Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law
On Aug 2, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Brad Alexander wrote:
> The thing I don't understand is that the content producers bang on
> about "intellectual property" which, if I am understanding correctly
> (and I believe I am) is the *content*. The music or movie or whatever.
I claim there's a lot more to it than that. And "intellectual property"
is a misnomer.
> So let's look at a practical example. I bought, say for the sake of
> argument, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. I bought it when I was a
> teenager on cassette. A few years later, it comes out on
> 8-track...Then on CD.
why do I have to buy the *same* IP
>
> every time the industry decides to change formats?
In my case, let's consider Dave Brubeck's album where they were playing
around with time signatures. I don't remember the name, but it was the one
with "Take Five" on it. When I bought it in my teens, the only format was
vinyl disc. Then a few years later, it came out on CD. I bought that too. A
friend of mine brought out the same argument you do.
"How much would you pay," I asked him, "for a 1:1 dub of the 15 ips master tape
of that disk? No surface noise, no turntable rumble, less wow & flutter, lower
harmonic distortion, better frequency response, etc."
"Oh, yeah," he said.
If I buy an audio cassette of something, I've paid for the content. It seems
reasonable to me that I have the right to make a copy of what I bought with
machinery I own. But if I don't have access to a higher quality version of the
music, and/or I want somebody else to make the copy, I'm going to have to pay
something for it.
> what about a movie. Bought it on BetaMax,
> which was forced into obsolescence by teh content producers, so then
> it was out on VHS,
You could still watch it in BetaMax until your BM player died. And VHS barely worked
anyway. You were better off with the BetaMax.
> then LaserDisc,
LaserDisc was a better format than either of the tape formats. And you still had
your BetaMax version to watch.
> then DVD, now Blu-ray.
Both technical improvements (if you don't mind the DRM and FBI warnings). And you
didn't have to buy either if you didn't want to. But if you did, you got a better
version of the movie (longer lasting medium, higher resolution, takes up less space
in your living room, etc.)
Now, there oughta be a way to pay for just the improvements if you have an earlier
version already, but our masters have decided not to provide such. It would be a
real mess to implement anyway, and it likely wouldn't turn out any cheaper, what with
all the bookkeeping and stuff...
> It's akin to the grocery store charging you for the state of the food
> you buy. Well, it was raw when we first charged you, now it is
> cooked.
Is Safeway a better cook than you are? Then pay them for the labor and utilities and
tools needed to cook it. Is your friend a better cook? Then invite him/her over to
share the dinner. Otherwise, cook it yourself.
> Am I wrong here?
A little bit. The issue isn't named well enough to see the whole picture.
Am I wrong here?
--
Glenn English
hand-wrapped from my Apple Mail
Reply to: