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!

Berkman Center Releases Digital Media Policy Paper

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the falling-on-deaf-ears dept.

Media 146

Copyfighter writes "Last year marked another messy chapter in the music and movie industries' transitions online. Legitimate offerings multiplied while the RIAA and MPAA continued their lawsuits against P2P systems and users, even as P2P traffic reached new heights. How -- if at all -- should policymakers attempt to resolve emerging digital media conflicts? The Berkman Center's Digital Media Project today released a new research study examining options for government action and how it could affect four different business models for the distribution of digital media. The authors caution that government intervention is currently premature because it is unlikely to strike an appropriate balance between the many competing interests at stake."

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

The paper (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289297)

The paper is secured in Adobe PDF's new DRM! You can not read it without paying for it.

does /. really need politics? (-1, Offtopic)

Prophetic_Truth (822032) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289315)

I thought this section was created for "the elections". Now that the elections are over, can we just kill this section?

Re:does /. really need politics? (1, Flamebait)

gonzo-wireless (847083) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289339)

It's this sort of voter apathy that got GWB into power in the first place.

It's here to stay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289349)

Given the ease of getting an internet group in a click-happy flamewar, I can't see Slashdot giving up all that additional ad revenue. If anything, the lame Politics section is (unfortunately) helping justify to advertisers why they should advertise on Slashdot. Clickbait, pure and simple.

Re:It's here to stay. (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289400)

Meh, clickbait or not, we all clicked.

I'm a subscriber, and really don't mind the content in politics. At least sometimes.

I wouldn't pay for it if I didn't like it, and if I didn't pay for it and still read, then they have every right to have advertisers.

Honestly...I think you people read far too much into some consipiracy. Content providers are out there to make money. Slashdot is a content provider.

Now the question is, who do you take issue with? Slashdot? The *AA? Who's got the more reasonable business model?

^^^ Flambait. >:)

Re:It's here to stay. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289442)

Who said anything about "conspiracy"? I take issue with Slashdot's lameness. I could not care less about their "business model". Besides, I block Slashdot's ads anyways. :)

Re:does /. really need politics? (2, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289357)

I dunno. It's kind of nice to have a place other than "Your Rights Online" to put political discussions over technology that may or may not cover 'rights' specifically.

This one in particular probably could have gone under the header "Your Rights Online", but I've seen examples of content placed there that would have been more befitting of "Politics".

On related news... (2, Interesting)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289425)

today an article appeared on Technology Review [technologyreview.com] about the LokiTorrent site [lokitorrent.com] fighting back in court after the MPAA sued the owner. $40K in donations from its users (for legal fees) so far.

The government (2, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289323)

should, and should have from the beginning but(ted) out.

The problem is that the DMCA screwed things up from the word go. Now the only way to fix things up is to keep bandaging them more and more...

or repeal the DMCA. Use copyright law as it was intended.

Less is more in this case. The more the government butts out, the more quickly a balance will be struck. :\

Re:The government (3, Informative)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289448)

The problem is that the DMCA screwed things up from the word go . . . Use copyright law as it was intended.

In the case of music, the DCMA hasn't "screwed things up." The intent of copyright law has always been to prevent activity such as the file sharing that many on this forum seem to see as some kind of inalienable right.

Re:The government (3, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289505)

There is a sad level of redundancy that wasn't needed in the DMCA.

Copyright law as it was covered the copying of music just fine. What it did was give content providers a rather unfair whip to threaten people without due process. THAT'S why the DMCA is evil. It's not the feeling that I have an inalienable right to "arr matey's shiver me timbers" when it comes to music (or any media for that matter), it's that I have a right to due process, and I have pretty clear rights when it comes to copyright law.

The DMCA is bad on both counts.

Re:The government (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289516)

It was also designed to protect fair use that those at the RIAA seem to believe is their inalienable right to stop....

Re:The government (2, Insightful)

rpdillon (715137) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289860)

Incorrect.

The primary goal of copyright law is to incentivize artists to release their work for the public good.

Any extent to which this translates into making artists rich is purely a secondary effect of the law.

