Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA/MPAA: the Greatest Threat To Tech Innovation

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the where-have-i-heard-that-before dept.

Music 278

TAGmclaren writes "The Harvard Business Review is running an article stating that it's not India or China that are the greatest threat to technological innovation happening in America. Rather, it's the 'big content' players, particularly the movie and music industry. From the article: 'the Big Content players do not understand technology, and never have. Rather than see it as an opportunity to reach new audiences, technology has always been a threat to them. Example after example abounds of this attitude; whether it was the VCR which was "to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone" as famed movie industry lobbyist Jack Valenti put it at a congressional hearing, or MP3 technology, which they tried to sue out of existence.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708342)

got first

The VCR? No (3, Insightful)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708344)

The printing press was/is the greatest threat. That's where it all started. The first "Bertamax" case..

Re:The VCR? No (3, Funny)

eggled (1135799) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708828)

"Bertamax" has me picturing a muscle building product whose spokeswoman is a large german woman...

BertaMAXX!

Re:The VCR? No (2)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708950)

Well at least now we know what to get you for christmas. :)

Re:The VCR? No (1)

flyneye (84093) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708958)

The press was the FIRST threat, Wrong headed agenda and payola driven legislation for coporate morons by the morons that we morons elected is the greatest threat by far.
    Truthfully, Music quality, quantity and breadth of choice are stifled as well as innovation as long as these unnecessary middlemen insert themselves in the midst of what is mankinds heritage.
      The best solution is to continue to quit feeding revenues to these corporations till they figure out that music can't be successfully sold. Technology isn't going to back up and about face for the convenience of a DEAD Industry. It's time to bury the industry and let musicians make a living without unfair competition from self proclaimed talent experts. Musicians will be able to make loads more money as recorded music is given away to popularize the artist and create an audience eager to pay for live music performance. No industry is necessary or welcome to this scenario.

Bottom line. Don't pay for music!
I didn't say steal music, but then how can you steal something intangible, afloat on the air? I'll just say, don't hurt your conscience.

When this is outa the way I put on a cape and take on the ridiculous fallacy of other fantasy ownerships.
When an entity can catch this "BRAAAAAAPTFF" fart and paint it purple, I will admit ownership of the intangible.
However then to the disgust of the Scientologists in our government I will announce my claim to the soul of L.Ron Hubbard and my intent to sell it to the first fucker that sticks his hand out from under a volcano.

Re:The VCR? No (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708980)

Huh? You kidding?

The printing press owners were pretty much what the "big five" and hence the RIAA are today: The ones controlling the publication. Copyright was never intended to protect the original author, it was since its inception about protecting the one owning the "right to publish", which were (at least for more interesting works) always one of the big printing presses. It has been a tool to keep the profits where they 'belong'.

Simplistic view (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708366)

These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on. It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.

Re:Simplistic view (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708412)

...corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.

In place of "corporations" or "government" (redundant terms actually), just use the term "authority". Authority is a direct function of corruption.

Re:Simplistic view (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708516)

And you think many politicians are interested in this issue? What happens if they stand for some other more important issue that you agree with? Voter apathy is bound to happen when there are no candidates you completely agree with.

Re:Important issue (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708858)

I'm not sure - I think the threat of Felony Misclicks is just about the top of the list! Just grab your beverage of choice and work through the results. Especially see your sig - that will be Trolling 3.11 and just might be the flip from web 2.0 to Web 3.0.

Think of the Social Network sites and what they are made of. An UltraTurfer sends you a link - but since it's not the one and only copy by the original producer, it's Illegal streaming. Lights out!

Job Applications: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

When that kicks in we'll be desperately wishing for the cozy days of dear ol Goatse.

Protest (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708536)

Burn the American flag [flagburningworld.com] .

Re:Simplistic view (5, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708608)

I wouldn't call it voter apathy. I would simply say most voters are more concerned about whether or not they will be able to afford rent or the mortgage next month, or have enough money left after taxes to take their kids on that vacation, or even just be able to put good, healthy food on the table for them. When ordering priorities for a lot of people, being able to listen to music in any format they want or being able to stream the newest episode of whatever TV show online falls pretty low on the list.

Re:Simplistic view (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708776)

I wouldn't call it voter apathy. I would simply say most voters are more concerned[...]When ordering priorities for a lot of people[...]falls pretty low on the list.

I think the distinction is academic. Whether you don't care, or don't care enough the end result is the same: Inaction. Now, I'm going to come dangerously close to Godwinning the discussion here, but I feel an excerb from Elie Wiesel's speech The Perils of Indifference sheds some light on this distinction. Keep in mind that what he was discussing was many orders of magnitude more severe than what we are talking about, but the principle is the same.

What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means "no difference." A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil.

What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one's sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Of course, indifference can be tempting -- more than that, seductive. It is so much easier to look away from victims. It is so much easier to avoid such rude interruptions to our work, our dreams, our hopes. It is, after all, awkward, troublesome, to be involved in another person's pain and despair. Yet, for the person who is indifferent, his or her neighbor are of no consequence. And, therefore, their lives are meaningless. Their hidden or even visible anguish is of no interest. Indifference reduces the other to an abstraction.

