|
|
Posted by mansfield.andrew on 02/22/07 20:58
On Feb 22, 3:58 am, "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote:
> "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
>
> news:erjlqj$mb9$1@daisy.noc.ucla.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Quite the contrary
> >> Copyright may make the price higher than zero, but everybody in the
> >> market has the right to refuse to buy the product.
> >> Low sales = price goes down. Simple supply and demand, simple economics.
> >> There is no monopoly here, there are many sources of entertainment, all
> >> competing for limited consumer dollars.
>
> >> Stuart
>
> > This is not at all about entertainment. NOT AT ALL. It is about
> > expression, communication, free speech, and education. Entertainment is
> > way down on the list of priorities....except for the exalted MPAA.
>
> I suggest you read this (not that well-written) article. Is accurate.
> There is MPAA facism here, not captialism.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6379309.stm
Thanks Alpha. I obviously agree all the way.
Stuart, perhaps it was unfair to insult your intelligence, but your
view is so simplistic and one sided it is frustrating. You keep
repeating a mantra over and over: if I can encrypt it, you have to pay
for it. And then you call it capitalism or market forces. You are
missing the main point:
* Intellectual property is not a tangible good than anyone can
possess. Recognizing it as a "property" right at all is a gift of the
government, government largesse, welfare, to creative types to
encourage them. Since, supposedly in a democratic country, we the
majority are the granters of that artistic welfare, we can set the
boundaries on how far the artificial right reaches. It should ony
reach as far as necessary to encourage, barely, creative folks to
create. If you won't create without cash incentives, you certainly
cannot be much of an artist.
* MPAA and RIAA are trying to muddle the origins of copyright and
trademark to make it into a reified property right, as if it was as
real as the keyboard on which I'm typing. It is propaganda.
Corporate welfare. Overreaching.
* I will use all technological means at my disposal to copy digital
content in a fair and balanced manner. This is not a "me" generation
thing, it is a fundmental justice issue. For example, I own over
3,000 purchased iTunes songs and several dozen iTunes movies. Why?
To reward the artists and studios who are at least willing to make
content available digitally. If someone had the foresight to do
without DRM all together, I would financially reward by buying all the
content within my power. You see, I, like most people, want to pay
ONE licensing fee for each item of content I own. I want to buy "the
Departed" once and only once. I then want to move it between and
among the computers in my house, the DVR, the TVs, the streaming
boxes, my iPod, and my Archos as I see fit. End of story. I will not
now nor will I ever buy additional licenses for each such use. It is
insane to insist consumers do so. If a company that DRM-free
distributes wants to charge a small additional fee for such unlimited
use, I'm all over it and all for it. On the other hand, the more
restrictive a company or artist or creative type is, the more I will
pay once, and use my own means to reproduce the content, and if it is
overpriced or too restrictive, then yes, I won't buy it at all.
* This is not about "entertainment." That is part of your simplistic
view. All information in this age is digital. That is text, sound,
and images. That pretty much sums up the kinds of information there
is in the world. Copyright and trademark fascism must be resisted.
Ultimately, dinosaurs with views like those you expressed and so much
of the industry you defend will simply go extinct. Information wants
to be free.
A
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|