And nowhere does copyright law say its intent is to prevent illegal distribution - on the contrary, it's goal is to *encourage* distribution. The idea that copyright is primarily an inhibitor is something that has been pounded into the public conscious by our friends at the RIAA and MPAA.

No doubt many of you will find this surprising and inplausible. May I direct you to:

Sony vs. Universal [eff.org] :

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

[p.429] The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).

Re:The government (1)

tacokill (531275) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289954)

Not to be nitpicky, but I think you mean file sharing OF UNAUTHORIZED WORKS.

Contrary to what the xxAA's are telling you, file sharing in and of itself is NOT illegal. And yes, it *IS* a right to share files.

It's not a right to share unauthorized files. The distinction is subtle but very very relevant.

You are incorrect, son (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290756)

"The intent of copyright law has always been to prevent activity such as the file sharing "

No. No it wasn't. It was intended to prevent people from taking copyrighted material and selling it as their own.

Copyright as originally envisioned in the U.S. was not about restriction of people's rights, but was a restriction on business's ability to make money from other people's writings, songs, or paintings.

Revisionist history like yours is.... amusing.

Give the money back... (1)

Simonetta (207550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289718)

When the RIAA gives all the money back that they extorted (oh Hell, let's make it double all the money back for 'pain and suffering') from ordinary people, then we will begin to consider if and where they will fit in to the new digital world order.
Until then we will continue to copy and distribute OUR CULTURAL HERITAGE freely to whoever asks for it.
They stole the public domain by bribing legislators to pass laws indefinitely extending the old idea of copyright. By doing this, they have shown themselves to be cultural thieves of the highest order and they forfeit all claims to any copyrights that they 'possessed' before deciding to do this crime against the world's cultural resources.
They need to beg for our mercy; we don't need to beg for theirs. They need us a lot more then we need them.
The people here at Slashdot who don't understand this are simply misguided.

Re:The government (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289905)

Copyright law is as it was intended. It restricts the average person's access to high tech. It restricts a person's right to speak freely(See Scientology). It restricts access to wide distribution. It's very clear that the "Ancillary Products and Services" model is the only viable, durable, and fair business model, but the unpredictability mentioned in the paper may keep it from becoming the standard. It's unfortunate that people may go to jail for infringement just for the convenience of businesses to be able to predict its profits with less effort.

They should have BUTTED out 200 years ago (1)

argoff (142580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290146)

(the govt) should, and should have from the beginning but(ted) out.

You're right! They should have butted out over 200 years ago and never imposed copy restrictions to begin with. Copyrights have nothing to do with incentive, or even worse "property rights". When you think about it, they don't even help many people except say Madonna. They are simply a government imposed regulation on how people can copy and share information. 200 years ago when the term was only 14 years and every information work was attached to a physical item it was small enough of a social burden not to rip society apart at the seams. Today it is not, even though I dearly understand that the US founding fathers could not have anticipated this.

What we are seeing today is simply a poor belief system (copyrights) being brought to it's logical conclusion. It would have poped it's ugly head up one way or the other DMCA or not. You can't go telling people that they effectively have this "right" to restrict the free flow of information (which is what copyrights really are), and then expect them not to want to "secure" this "right" and bring it to it's logical end. Which is effectively what has happened.

The only real solution is to bite the bullet and cut the thorny vine off at the root. Get rid of copyrights all together and the poor belief system that goes along with them. Any other solution is just not workable and is tanamount to wattering the vine that is choking us off.

Re:The Guvmint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290231)

The Guvmint up to no good. Them revenuers come an' take my 'puter. Now ain't no how I gonna post here no more. Meet my wife and sister.

Simple (3, Insightful)

Quasar1999 (520073) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289333)

Too much... stop it... this is starting to get excessive... Stop doing studies and wasting energy on this...

The simple solution is to let the people decide what they want... no amount of government intervention will stop the inevitable... It might slow it down for a few years, or even decades... but eventually the people will revolt in such huge numbers the government can't do anything about it...

Isn't our business model 'The strong survive, the weak parish?'

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289381)

Church very rarely enters into the business equation. Which is unfortunate, because a solid moral foundation would save a lot of problems for companies, employees, customers and bystanders alike.

Re:Simple (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289468)

Amen.