[Source [historyplace.com] ]

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709066)

Do me a favor... come around again when your home is in foreclosure and tell us how acedemic this all is.
 
Statements like these is what makes people hate acedemics and make them easy to dismiss.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708850)

And probably just as much that there isn't an obvious difference in the parties - least not the big two. The democrats have their list of what they are that the republicans aren't and vice versa. Even if voters do care, you'd still need a choice.

Re:Simplistic view (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709010)

There's a red vase with a hole in the bottom and a blue vase with a hole in the bottom, but you have the free choice which one you want to buy.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708652)

While I agree with your general sentiment, you do realize that this is precisely why we have a representative democracy, right? People are elected to worry about the details for us. It was intentionally set up that way. The real problem is that our representatives aren't representing the people of this country, rather they are representing the corporate interests.

Re:Simplistic view (4, Insightful)

Labcoat Samurai (1517479) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708674)

These corporations are not a threat to tech innovation: Voter apathy is the threat. In every country where intellectual property concepts have been strengthened by legal precident, it has done so because the issues are too complex for the average person to understand. They are uninformed, and unable to feel any sentiments towards what is happening one way or another. They may vaguely understand that it is wrong, but being unable to form a cohesive argument against it, they shrug and move on.

In my experience, inability to form a cohesive argument doesn't stop people from having strong convictions. I won't politicize this with examples, but there are a lot of people out there who are very passionate about issues despite having incoherent, nonsensical rationale.

It's intellectually dishonest to place the blame on a handful of individuals and corporations for this situation. If you really want to drill down to the root cause of this, it's our poor public education system and a lack of training on using critical thinking skills that has caused this, and many other, social ills. And that's true globally, not just in the United States. Wherever you cut back education and voter participation falls, corruption grows and corporations become more powerful.

The problem is that they don't care, though. I'm not sure how you can educate the apathy out of them. I remember school, and I remember that people were apathetic then, too. If it wasn't something the directly impacted their priorities, they tuned out and couldn't give a shit. What's unfortunate is that there's not necessarily anything about this issue that *does* directly impact their priorities, so provided you can't change that thinking, there may be no way to get people to care. At least no way to get them to care enough to research and critically examine these issues themselves.

Also, I'm not even sure it's a skill you can teach everyone. I've run into some staggeringly irrational people, and I'm skeptical that it's all because their school didn't do its job.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708842)

In my experience, inability to form a cohesive argument doesn't stop people from having strong convictions. I won't politicize this with examples, but there are a lot of people out there who are very passionate about issues despite having incoherent, nonsensical rationale.

Those people come to those convictions from a strong feeling. Cohesion does not require rationality, only a strong base.

The problem is that they don't care, though. I'm not sure how you can educate the apathy out of them.

If it was explained to them in terms they could relate to the social and economic impact these policies have on their lives, a minority of them would move from silence to activism. The problem isn't that they don't know, it's that they don't even have the tools to proceed forward with the analysis.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708732)

So who exactly am I supposed to vote for, the guy who makes these bad laws or the one who lets these bad laws get made? The voter apathy in this case happens at the legislative levels, not at the individual voter level. The impact of these decisions is so far removed from the day-to-day lives of the average person that there's really no need for them to understand the complexities of the situation. This is, after all, why we elect people to represent us - so we don't have to be intimately familiar with the contents of legislative sausage. Unfortunately, our votes don't count for squat up against corporate dollars, so we don't get people who represent us no matter who we vote for.

Re:Simplistic view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708830)

I don't know about you, but next election cycle, unless some real conservative / liberal activist with a history shows up I plan on voting for Chuck Norris, Vladimir Putin or myself at the box.
captCHA: sincere

Re:Simplistic view (5, Insightful)

__u63 (65413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708736)

Voter apathy is merely a symptom of a larger problem -- a legislative system that decentralizes decision making so much that elected officials are accountable only to their local constituencies and large campaign contributors and a legal system that is focused on the minutiae of rules and processes and that is all too content to lose sight of the bigger picture. We should accept low voter turnouts in the US as a given for the time being and try to work out a system that will optimize responsible decision making on the part of elected officials.

Re the subject of this article -- until IP law is revised, the RIAA/MPAA will basically have free reign to do silly things. US IP law is badly broken, something we've been complaining about on Slashdot for years. It will not be revised until there is sensible campaign contribution reform and an organized grassroots political movement.

Re:Simplistic view (4, Insightful)

gravis777 (123605) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708862)

I think the problem is more along the lines of ignorant politicians. The USA is not a truely democratic society - ie we do not vote on every law that comes down, but instead we are a representative democracy. You really cannot vote for someone on a certain issue of none of your candidates understands the issue. In the few cases where a political party emerges that does understand (like the Pirate Party or something), they normally only have strong convictions about technologies and copyright. While that is all important, a politician with no major party backing, who has no clear cut agendas on things such as the economy, healthcare, education, enviornment, or any of the other hot topics, is probably going to recieve little votes.

