|
|
Posted by Alpha on 02/23/07 06:28
"Stuart Miller" <stuart_miller@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:ewpDh.1102175$R63.897921@pd7urf1no...
>
> <mansfield.andrew@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1172177886.460943.19450@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 22, 3:58 am, "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote:
>>> "Alpha" <n...@none.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:erjlqj$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.
>
> Thank you - apology accepted, no hard feelings
>
>>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.
>
> There does need to be some name given to the investment an individual or
> business makes in the gathering, compiling, indexing, presenting, etc of
> information which may well be in the public domain. Documentary films are
> a good example.
> This term works as well as any, but you could call it 'capitalized
> uamortized research and developments costs' or something equally obscure.
>
> I would not call it a 'gift', as nothing changes hands from government to
> producer. It is simply one of the rules of business conduct in our
> society, along with many that protect the consumer. Many companies would
> argue that anti-tust or consumer protection laws are a gift to the
> consumer, yet we would not want to be without these laws.
>
> ( pardon me here - anti turst may have been a poor choice, and I will not
> enter into discussion of a software giant who has some anti-trust and copy
> protection issues)
>
>
>>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.
>
> Yes, and we the people elect the government, and have the power to change
> the laws.
>
> The question becomes - who judges how much compensation to the producer is
> reasonable?
> Industry - who wants a positive return to their shareholders (who are also
> citizens of the democracy)?
> Government - who already has its' hand in many things and may not be
> competent to judge?
> Consumers - who want the product for free or lowest possible cost?
>
>> If you won't create without cash incentives, you certainly
>> cannot be much of an artist.
>
> There is an important distinction between pure art and commercial art.
> In this society, we all have to make a living. I choose to make some of my
> living from commercial art. People seem to like it, and they buy it.
> Without the sale proceeds I would make my living doing something else. So
> if people could copy my work without limit, I would not get paid. I would
> then be doing something else with my time. Physical things I enjoy, like
> sculpture or growing organic vegetables.
>
> I could do pure art, but I would need a grant from the 'people' in order
> to pay my living costs so I can give the art away for free.
>
> Some art, such as paintings, music composition, and writing novels, have a
> small cash cost associated. Other art, such as movies, have huge cash
> costs. So why create a movie when there is a significant possibility that
> these costs will not be recovered? Copyright and copy protection at least
> help ensure we get paid for a commercial venture.
>
>
>>
>> * 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.
>>
>
> I agree with the concept of paying, and of paying once only. If there were
> some other way of preventing you from making copies and giving away, or
> selling, those copies, I would endorse removal of copy protection. But
> there isn't.
>
> For many things, we can control physical access. Certainly for tangible
> products, and for events such as the sporting events or concerts. By your
> standard, there should be free admission to all movies, concerts, and
> other such events. Yet nobody asks for that - it is unreasonable, and
> there would not be any such events.
>
>> * This is not about "entertainment." That is part of your simplistic
>> view. All information in this age is digital.
>
> What non-entertainment products are involved here?
> Perhaps reference works auch as medical text books, and some business
> software.
> But these are far removed from the 'art' and encryption issues we are
> discussing.
>
>> All information in this age is digital.
>
> Not true.
>
> These arguements only exist because
> 1 - the content is now in the hands of the consumer, rather than movie
> theater or library
> 2 - there is the ability using the computer, to copy such things at very
> low cost
> 3 - the owner of the property wishes to get paid for its use
>
> It has always been possible to copy a book or work or art. In the past,
> the copy protection was simply the cost of copying - generally far more
> than the cost of buying an additional copy.
>
>> 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.
>
> Please - fascism is used in many contexts, such as this, where it is not
> accurate.
> Fascism involved government control of every aspect of our lives, with no
> rights or options available to the citizen. We all have the right to
> choose - to pay the fees, or to bypass the product for something else.
>
>>
>> Ultimately, dinosaurs with views like those you expressed and so much
>> of the industry you defend will simply go extinct.
>
> If we make our product free, will be extinct very quickly.
>
>> Information wants
>> to be free.
>>
>
> People want information to be free.
> But first we must define what is 'information' and what is a work of art
> (pure or commercial)
> And so far, it is only that people want all digital content to be free.
> Information, in its pure form, has always been free. Sometimes getting it,
> like a book or a university education, can be expensive, both in terms of
> time and cost.
>
>
> I have several software projects I would like to do, but I can see them
> taking months to complete. Unless I am reasonably sure of being paid for
> several thousand units sold, I can not afford to do them. By the standards
> we have used, that is digital information, and commercial art. I know that
> I can't copy protect the programs with the limited budget I have, so I am
> sure that there will be many pirated copies out there. Some people, like
> you, will pay for the program if they find it useful. But a great many
> will simple grab a copy, for free. It because of those people that copy
> protection was created. Same concept applies to DVD content
>
>
> Thank you for a logical and reasoned debate on this topic. I am sure we
> will continue to disagree on some aspects, but I have found some points to
> consider in what you presented.
>
> Stuart
>
>
No one would deny compensation for intellectual property. However, we are
talking about the Disney philosophy: Pay and pay and pay...and pay. How do
teachers teach about art, music, film, etc. if they cannot excerpt for
class? How do scholars do research? How do private citizens have universal
access and protection for what they have invested in time and money in this
property? It is not well known that in the golden age of film, you paid a
single ticket price that let you into the theater....all day (and sometimes
all weekend). Where has this concept gone, except to enhance corruption and
greed among the MPAA executives who only understand profit, not benefit?
The struggle between just compensation and consumer exploitation that we are
seeing in the dawn of the digital age is a defining moment in history...and
the studios are handling it very badly.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|