

100 years of Big Content fearing technology, in its own words. - jjguy
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/100-years-of-big-content-fearing-technologyin-its-own-words.ars

======
chrischen
I don't think we should ever stifle technological innovation in order to
satisfy the interests of some industry. Just as we accept the fact that if
someone leaves money out in the open, it may be stolen, the copyright industry
should accept the fact that certain technological advancements will force them
to do things differently.

------
JCThoughtscream
"Sousa was making the argument at the heart of copyright: that it promotes
innovation, and that without any protection for works, many will never be
created."

What I would love to see is a study to see if this core argument for the
copyright industry /has any merit at all/. Music, and masterpieces, existed
long, long before copyright became a social reality - the idea that we, as a
culture, /must/ have copyright to defend our poor artists and creators is
disingenuous at best.

~~~
chrischen
In his defense, long ago there wasn't the technology to trivialize copying. So
human performances were like mechanical/digital reproductions and mass
distribution through copying was less of an issue.

~~~
JCThoughtscream
But was copyright law developed out of /fear/ of theft, or out of actual,
documented loss of creativity post-innovation? What quantitative basis does
the copyright industry have to assert so much control over our artistic
culture, in the name of protecting it?

(my bias appears to be peeking through at this point, I'll admit)

~~~
electromagnetic
Copyright evolved shortly after the mass adoption of the printing press in the
UK, in fact the control of copyright was handed to a monopolised printing
company. This enabled the printing company to control the sale of their
authors books and prevent other publishers stealing their work (not
individuals, but companies).

Before that, the unapproved printing of someone's work fell under either theft
or fraud (selling a forgery with full knowledge of its fakery) and without
copyright it would default back to this. If anything copyright legislation is
light going compared to dealing with the actual court system.

I don't know about you, but downloading a torrent is better punished by a
$10,000 fine than a 3 year prison sentence (IIRC that's the minimum sentence
for theft >$1000 in many countries where copyright infringement is highly
present, and still is in many parts of Europe).

The simple fact is that under the law, copyright legislation (even though it's
got particularly overbearing on individuals) is intended to prevent the
unauthorised republication of works (not the redistribution) for money by
companies. It's never been intended to stop an individual from getting a copy
of a book without paying, in fact the front page (or one of them) usually
describes the rules and exceptions to copyright, namely that people can freely
trade, sell or give a book so long as it is in its original binding and is in
a similar quality to how you received it(no missing pages). There's little
sense in preventing someone from photocopying a book, as the person can just
read it and hand it on. Any other use of copyright law is a misuse under the
original laws intention and _should_ be thrown out in court, sadly this isn't
the case.

Copyright was originally good, and did originally increase innovation and
largely I like to believe it still does. It's just as humans we rarely see the
good for the bad, and for the RIAA and MPAA's current actions it's hard to see
any good in copyright because they've perverted the intention of the law from
companies to individuals.

------
chedigitz
As a content creator, I feel copyright as we know it is flawed, and hinders
the virility of content to gain exposure. The world is filled with wholesomely
good people,and artist will always be compensated one way or another. Artists
convey feelings and emotions that offer each individual a unique
interpretation. The movies I love, you may hate. Some people would pay
thousands for a specific painting, that may be worthless to me. The variable
pricing model that Nine Inch Nails made popular seems more in tune with the
21st century.