Sadly, in the way the US government is setup, about the only way that progress is going to be made is if Party leaders come out, set forth guidelines of where the party stands in matters of copyright, get current politicians behind them, and then see where the votes lead. A half-dozen Congressmen who understand copyright and technology issues are probably going to have a hard time pushing reform through Congress if the other 400 members don't even know what an iPod or an MP3 or bittorrent even is.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709048)

...a politician with no major party backing, who has no clear cut agendas on things such as the economy, healthcare, education, enviornment, or any of the other hot topics, is probably going to recieve little votes.

You say that like there actually IS a politician who'd give you anything concrete about his opinion on controversial topics...

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708894)

Apathetic and lack of education.

Go and ask 20 people RIGHT NOW if they own the DVD's that they have in their home. 19 of them will tell you, "Yes I OWN those." They do not understand that they did notbuy a DVD but purchased a limited viewing license that is revokable at any time. the RIAA and MPAA are allowedto use Illegal false advertising in hiding this fact to consumers. All their ad's say "OWN your copy today" and this is false advertising.

it starts with education, then they will care.

Re:Simplistic view (2)

Jeek Elemental (976426) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708906)

You cant educate everyone about everything, the time when the world was that simple has long passed, if it ever existed.
A solution to this is specialized political parties, which are very common in more enlightened parts of the world.

With 2 parties that basically spend their energy tearing down what the other built the previous term, you are screwed.

Re:Simplistic view (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708924)

That's kinda like saying women who don't know martial arts are to blame for rape. And we all know that wouldn't fly in the court.

Nor it should. And while it's true that training people to resolve this issue would help (how much is debatable) the truth is that there are a million issues like this and people can't be informed and in *all* of those topics and care about them simultaneously.

So I think it is fair to accuse those directly involved in the matter as they can understand and care about the subject, and still chose the one which is detrimental to society in the long run.

Re:Simplistic view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709026)

Sorry but this Democracy garbage of which you speak is a ploy by the ruling class to give the ruled class the illusion they are somehow laughably in control.
Meanwhile life goes on as usual.
Try bloody revolution next time.

Re:Simplistic view (2)

infalliable (1239578) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709040)

It's partially voter apathy, but it's also a huge amount of regulatory capture.

I may feel very strongly, but I really have no money and have other things to deal with day to day.

As an industry with an agenda, I have a dedicated staff to doing nothing but lobbying and deep pockets behind it. A lone individual also lacks the "credibility" of an industry insider. Regardless of what the industry says, they live it so they "must know the issues." It's not necessarily correct, but that's how it works.

Copyright Lawsuits (3)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708386)

The **AA singlehandedly turned the net from a fun place to mashup stuff into a hush zone where soon if they get their way a misclick will send you to jail! Even the usual patent games don't hold a candle to that!

obvious? (2)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708388)

I assumed this has been well known for a long time, at least among the /. crowd. Other examples I can think of off the top of my head.

1) Mobile Cassette player
2) CD-RW drives
3) iPods
4) Youtube
5) bittorrent

do you expect anything less from these people. They rather sue to support their dinosaur of a business model than inovate and keep the status quo.

Re:obvious? (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708450)

You have no respect for history [blogspot.com] .. Humans did roam the earth before 1980..

Re:obvious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708768)

You have no respect for history [blogspot.com] .. Humans did roam the earth before 1980..

Well... okay, maybe you can convince me humans roamed the earth before 1980. But not much before. We all know time started on midnight (GMT), January 1, 1970, and anybody who claims they were born before then are filthy liars.

Re:obvious? (1)

compro01 (777531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708918)

WRONG!

Time started at 8:45:54 PM, December 13, 1901.

Re:obvious? (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708878)

Well, something did.

They just weren't human. Or they didn't have a life.

Re:obvious? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708984)

You have no respect for history [blogspot.com] .. Humans did roam the earth before 1980..

They drove it.

Re:obvious? (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708470)

instead of iPods, you should have just said "Apple".

Re:obvious? (5, Insightful)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708588)

Please allow me to clarify:

Gramaphone == Threat to live performances!
Radio == Threat to the Gramaphone industry!
Blank Cassettes == Threat to the Record (gramaphone) industry!
Burnable CD's == Threat to the Record (and Cassette) industry!
Mp3's + web == We're all gonna die!

Re:obvious? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709062)

Mp3's + web == We're all gonna die!

Is that a promise?

Re:obvious? (1)

softWare3ngineer (2007302) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708632)

They rather sue to support their dinosaur of a business model than inovate and keep the status quo.

It is expensive and risky to innovate. change cost a lot of $ for companies so of course they are going to fight it. I can't bash them too hard for doing something they believe is in their best interests, after all we let them do so as consumers. Because they are large organizations that can't change very fast so they need to slow innovation down to help compete. However i support the new business model that is still maturing that lets people provide their own content. The major content providers are in a losing battle at a change or die crossroads.

Re:obvious? (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709060)

I'm guessing this was spurred on by the anger about Amazon's new cloudy-storage/Android music-player-thingy (http://bit.ly/ifaGS7) - It shows a degree of ignorance that only the very wealthy can afford.
just wonder how long they'll be wealthy for?