I'm personally christian, but it's fair to say that at least most practicing religions have, for the sake of avoiding an argument of what faith is better, an 'ethical code' by which the whole believes correct behavior is. I'm not talking big controversial issues (abortion anyone?), but rather the simple things:

Lying is bad.
Helping others is good.
Reading Slashdot at work, bad. (oops)

What makes religion in the workplace problematic is that we're not of a mono-faith society. Bring in religion, and you're liable to get sued. :(

I kinda like the stance that the St. Louis Rams football organization takes. They encourage employees to excercise their faith. They allow individuals to organize prayer meetings and such on company premises, and actively employ those who demonstrate ethical behavior. They've been burned a few times, but overal it makes for an easy-to-root-for team.

Overall I agree with you, and once again I'm disappointed by our lawsuit-happy society (In the US anyway).

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289513)

While not a christian I think that the basic mantra of

Live and let live
Trust god
Help your neighbor

can be applied to every circumstance I have encounted on my 29 years on this planet.

A moral go a long way in todays world although more often then not we are faulted for them and ridiculed for our convictions.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289452)

Isn't our business model 'The strong survive, the weak parish?'

P2P destroyed that business model.

P2P effectively makes everyone "the strong" in terms of ease of infringement. It used to be that to get good warez you had to hang out on IRC, maybe crack 0 day hosts for a release group, or contribute to the community in some fashion.

P2P makes it so one person contributes and everyone else can leech of their reward. The strong/weak business model no longer applies because it now only takes 1 strong to feed an army of the week via a P2P network. How can the RIAA/MPAA or software companies survive when 1 movie, song, or software program can replicate itself at an exponential rate on a P2P network.

Did that make any sense.

It does in my head.

Re:Simple (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289574)

Makes perfect sense.

*AA members could very well have built a superior p2p network, charged a REASONABLE amount for access, and fed the network with high quality content.

Or given the blessing to a p2p network to distribute the content on an existing one. Granted, many people would choose free over a reasonable fee, but then, if they weren't DRM'ing content, limiting how and where it could be used, much of this would be moot.

Content providers would prefer that CD's and DVD's couldn't be ripped and used as we please, but there it is. We like it that way. Rather than innovating and finding other things 'we like' and making money off it, they're finding a way to legally backlash the client base.

The argument boils down to (in my eyes) that we've had this struggle since 99 (reasonably). It's now 2005.

We're still having the same argument. Why? Because the *AA's STILL don't get it. They could have been milking this for the last 4 years. Instead, we're still fighting over the same BS, and we STILL don't have a music/content sharing app as good and feature-filled as Napster 1.0 (extended later by OpenNap). Where's my abillity to find one or two users that have the same taste in music as me and sample from their collection? Where's my way to find all this new music that I love, by finding stuff in those collections that I'd never heard? Where's my way to do that and still reward the artists?

Simple. The RIAA could care less about rewarding the artists. They want to reward themselves and their shareholders. They've made a boatload of cash on their business model, and they're not about to let it go without a fight. Whey change when you can litigate?

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290066)

We're still having the same argument. Why? Because the *AA's STILL don't get it.

Regardless of the *AA's ability to "get it" what is happenign is they are being robbed by P2P networks. The distrubition system is thrown into disarray and they lose money.

They are protecting their interest, as is expected. I really hope (and don't think you are) implying that becasue you don't like the current system you have a right to circumvent it.

Also, while many dislike the current setup, they still use it as it is the onyl legal method of obtaining what they desire. A lack of respect for a law or buisness model is not a valid reason to circumvent said law or business model.

Re:Simple (1)

numbski (515011) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290321)

Um...

#define CIVIL_DISOBEDIENCE

?

While the term may not seem correct (perceived theft) there are enough people that are circumventing the business model because they don't like what's being given them, but it fits under that description IMHO.

In time, either get it, or get out of the biz. Something is going to give.

Re:Simple (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289493)

The simple solution is to let the people decide what they want....no amount of government intervention will stop the inevitable... It might slow it down for a few years, or even decades... but eventually the people will revolt in such huge numbers the government can't do anything about it...

