2 posts tagged “copyfight”
But Roman roads first.
Modern roads sprang, largely from what the Romans had left behind. Their roads were designed to transport people, carts, coaches, for military and economic needs. Ok, so what?
The point is that these roads had rules which were enforced by laws.
Thousands of years later, we have a version of these laws and we too have laws that govern their use, with taxes, licensing procedures and the like. And, these laws bear little or no resemblance to the ones Romans had about their roads. It's because we not have things called cars, trucks, land trains, bicycles, as well as carriages and carts and horses using them. Point being, with technological changes, laws have had to change to reflect the change in use of something. It's a good thing that we have different mandated speeds for different kinds of roads and places (highways and school zones) and these things would not be possible if we'd just kept the laws that the Romans had.
Technological changes that aid economic growth, law and order, stability in the face of technological change is a good thing.
And so there's a problem with copyright. The problem with copyright is that it is based on outdated technology. Copyright laws worked for vinyl, and printed books (before affordable home printing) because copying these required gigantic (relatively) outlay and it provided a natural barrier to copyright infringement. But with casette tapes and CDs, copying started to become easier, and with computers, whole libraries of CDs and books can be copied in less than the time it takes to go to a store and buy physical media. Copying copyrighted material will only become easier and easier with faster and faster computers, cheaper and roomier hard disks, and faster connections to the internet.
Which means, just as the first cars disrupted the use of the road and governments had to have new rules and laws governing their use, millions of computer users will have to be accounted for by their governments to make new laws (or change existing ones) to govern ther use of electronic works. So what I'm basically saying is: laizes faire. Don't sue them nor make their activities illegal. Condemning millions of people to breaking the law is just bad governing, and is totally out of touch with the consituents.
Content-creators (by which i mean record company execs) are going to bezerk, saying that legalising file sharing will lead to artists starving on the streets and having to feed their children NO FRILLS CORNFLAKES. Economists are going to go bezerk saying that artists will no longer have incentive to work, and we will have a dire shortage of music and movies.
They be might right. But I have little pity for them (for the record company execs). Because we've seen this kind of technological change (almost exact) before. And it worked out ok.
Before radio, most musicians either wrote sheet music that people bought and played on their own or people went to concerts and paid for a ticket. After radio, people could go down to a store, buy a radio (computer) and listen to any number of stations (bittorrent) for free. People no longer went to as many concerts or bought as much music. And of course, people who published or performed music complained and shouted and started to sue the radio stations for robbing them of their livelihood.
Eventually, (and after some experiment and failures) a business model arose that allowed music to be played for free on the radio, and listeners would have to endure advertising and then the advertising revenue paid for the station and a licensing fee that went to a record company, that paid the musicians.
The entire market for music was transformed after the introduction of technology, laws were amended to accomodate people's music consumption habits and this is what we live with today. Legalising downloading and file sharing will be disruptive, but eventually, some new method of collecting revenue will emerge and we'll all be happier. For one, filesharing looks very similar to a radio station broadcast (sending out music for free to anyone who wants it), so why it that people can't buy blanket licenses for playing music just like a radio station (although, lower prices please)?
Copyright is broken every day. Just by the way that internet works, you're breaking copyright as you're reading this article - there is a stored copy of this article on your computer (although it may be deleted very soon) and there was no express permission for you to copy these words (ignoring fair use for the moment). At the moment, I don't even know if I own the copyright to anything I submit to vox.com because I haven't bothered to read the terms of agreement and I could have potentially agreed to hand over any copyright to vox.com and I might not even be in a position to give people express permission to store this article on their computers. This goes for any website you visit.
There's a mind boggling variety of ways in which copyright can be broken in ways the common person doesn't know about and does not stand to profit from. So why make their activities illegal?
One author, Cory Doctorow, decided to take the the plunge and give his books away for free in electronic format. He still sells hard copies on Amazon.com and still makes a buck. How? Click on his name (inspiration for the article came from there by the way).
Current copyright laws are borken for the fact that people can break them without knowing, is too complex and turns millions of people into criminals.
Happy new year from grouch grouch.
daisung.
I'll upload photos from NYE tomorrow. And, random food reviews goes al fresco! - soon