IP Laws as a whole are flawed (4, Insightful)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708402)

Treating all IP in every industry the same way is flawed to begin with and the barrier to entry to stake a claim on an idea is way too easy.

The whole point of IP is to encourage innovation by providing incentive for the inventor. Today's IP laws are a flimsy shadow of that. Studios and IP troll companies collect the rewards and inventors are relegated to idea-generating grunts.

There is no inherent morality to ownership of an idea; it is something granted by the public to individual holders of IP for the benefit of the public. If at any time, said laws are detrimental to the public, it should be repealed.

Of course, that would require a government that isn't bought and paid for and a populace that's at least decently educated and informed.

Re:IP Laws as a whole are flawed (1)

Old97 (1341297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708530)

Right. I was going to post separately complaining about how software and business concept patents are a bigger impediment to innovation. Your comment throws them all together as an IP problem and I agree with you.

Re:IP Laws as a whole are flawed (3, Informative)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708560)

No, the whole point of IP is to create another commodity, ripe for speculation. It's just business.

If Intellectual property really is property (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708586)

Why cant there be a property tax on it?

Re:If Intellectual property really is property (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708898)

>Why cant there be a property tax on it?
Because that would make sense and the people in power have a severe lack of that.

More seriously, patents are easier to tax then copyright because of mandatory registration, copyright is a mess in this regard since it's automatic at the moment of creation with or without registration so the government would be completely unable to audit it to make sure you're paying for all of it [It also sucks because I don't want to pay tax for this Slashdot post just because I'm the "owner" of it]. This problem isn't insurmountable, it merely requires that the unregistered protection of copyright does not allow commercial use (even by you as creator), you only get commercial rights after registering which comes with the tax penalty attached.

Making it far less profitable to build and own patent war-chests is an excellent medium-to-long term economic stratagem [short term there will be a tonne of bitching about "destruction of wealth" with associated GDP and market volatility but the increase of industry profitability and new space for new competitors in the market will leave everything better than it started].

Re:If Intellectual property really is property (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708990)

You sir are a genius.,...

Tax all IP at a low 8.9% if you OWN specific IP, then pay up. Use the RIAA's claims in court to set a price... It solves the budget problem, and makes the RIAA scream like a hot chick in a slasher movie.

Illegal downloaders must be punished. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708414)

You can try to justify the theft of music as free speech, or victimless crime, or however you want. But the fact of the matter is that it is wrong no matter how you justify it to yourself. Stop trying to spin it any other way.

Re:Illegal downloaders must be punished. (3, Informative)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708624)

Nice try there. Copyright infringement isn't theft, never has been and hopefully never will be. You cannot steal a non-rivalrous good. Secondly, the reason why the *AA so loves the statutory damages is because it's impossible for them to prove that they've been harmed, consequently the conclusion that it's not a victimless crime is just as flawed as concluding that it is.

Re:Illegal downloaders must be punished. (1)

someone247356 (255644) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708868)

It's only a crime because corrupt politicians were bought by even more corrupt corporations making it so.

It was once illegal to drink alcohol. That didn't make it _wrong_ just illegal.

Copying our culture is the same, while it may _currently_ be illegal, that doesn't make it wrong.

Re:Illegal downloaders must be punished. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708910)

Stop using "piracy" as an excuse. No one is talking about piracy.

time for copyleft for music (3, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708424)

consumers are obviously better off without mafiaa

it is my belief artists are better off without mafiaa. the evil communist business model in question is... the same business model as good ol' radio from the 1950s: give your content away for free. should we dig up senator mccarthy and tell him wolfman jack was endorsing a communist business model? make cash in related ways: gigs, ancillary revenues, advertising, endorsements, etc. on the internet, you are giving away your digital content for free, for free advertising, exposure. then you capitalize on that

of course, not all artists will take that route. that's fine. i think copyleft content will take off regardless as a valid zone of content that pays dividends for everyone who is not the beetles or the rolling stones. because really, with the mafiaa, unless you are the beatles or the rolling stones, some middleman is making cash, not the artist. they write the contracts in such a way you're screwed as an artist unless you have clout

so we just need to reach artists, and rather than confront IP laws directly, just route around them with a new generation with a new understanding: artists who want exposure more than anything else

Re:time for copyleft for music (2)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708508)

Even "copyleft" is a license. The entire bureaucracy has to be demolished.

Re:time for copyleft for music (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708660)

i'm sorry, but you need some SOME sort of legal framework

anarchy only works in the minds of the young, the dumb, and the drugged out utopian. although... it would work for punk as a sales point for their core audience i guess: "steal this song! down with the system!"

Re:time for copyleft for music (1, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708780)

Anarchy is all there is. Everything else needs to be propped up with heavy weaponry. And that's also very expense, and really a waste of money. Copyleft is the same bullshit as copyright.. It just shifts the power.. It has to be eliminated.. Time to turn the weapons on those who wield them.

Re:time for copyleft for music (1)

harperska (1376103) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708934)

I don't know if I'm just feeding the troll here, but some control is necessary. Do a little research, and read up on the concepts of the Tragedy of the Commons and the Tyranny of the Majority. When everybody is allowed to act out in their own self interest without limits in a world where we all have to live together and survive on the same scrap of dirt, nobody wins.

