Not all consumers are bootleggers
p2p news view / p2pnet: A Los Angeles Times OpEd is a must-read, says Canadian Net and IP expert professor Michael Geist.
Why is it so important? It discusses, “the dangers associated with current ‘copyright’ proposals before the U.S. Congress,” he points out.
Because what the entertainment industry wants, “isn’t merely protection from piracy; it’s after increased leverage to protect its business models,” says the LA Times, going on:
That’s why lawmakers must bear in mind the balance needed between copyright holders’ interests and the public’s, something Congress has not done well lately. In 1998, it gave copyright holders broad power to block legitimate uses of works, even those in the public domain, through the use of electronic locks that impede copying of digital products. And that same year, it prolonged the public domain’s starvation diet by extending copyrights an additional 20 years, to 70 years beyond the death of the creator.
The movie and music industries have similar interests, but their agendas this year are distinct. The major studios want to alter digital TV receivers, recorders and home networks to stop shows from being redistributed indiscriminately online – a proposal that has won grudging support from some consumer-electronics and high-tech firms. They also want to redesign computers, set-top boxes and other products to ensure that the limits placed on digital videos are not removed when the data are converted from digital to analog. This approach could deter people from making a permanent copy of a pay-per-view movie, but it also could make it hard for digital movie buyers to create backup copies or transfer videos to portable players.
The music industry, meanwhile, is focusing its fire on satellite and digital radio services that make it easy for listeners to record and save individual songs. Those recorders don’t fuel piracy, given that federal law already requires them to include a form of anti-piracy technology. Instead, a more immediate effect of the industry-backed proposals would be to give labels and music publishers more control over listeners’ ability to record broadcasts, while helping them collect more money from XM, Sirius and other digital music businesses.
Clearly, the industry-backed proposals would do more than just defend copyrighted works from pirates. They also would impinge on devices that have legitimate uses and steer the development of technology, cutting off some innovation.
As they weigh the entertainment industry’s pleas, lawmakers shouldn’t assume all consumers are bootleggers and every digital device is a hand grenade aimed at Hollywood. [Our emphasis.]
Digg this.
Also See:
Los Angeles Times – We aren’t all pirates, July 10, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 12th, 2006 at 12:36 am
I, however, wonder if it will in fact get much worse, it seems, before dame near any of you will stand up for yourselves. Allready I know how stupid and weak most of you are as you keep buying thier stuff. I haven’t bought a record, tape, disc, download you name it in years, yet I still listen to music somehow. They don’t get my money. Don’t give them yours! Use your brain to get your tunes another way.
July 13th, 2006 at 11:05 am
“In 1998, it gave copyright holders broad power to block legitimate uses of works, even those in the public domain, through the use of electronic locks that impede copying of digital products.”
Here is an iteresting though:
The application of new laws retroactively is unconstitutional in the USA.
Then, by logic, the use of an authority (DRM) given by a new law on products should be for new products only. Thus electronic laws may not be used on movies or music produced before 1998. Thus pre 1998 movies and music recordingd will someday enter the public domain while those DMR’d and made after 1998 will really never enter the public domain unless the DRM is defeated and that would be illegal.
The question is, is DRM being used illegally on pre 1998 movies?
To help us answer the question, let’s create a scenario.
A new law is passed that states that movies will have only a five year copyright duration. Should that la be applied to movies already older than five years? Of course not, because movies made six years ago were made on the expectation of a very long copyright duration and that justified the huge expenses that were made to make some movies. Surely the studios would claim the the law cannot be applied retoactively and they could be right. The same logic should then apply to DRM: It cannot be applied retroactively.
Another scenario: A law is passed that prohibits DRM. A good law. Will the movie companies be forced to scrap unsold DVD’s with DRM? I doubt it because DRM was legal when it was the DVD’s were made. Surely that is what the movie companies will claim. Again, the new law cannot be applied retroactively and the same logic should then apply to DRM: It cannot be applied retroactively.
My case rests.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com