Re: Digital Rights Management
On Wednesday 14 March 2001 20:40, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> There is a topic that I would like to discuss with you that I really
> have no idea what your response will be. I have just returned from the
> Texas South-by-Southwest (swsx.com) media festival where I spoke with
> many musicians, film makers, porn stars and other producers of
> non-techincal media content. What I became absolutely convinced of at
> this conference is that there are many individuals who are dependant
> on having a way to control and recieve payment for the distribution of
> their ideas and creative works and that the work of the Free Software
> movement is instrumental in depriving them of these things.
No. The camera and the printing press were instrumental in removing control
from the producers of art. Since then it's only been incremental
improvements.
Copyright law was defined after the printing press was invented to protect
the interests of the consumers of art! Obviously we can benefit from having
people who are employed 40 hours per week to produce art and other forms of
entertainment, and that requires that such people get paid. However to
protect the rights of consumers copyright law allows for "fair use" of
material. This means that you are permitted BY LAW to copy sections of
material that you have licensed for the purposes of academic study, peer
review, and for producing derived works.
The music industry wants to charge excessively high prices (most of the money
does not go to musicians) and deny us the rights provided for in law!
Also copyright is supposed to expire 50 years after the death of the
artist/author. Recent law changes have removed this right thus restricting
the ability to use old documents.
Another problem is that there are some works which are not available through
regular channels. If you are unable to purchase a book or movie then I
believe that it is acceptable to get a copy of it. I have recently received
a text file which contains such a book. I plan to purchase the book as soon
as the book company decides to publish it again. Copyright is not designed
to restrict publication of work, it is designed to achieve a fair payment for
the work.
If I have the opportunity to meet the author who's book I copied then I plan
to give him a gift of greater value than the amount of money he would get
from my copy if the book company would give him if they deigned to re-print
it.
> While I am a firm believer in the concept of sharing my work with my
> neighbors to make their life better I am not happy with some of the
> things I see happening with our software. Systems like Napster or
> Freenet are creating a situation where the work of the artistic
> community is being taken against their will. I cannot accept the
> thought that the efforts of the Free Software movement should coerce
> people into "sharing" their own work when they have not agreed to do
> so.
Please note that complaints are coming from the record industry, Metallica,
and Dr Dre. Most musicians don't earn much money (most musicians don't earn
enough to give up their day job) and are happy for the opportunity such
services offer.
Also you should note that artists don't seem so happy with the recording
industry either. Consider the number of very famous and popular musicians
who have had serious legal disputes with their recording companies. Consider
that during and immidiately after such disputes the artists tend not to be so
productive and thus we (the fans) miss the opportunity to get more of their
art!
Look at pictures of famous musicians from 20+ years ago, you would have to
agree that they are an ugly bunch overall. They became popular through skill
and hard work.
Watch MTV now, most of the popular musicians are selected by looks primarily.
This is what the record industry gives you, do you want to protect this?
> It seems to me that our community must create its own digital rights
> management system that is an integral part of the GNU operating
> system. While this may seem odd at first glance I think that it is a
To summarise:
If all music was freely available all the time that would not put musicians
out of business. The amount of money in concert tickets (and other live
events) is huge. Also there is the issue of selling rights for republication
(such as theme music for TV commercials). These things would still generate
large amounts of money and popular musicians would still be rich.
If all music was free then any time you heard a good song you could forward
the URL to your friends. A musician could become world famous in a matter of
hours if their music was liked and forwarded by enough people!
The purpose of content management systems is to break existing copyright laws
and deny consumers their legal rights. It is also designed to help break the
"restraint of trade" laws and create illegal monopolies on the distribution
of the material. This does not benefit the artist (who gets the same cut
regardless of the purchase price) only the recording company.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: