My pardon... I meant the general "you"/"your." I wasn't targeting you specifically. Nor am I siding with RIAA/MPAA for spending truckloads of money to influence laws in their favor. As an artist I don't much give a hoot about the RIAA/MPAA position on things, because they don't look after my best interest as an artist.
The fact of the matter, however, is that as long as there is wanton theft of copyrighted materials the RI/MPAA has a very solid platform to stand on and threaten your rights. If anyone cares so much about what the RI/MPAA does, then they should do their part to help curb the actions that gives the RI/MPAA political and legal power.
RI/MPAA spends billions because they can! That's politics, and that's power. The only thing any one of us can do is to contribute to our own lobbiest groups that support our causes, and to participate in the political engine. Pick up a pen and write a letter to your representatives. Activism has always worked better than apathy. And last but not least, be careful who you support when you spend your money.
Pardon me if my POV is a bit banal. Many things are easier said than done, and I don't even know all what I can do about the RI/MPAA machine. However I do know that hitting them where it apparently hurts by not paying for their goods isn't effective in preserving our rights. It certainly doesn't curb their prowess. It's just speeding up their nerve to lube up and screw everyone along the way.
It is interesting that most comments and citations to the Betamax case refer mostly to the infringing/non-infringing balance of a technologie's uses.
Another part of the Betamax case should also be noted: the courts found that the use of Betamax for recording programs for later viewing (time shifting) was a convenience to the public and added overall to the good of the people.
Perhaps it is just applicability that this part of the Betamax ruling isn't noted. However I feel that it is just as important when new technologies are created to recognize their benefit to society and not just the intellectual property value at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
My pardon... I meant the general "you"/"your." I wasn't targeting you specifically. Nor am I siding with RIAA/MPAA for spending truckloads of money to influence laws in their favor. As an artist I don't much give a hoot about the RIAA/MPAA position on things, because they don't look after my best interest as an artist.
The fact of the matter, however, is that as long as there is wanton theft of copyrighted materials the RI/MPAA has a very solid platform to stand on and threaten your rights. If anyone cares so much about what the RI/MPAA does, then they should do their part to help curb the actions that gives the RI/MPAA political and legal power.
RI/MPAA spends billions because they can! That's politics, and that's power. The only thing any one of us can do is to contribute to our own lobbiest groups that support our causes, and to participate in the political engine. Pick up a pen and write a letter to your representatives. Activism has always worked better than apathy. And last but not least, be careful who you support when you spend your money.
Pardon me if my POV is a bit banal. Many things are easier said than done, and I don't even know all what I can do about the RI/MPAA machine. However I do know that hitting them where it apparently hurts by not paying for their goods isn't effective in preserving our rights. It certainly doesn't curb their prowess. It's just speeding up their nerve to lube up and screw everyone along the way.
Another way to get the RIAA and MPAA off your backs is to stop stealing. :) Buy the music and the movies you like.
Also, start supporting smaller, independent and alternative companies that aren't under RIAA and MPAA incest. The enemy of thine enemy...
It is interesting that most comments and citations to the Betamax case refer mostly to the infringing/non-infringing balance of a technologie's uses.
Another part of the Betamax case should also be noted: the courts found that the use of Betamax for recording programs for later viewing (time shifting) was a convenience to the public and added overall to the good of the people.
Perhaps it is just applicability that this part of the Betamax ruling isn't noted. However I feel that it is just as important when new technologies are created to recognize their benefit to society and not just the intellectual property value at stake.