Part of the art of government is crafting a system which in which all controllers are themselves controlled. Hence the need for IP reform, as current IP laws grant control without any sane checks (allowing the MAFIAA to run rampant).

But maybe countertrolling already knows all this, and just wants to watch the world burn.

Re:time for copyleft for music (0)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708962)

When everybody is allowed to act out in their own self interest without limits in a world where we all have to live together and survive on the same scrap of dirt, nobody wins.

Nature will take care of it, just like in the animal world. And despite our fancy language, we are just animals. It shows in everything we do.

Re:time for copyleft for music (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709038)

a troll is someone attempting to lure you into a trap by conscious effort. a crackpot just lures you into his scattershot mind out of evangelical zeal. countertrolling is more of the genuine crackpot variety of internet denizen it appears. talkative, ignorant, harmless

Re:time for copyleft for music (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709094)

Ah yes, your most sane system is working so well. I guess this is what I can expect from people who live such soft lives, with mittens made out of mink..

Re:time for copyleft for music (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709004)

"Anarchy is all there is" he typed on his computer made possible by civilization

friends don't let friends post drunk

Re:time for copyleft for music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708766)

You do realize there's already plenty of music out there that doesn't have a commercial license slapped on it, right?

It might not be copyleft (which I guess would mean that if I sampled a 1 second bit from such a song, the entire rest of my song would become open and free in its original raw form as well), but they generally address the whole issue of wanting to be paid for music (*gasp* - the audacity, right?) or not being allowed to time/format-shift, etc.

Yet... I see no stories of people with an entire library of free (as in whatever) music who buy all their merchandise and go to their concerts to support them financially.

So I guess a more free license alone isn't enough to sway people. They want their Kanye, Lady GaGa and B.O.B. for free (as in beer, mostly) as well. And rather than accept that aforementioned choose not to use a more free license and ignore their music, they pirate instead.

Yeah.. good luck with the 'copyleft for music' concept.

The concepts that's actually working, to some extent, are iTunes/Spotify. Hey, look at that. Technological Innovation - and not at all stifled* by the RIAA. Now we just need an equivalent for movies to tackle the MPAA.
Unless the stifling is in that Apple can't make the song purchases $0.30/song, all $0.30 of which go to Apple.

* Last I checked, every week there's some new media player that will happily play back MKV files and support torrent and newsbin and the usual suspects (with legitimate uses, of course *smirk*) without any major lawsuits to stop the products from being made. Hey, look at that, more Technological Innovation happening right there.

Honestly - this is from the Harvard Business Review? I bothered to read the article, and it's mostly scaremongering about legislation number I-lost-count possibly getting passed. Woop-dee-doop. Doesn't do squat to what's actually happening in the world, including the U.S. None of it is going to stifle innovation from those who actually seek to innovate.

The best part? The argument that the VCR was the best thing that happened to the movie industry. Question is: what if the VCR did -not- have recording functionality, and only playback. Would that have cut into the profits made from video sales and rentals in some magic way that I can't fathom? Or was there a charge of blank tapes in the U.S. that I'm unfamiliar with that was such a cash-cow? It may very well have been an even better thing to happen to the movie industry.

Re:time for copyleft for music (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709150)

Creative Commons?

No need to understand.. (3, Interesting)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708466)

No need to understand technology when in addition to having piles of money, you understand that buying law makers will keep your current system safe. This way you don't have to do anything different and you still make money.

Even as close as a few years back, I had the impression that Democrats somehow had the people interest in mind more than Republicans. I finally realized that both are the same. They simple represent different segments of industry which sometimes have competing views. One thing both can agree on, we are the enemy.

Off topic, I know but it still makes me sad. To think I wasted 6 years in the military to defend an ideal that doesn't exist anymore. You try to do something about it and everywhere you run into these stupid American hicks saying, if ya dont like'it git'out.
Well, you know what hick, I did get out. I have moved to Germany. Sure, I cannot have a gun without a really good reason, but at least I can laugh at you will all the people around here...even though it still breaks my heart to see what is happening to my old home.

Their efforts have been somewhat exagerated (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708478)

Note tried to sue MP3 out of existence. Haven't succeeded... at least not yet?

ranking the threats... (1)

Gbor (1224066) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708518)

if "RIAA/MPAA: the Greatest Threat To Tech Innovation" then I'm sure the outdated (broken?) patent system is a close second.

Filthy Pirates! (1)

grub (11606) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708524)


Home taping is killing music!

Re:Filthy Pirates! (1)

ExploHD (888637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708566)

but don't you want to hear my mix-tape of songs from the radio?

Re:Filthy Pirates! (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709054)

Nope, but my mix tape of songs from Last.fm I made with my copy of "the last ripper" sounds great...

I just don't like how you put in 6 copies of "Never Gonna Give you up" in your mix tape... Come on the song is not that good....

