4 ms·

When will the RIAA and MPAA realize that trying to suppress technology is like trying to kick your way out of quicksand? This is indeed a win for them in the s

by fiaz 17y ago

When will the RIAA and MPAA realize that trying to suppress technology is like trying to kick your way out of quicksand? This is indeed a win for them in the short term, but the way I see it, technology is evolving in response to whatever legal challenges are presented.

amackera 17y ago
Yeah and it's not really a win for them since the technology has advanced to the point where decentralisation is possible.
nadam 17y ago
For me it is more complicated than that. Whether humanity accepts 'Copyright laws' is more an ethical issue for me than technical. A more trivial (and a bit demagog) example: if technology enables the creation of very cheap and very effective weapons, people still should not shoot each other, and there should be some regulations which in a way 'suppress technology'. The real question is that will humanity morally accept or reject the concept we call 'copyright'.
- fiaz 17y ago
  Good response...I was thinking more at the level of legal law versus technological capability, kind of like an input/output or action/reaction mechanism. When it comes to the ethics of copyright law, it boils down to economics. The consumer will always seek to purchase at the lowest price possible, and the corporation will always seek to sell at the highest price possible. Each side is driven by the ethics of what they determine to be "fair" and getting each other to agree on this will be impossible. Netflix really "gets" the consumer argument for movies. I absolutely think the $10/month fee that I pay (probably a bit less than that) is a bargain and would gladly pay twice as much, but in all likelihood this price is going to go down over time. If the RIAA/MPAA were to take that example and provide us with such a service, then it would make economics-driven ethical sense.
  - trafficlight 17y ago
    Except the MPAA hates Netflix and would love to see it die. For an anecdote: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a4n1i/so_i_just_ran_the_sound_for_a_20th_century_fox/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a4n1i/so_i_just_... The RIAA/MPAA really live in another reality where there can be no compromise.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  I don't think that filesharing is necessarily a wholesale rejection of copyright as a concept. It's just a rejection of certain restrictions imposed by copyright, not the concept altogether. In my experience, people generally believe that private consumption of copyrighted material should be unrestricted. That is, the part of copyright that gives the copyright holder an exclusive license to control distribution is overreaching, and should only apply to major commercial operations.

by fiaz 17y ago

amackera 17y ago

Yeah and it's not really a win for them since the technology has advanced to the point where decentralisation is possible.

nadam 17y ago

For me it is more complicated than that. Whether humanity accepts 'Copyright laws' is more an ethical issue for me than technical. A more trivial (and a bit demagog) example: if technology enables the creation of very cheap and very effective weapons, people still should not shoot each other, and there should be some regulations which in a way 'suppress technology'. The real question is that will humanity morally accept or reject the concept we call 'copyright'.

fiaz 17y ago
Good response...I was thinking more at the level of legal law versus technological capability, kind of like an input/output or action/reaction mechanism. When it comes to the ethics of copyright law, it boils down to economics. The consumer will always seek to purchase at the lowest price possible, and the corporation will always seek to sell at the highest price possible. Each side is driven by the ethics of what they determine to be "fair" and getting each other to agree on this will be impossible. Netflix really "gets" the consumer argument for movies. I absolutely think the $10/month fee that I pay (probably a bit less than that) is a bargain and would gladly pay twice as much, but in all likelihood this price is going to go down over time. If the RIAA/MPAA were to take that example and provide us with such a service, then it would make economics-driven ethical sense.
- trafficlight 17y ago
  Except the MPAA hates Netflix and would love to see it die. For an anecdote: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a4n1i/so_i_just_ran_the_sound_for_a_20th_century_fox/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/a4n1i/so_i_just_... The RIAA/MPAA really live in another reality where there can be no compromise.
cookiecaper 17y ago
I don't think that filesharing is necessarily a wholesale rejection of copyright as a concept. It's just a rejection of certain restrictions imposed by copyright, not the concept altogether. In my experience, people generally believe that private consumption of copyrighted material should be unrestricted. That is, the part of copyright that gives the copyright holder an exclusive license to control distribution is overreaching, and should only apply to major commercial operations.