, a smokescreen used by those who want to control distribution of information(text, audio, video). It's little different from those who use terrorism to create unjust laws.
(kind of offtopic)
I sure wish the ptroleum industry was as concerned about the leaks in their distribution system as the content industry is about theirs.