More important is the government’s collusion (5, Insightful)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708532)

1. It’s great to see this coming (finally) from a well-respected business source. The Lessigs, Doctorows and even Nissons of this world are potentially dismissed as impractical ideologues; not so Harvard Business.

2. The things that really makes me sad and angry is the continuing complicity of the US government in the RIAA & MPAA’s money-grabbing, price-fixing, collusive monopolistic ransom-holding of contemporary cultural output. From the anti-democratic secret ACTA treaty shenanigans to Joe Biden’s White House lunches with the Big Content and law enforcement, even Obama, by far the most technologically forward thinking president ever, has completely failed to comprehend the nature of the problem, despite excellent books on the subject, notably Lessig’s Free Culture.

I thought Obama would change this, because his election campaign was funded by crowd-sourcing and he railed against the “Special interests” in public debates.

It’s the public’s interests vs. those of a business elite with a powerful lobby. Guess where the Administration’s placing its support. Change we can believe in, indeed.

Re:More important is the government’s collus (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708678)

And if the sheeple wouldn't reward politicians for spreading FUD and deliberately breaking the process we might someday get change. But as long as you've got people punishing the government for acting in their interest it's unrealistic to expect anything different. The President tried change, and was rewarded by the people by taking away his majority in the house and most of the seats necessary to get anything done in the Senate.

Re:More important is the government’s collus (3, Interesting)

InsurrctionConsltant (1305287) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708796)

I still basically "support" Obama –whatever that means, being from the UK. How anyone even slightly left of Bill O'Reilly could favour the alternative, the Cavalcade of Crazy currently coming from the Republican side is beyond me.

Still, I don't agree with your assessment that "The President tried change, and was rewarded by the people by taking away his majority in the house." I just didn't see the evidence of him "trying change" –the secret ACTA negotiations and white house events for the MPAA (incl. presence of FBI brass) etc. were all going on way before the Dem majority was lost.

I do understand your point that generally there is a great deal of FUD (must not mention Fox News... dammit) that results in many people being grossly misinformed and therefore punishing politicians trying to act in their interest (cough health care cough socialism cough).

Please if you know of significant ways Obama tried to make government less beholden to "Special Interests" (as he promised), give us some info.

Re:More important is the government’s collus (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709112)

His majority was a mess of idiots anyways... they had 2 YEARS and could not pass anything except a massively watered down Healthcare bill, to make the special interests happy. Real changes that would have made real improvements like a public option were taken away because of whiny selfish bitches. none of the Dems could pay attention long enough to vote together...

The best thing that can happen is a stalemate where nothing get's passed. both sides are full of idiots and if they cant get anything passed then they cant do any damage.

Re:More important is the government’s collus (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708932)

So long as we maintain a first past the post [wikipedia.org] voting system in the US, gerrymandering [wikipedia.org] remains rampant (not to mention other vote-rigging [wikipedia.org] tactics), and the fuckup started by Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [wikipedia.org] equating corporations with persons and the subsequent boosting of corporate rights since then (culminating in the recent Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission [wikipedia.org] decision) remain in effect, we're all screwed.

Which means for the foreseeable future, we're all screwed.

Re:More important is the government’s collus (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709024)

I thought Obama would change this, because his election campaign was funded by crowd-sourcing and he railed against the “Special interests” in public debates.

It’s the public’s interests vs. those of a business elite with a powerful lobby. Guess where the Administration’s placing its support. Change we can believe in, indeed.

I knew all along he wouldn't change a thing about that. After all, Biden is the one who wants you to go to Federal prison for downloading mp3s. Someone who supports the idea of copy-left and new media technologies doesn't pick Biden as a running mate. I knew it and I still voted for Obama like a dummy.

Now look at us, we've got a former senator running MPAA, and Obama hasn't done a damned thing about the level of control corporate lobbies have in the government. Couple that with ACTA, the third middle east war, the continuation of guantanamo bay, and the debt crisis... heck I don't even need to say it. Everyone is thinking it already.

What about the children? (4, Insightful)

rabun_bike (905430) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708544)

That is akin to the "what about the artists?" statement the industry always uses. What about the artists? They make most of their money from live performances since they don't have to pay the record industry to perform their songs live (usually). "Artists are paid royalties usually somewhere between 3% and 25% of the suggested retail price of the recording. Exactly where it falls depends on the clout of the artist (a brand new artist might receive less than a well-known artist). From this percentage, a 25% deduction for packaging is taken out (even though packaging rarely costs 25% of the total price of the CD)." The US Supreme Court recently refused to hear the Eminem/Universal case upon which the lower courts had ruled in Eminem's favor that he should receive 50% of revenue from downloaded songs versus the 3 to 5% he was receiving based on CD licensing agreements. That's a big deal and really does put money back in the artists pocket. If the record industry was really concerned about the poor artists they would not be fighting to keep their 95-97%. http://www.prefixmag.com/news/supreme-court-refuses-to-hear-eminemuniversal-case/50487/ [prefixmag.com]

Re:What about the children? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708942)

It is worse than that.

http://www.toomuchjoy.com/index.php/2009/12/my-hilarious-warner-bros-royalty-statement/

They do not even BOTHER to keep the books right.