I want to walk into a bank and walk out with a million dollars of someone else's money. I want to be able to walk into a grocery store, fill up my cart, and leave without paying. I want the house three doors up from mine. I also want their car. Give people what they want? Fucking please.

Re:Simple (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289674)

I want to walk into a bank and walk out with a million dollars of someone else's money. I want to be able to walk into a grocery store, fill up my cart, and leave without paying. I want the house three doors up from mine. I also want their car.

As the anti-copyright people here have pointed out again and again, every single one of those involves taking something from someone else, who then must do without or obtain a new material good to replace it, as opposed to copying a song, which takes it from nobody unless you steal the master then beat the lyric writer, singer, and musicians dead.

Not that I think copyright infringement is an appropriate way to combat a law that has gone far beyond what was intended, but you might as well come up with a decent argument against it if you want to think you're doing any good.

Re:Simple (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289711)

That's still such a weak arguement. It's true you didn't steal anything by removing it from someone's person. However, the person who bought it never removed it from the artist's person either. What you stole was the revenue the artist expected from the additional copy of their work that's now in your hands.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290055)

What you stole was the revenue the artist expected from the additional copy of their work that's now in your hands.
This is the same tired old fallacy that the {RI,MA}AA simply doesn't "get," and has a vested interest in perpetuating.

One more time, using nice, short words that you'll be sure to understand: Your "stolen revenue" argument is only valid when the person who committed the copyright infringement would have purchased the item legitimately if it hadn't been available to copy illegally. A substantial percentage of the time, this is not the case: if the work weren't easily available in the form of an illegal copy, the person would not have spent the money to buy a legal copy. See, for example, this (PDF) [mit.edu] , this [typepad.com] , and this [wired.com] .

In short, an instance of copyright infringement does not always equal a lost sale.

Re:Simple (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290094)

It doesn't matter if that person would have purchased it or not. The fact remains... that person now has a copy of it, and likewise should have paid for that copy (unless, of course, the artists wanted it freely distributed, which does happen). It's similar to describing kleptomania (aside from the physical theft arguement). That person might not have ordinarily paid for the item they stole, but it's now in their posession nonetheless.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290498)


It doesn't matter if that person would have purchased it or not.

Yes, it does, although here we branch into the two distinct parts of this argument.


On the moral side, you're absolutely right: the person has obtained something that they shouldn't have. But it isn't the moral argument that the studios and the record labels are making when they lobby Congress for increasingly Draconian extensions to copyright law. "These thieves are stealing our works and depriving us of our revenue," they say. Or as Jack Valenti was so fond of claiming in practically every public forum at which he appeared over the past few years, right up until his retirement, "We lose three billion dollars a year due to video piracy alone."


Now, I don't have a Harvard MBA like Mr. Valenti does, but to my simplistic way of thinking, loss suggests the situation in which expenses exceed revenue. But this is very definitely not the situation he's talking about: instead, he's stating that the studios earned that much less than they expected to (or, more bluntly, than they thought they were entitled to). Unfortunately, Mr. Valenti was never forced to state the source or reasoning behind his numbers, nor to acknowlege that those numbers deliberately ignored the idea that not every copy equates to a lost sale. And of course, no one has ever forced him to answer whether or not he would be willing, in exchange for having the Betamax decision retroactively go the other way (which would presumably recoup those $3B per year he complains about), to surrender the net profit his industry has made from the likes of Blockbuster over the past twenty years.



The past century or so of history shows that the entertainment industry has a virtually unbroken track record of opposing any technological advances (e.g. phonographs, audio cassettes, VCRs, DAT decks, CD-Rs, portable MP3 players, and most recently online digital distribution) until they are either forced to accept them by government action, figure out a way to legislatively grant themselves a piece of the pie (whether justified or not), or figure out a way to adapt. So when I hear someone making the same argument they make about "lost revenues" and "theft" without making a distinction between the moral and economic sides of the argument, I have to conclude the argument is at best incomplete and at least partially meritless.


-HJ

Re:Simple (1)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290766)

While I do agree with your comment

The past century or so of history shows that the entertainment industry has a virtually unbroken track record of opposing any technological advances,

I cannot at all agree with this one

But this is very definitely not the situation he's talking about: instead,

but specifically in the realm of professional musician, which I used to be.