This dude was able to talk them into even keeping the books and they STILL got it wrong. How many others have they done this sort of thing to.

Re:What about the children? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709096)

Nobody cares about the artists. I'm not being cruel or singling them out, but I don't stay up at night wondering if my neighbor is being adequately paid either. I surely don't slip him checks in his mailbox just to make sure he's doing alright, and I would think that I'm pretty representative of the human race in this regard.

The *IAA ppl are simply stupid (but rich). They hold the key by "owning" content that is in constant demand. If they were to sell this as a service like people want, then everybody would be happy. Instead, they try to artificially starve a commodity market and play games, and its only hurting them. What was the point of not having Beatles music "legally" downloadable for 15+ years?

to further this topic (5, Insightful)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708556)

Michael Geist, Canada's copyright law guru and law prof at the University of Ottawa, posted an interesting observation about the copyright fight a lot of these organizations like RIAA and MPAA engage. It's marketing failure [michaelgeist.ca] , not bad behaviour that is the cause of piracy.

Meaning, it's RIAA and the MPAA failure to properly price their products at a reasonable level that makes the consumer believe that the purchase is reasonable. I mean, if a movie to buy was $1 or $2, would you purchase it or DL it? If a music CD was $3, not $20, would you own your own copy? Or if they offered monthly subscriptions, like the Netflix model, would you subscribe or pirate?

Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees.

Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?

Re:to further this topic (4, Informative)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708596)

Not only are they missing the boat and stifling innovation, they're attacking and going after consumers who don't believe the purchase is worth the money and then lobby governments to put in CRAZY laws that illegally downloading a movie can cost you $250,000 + 5 years in jail if you're charged and found guilty. Yet get in your car drunk and kill a family of 5, spend 2-3 years in jail + $50,000 in legal fees. Is it me, or does the who copyright debate sound complete like corporate sheit they've bought and paid for and then rammed down our throats?

The moral to this story is that when a piracy crime is worse than a murder charge, you should simply kill anyone threatening you with a copyright lawsuit and get away with a slap on the wrist. Shakespeare's "But first let's kill all the lawyers" has never made more sense than it does now.

Re:to further this topic (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35709166)

I'd love to see that in court.

"Defendent, why did you drive over the lawyer?"
"Simple economy. It costs less."

Re:to further this topic (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708680)

I mean, if a movie to buy was $1 or $2, would you purchase it or DL it? If a music CD was $3, not $20, would you own your own copy?

If I could make copies of those CDs and DVDs without having my own equipment kick and scream, and without having to worry about patent violations, then sure. $1 for a DVD? Absolutely.

However, keep in mind that there are already plenty of people who will spend a lot more than that on a movie. Those people are feeding the MPAA and creating an environment where $1 sounds far too low.

Re:to further this topic (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708726)

There's a lot of albums I'd like to own, but can't buy without breaking my boycott of the RIAA. It's a shame because a lot of those albums are quite good, but rewarding an industry that rips its own artists off even as it attacks pirates as stealing from the artists is a non-starter.

Personally, I refuse to pay more than $6 for an album by a major label, for indie groups I'll go higher than that, but I rarely if ever hear an album or song by a major label which is worth even $10.

Mind you that's for an actual CD, I'm willing to pay even less than that if it's a download, and definitely not if the download isn't full CD quality.

greatest threats; death, censorship, other abuses (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708570)

'it starts when we're always afaraid...' there is a top ten.

source of du rounds, tear gas, land mines secret? munutswon, blah blah blah

secret mystery of god providing aimlessly? seems as though our rulers get them by default, then, arm the (soon to be) armless/lifeless? yikes. whois in charge of all this madness?

oppressed pop. worldwide receiving arms shipments

many of the newer subscription issues include the even newer miraclemorph prosthetic devices, so that the advanced weapons may be operated by the armless of every discipline, race, motive etc... being fair to all is truly disarming.

censored? chariots? honestly?

Due to excessive bad posting from this IP or Subnet, anonymous comment posting has temporarily been disabled. You can still login to post. However, if bad posting continues from your IP or Subnet that privilege could be revoked as well. If it's you, consider this a chance to sit in the timeout corner or login and improve your posting. If it's someone else, this is a chance to hunt them down. If you think this is unfair, please email moderation@slashdot.org with your MD5'd IPID and SubnetID, which are "blah blah blah

That Edison pirate (1)

Drakkenmensch (1255800) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708574)

We should outlaw wax cylinder voice phonographs! They will put all music-halls out of business and destroy music forever!

In their defense... (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708654)

With widely available downloads, people do pirate A LOT of content. Yes, the industry should take an "embrace and control" approach before things get out of hand, but when you see your movies and music freely available online that makes it hard for some to see the big picture. I know lots of people who brag about having not bought a CD or DVD in YEARS because they can download what they want for free. And, it's so easy now even the technology-challenged can do it.

But, this is Slashdot so anyone trying to protect intellectual property is a fascist.

Re:In their defense... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708718)

The problem is that while this is true - companies are still making a ton of money. Its not like they've collapsed or something.

What the companies should do is adapt by giving 'bonuses' that other things don't. Cinemas are still popular around here, because you get to see things on a giant screen with surround sound, which is an experience most people don't get.

They should offer more incentive to get the music/film legally. Less stick, more carrot.

Re:In their defense... (1)

Travelsonic (870859) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708938)

But, this is Slashdot so anyone trying to protect intellectual property is a fascist.

... Why did you have to end a pretty interesting post with this blatant baiting?

Duhh. (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708666)

Frankly the content companies are a disaster of run away greed. As the cost of creation and distribution have gone down and the volume of consumption have increased they want to matain not just their margins but their price! It is like the world can now all want computers and they cost only a $100 to make and then try to sell them for $20,000.
A great example are cable box DVRs.
Take a look at the size of a ROKU box sometime. There is no reason that a cable box needs to be any bigger. There is also no need for every DVR to have a hard drive. If the content providers allowed it the cable companies could simply have a SAN and you used that for your DVR. You could even mark the shows so that you didn't duplicate the recordings for users. And of course the logical extension of that would be for the cable companies to keep every show for say the last two weeks or month and if you missed a show you could just watch it when you wanted to. No need to remember to record it.But that is just to consumer friendly.

April 1st again? (0, Troll)

brit74 (831798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708728)

What a retarded premise. So what: you can't get your music and movies for free? What "tech innovation" have they stopped? The super-duper holograph audio/video machine? Even the examples in the story are pathetically weak - the RIAA tried to eliminate the MP3 - guess what? The MP3 still exists, and even if it didn't, some audio-compression format would have to exist. And spotify already has a deal with the record companies in the US (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20040498-17.html). Sorry, but the two items in the summary are just an unnatural mashup of two things that Slashdotters care about: tech innovation and hating the RIAA/MPAA. For some reason (probably their rage against the RIAA/MPAA and the RIAA/MPAA's attack on "getting free entertainment") the commenters can't see past the fact that the argument doesn't actually make sense. Is this April 1st again or something?

eeeeh (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708818)

mp3 still exists, not because RIAA wasnt a threat and tried everything to stop it - it was because people just didnt let them do it and kept using that format regardless of what RIAA was trying to do.

dont jump in with 'content for free' bullshit everytime you think there is some room to make an ayn randist argument.

Re:April 1st again? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708826)

They may be unable to halt things, but they're trying, and they're slowing things down and wasting everyone's time and money in the process.

The thing is, they're right about one thing: Internet music sharing *is* damaging their business model. What they're wrong about, is that anyone other than themselves should care.

Music is healthier than it's ever been [citation needed, admittedly]. But the RIAA's share of that business is shrinking. Good.

ASCAP also is Threat They tryed to sue arcade g (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708740)

ASCAP also is Threat They tried to sue over arcade games like guitar hero now whats to stop them from suing over any think they may look like a jukebox or may be used as one even in a small way.

Not big content---big everything. (4, Insightful)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708750)

Big Oil is why you fight wars.
Big Insurance is why you can't have the health care you want.
List goes on.

In the end, it is that Big has too much sway in the political system. They pay little tax yet have a disproportionate amount of influence.

Re:Not big content---big everything. (2)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708986)

It's comments like this that make you lament that the moderation system only goes up to '5'.

Re:Not big content---big everything. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709152)

Then we'd end up with "Big Moderation", and everything would go to hell.

Re:Not big content---big everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35708988)

Big government.

Re:Not big content---big everything. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709012)

Big Oil is why you fight wars.
Big Insurance is why you can't have the health care you want.
List goes on.

In the end, it is that Big has too much sway in the political system. They pay little tax yet have a disproportionate amount of influence.

Agreed.. But what can we do about it? Vote people in that will say "I can fix this!" and as soon they are in goes "Oh.. Money! Shiny!!!!! What problem with Big Industry?"

It's too late. The consumer has already lost and we will always be stepped on by the Big.

"American public" (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708802)

"to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone"

dont you like how lobbyist whoresons mesh in 'public' with NO context whatsoever to fool the ignorant masses.

the media control freaks (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 3 years ago | (#35708996)

yup, since technology like computer hardware & software & networking methods can take command & control & $$$ out of the hands of the MPAA/RIAA the existing media distributors (mpaa/riaa) are naturally going to fight against it,

just think if some website allowed just anybody to upload their own recordings to either sell or give away for free, and if enough big names in music started using it the RIAA could eventually be left out of the $$$, a little more difficult with movies since more initial investment is required to make a feature film or movie that can compete with Hollywood.

So true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35709070)

Just look at headlines from this past week. Time Warner had to remove channels from it's ipad app because the tv studios started complaining. Music studios are upset and threatening lawsuits because Amazons new cloud storage for music.

These are two great products that people want. The RIAA and MPAA are intent on killing these products for no good reason. These products are not in any way going to keep the movie studios and record labels from making more money. The Time Warner app will only work for Time Warner subscribers, so they are already paying the studios. And for the Amazon music service, they are hoping to get more people to buy music through Amazon giving the music studios more money. Any music people upload directly to Amazons cloud is music they already owned so the music studios are losing nothing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?