I'll start with the indie artists, which I support on a much larger scale than I do artists with major labels. An indie (or their producer) incurs all costs up front, and hopes to at least break even in cd sales to cover those costs. That doesn't always happen, but it's a good target. While cd's hopefully pay for themselves, the artists make their real income from live performances. Now, the majority of people that use P2P to download songs aren't downloading indie tunes, but rather tunes by bigger name performers who they hear on pop/hip hop/country radio (don't get me started on payola in the radio industry).

Even with major labels, whose business model is deplorable with regards to profitability, incur all costs up front, and hope to make revenue off of cd sales. In their case, the typical run of cd's is 100,000 per (while indies typically run 4 - 10,000 per) so they do save in bulk. Of course, major labels do like to spend more money on artwork, promotion, but that's a different arguememtn, and one we could go on for hours about. So in the music industry, the loss is a situation where expenses exceed revenues. There isn't any cry regarding loss of additional expected revenues, but I can assure that most major labels are, in fact, coming out in the red over the last few years.

I can't argue with you regarding the relation of your comments to the movie industry as, frankly, I don't pay much attention to Hollywood for a few reasons... the primary one being most movies suck IMHO, and I rarely see them other than on cable.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289716)

"involves taking something from someone else"

When you buy a CD or a tape or a single or even when a song is played on the radio the artist gets a sum of money (tiny perhaps but money none the less)

When you download a song via a P2P application the artist gets nothing. Now please explain how this is not taking somethign from someone else.

Re:Simple (1)

Spock the Baptist (455355) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290080)

"Now please explain how this is not taking somethign from someone else."

Can do...

x - x = 0
This is what happens when you take something from somebody. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend the results of which is that x is removed from that set, and tranfered to another set.

x * n = nx where n is a natural number
This is what happens when you copy something. A given set contains x, an operation is preformend, and x remains in the orginal set, but is also placed in an additional set or sets.

The difference is that it the former x is removed from the orginal set where in the latter x remains in the orginal set.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290217)

Thanks for the math lesson.

Now, can you explain how it is not taking something for nothing.

Lets put it in math term you can easily understand.

X = (sum of money)

Every time Y is distributed though a legal channel the artist gets a sum of money. Lets call the total sum of money B

I think that would be.

B = Y * X

How 'bout we say that the album is legally distributed 100 times. The artist gets 100X

Now lets say that the album is distributed a total of 200 times 100 of them legal the other 100 illegal.

The total due to the artist is 200X but since 100 of those times the product was delivered via an illegal channel the artist only gets 100X.

So lets review......

Without P2P downloads the total revenue for the artist with a distribution number of 200 is 200X

With P2P downloads the total revenue for the artist with a distribution number of 200 is (200 - P2Pdownloads) X.

Now please explain again how in a situation where P2Pdownloads != 0 you are not denying the artist of revenue. This is taking something for nothing. That is the commonly accepted trade with music right. You get the music the artist gets revenue.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290587)


The total due to the artist is 200X but since 100 of those times the product was delivered via an illegal channel the artist only gets 100X.

This is only true if each illegal P2P download (or copyright infringement via other channels) equates one-to-one with a lost sale. That isn't the case. (See my post in an earlier thread for links supporting this assertion).




With P2P downloads the total revenue for the artist with a distribution number of 200 is (200 - P2Pdownloads) X.


Now please explain again how in a situation where P2Pdownloads != 0 you are not denying the artist of revenue.


Again, you're making an assumption that every illegal download equates to a lost sale. Furthermore, you're neglecting the well-documented beneficial promotional effects of P2P on future sales, concert attendance, and "viral marketing" (i.e. telling one's friends). So in fact P2Pdownloads!=0 doesn't necessarily have any correlation whatsoever with artist revenue.


-HJ

OH! I get it! (1)

Striver (612368) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290000)

As the anti-copyright people here have pointed out again and again, every single one of those involves taking something from someone else, who then must do without or obtain a new material good to replace it, as opposed to copying a song, which takes it from nobody unless you steal the master then beat the lyric writer, singer, and musicians dead.

Hey! I really like that logic. It means that it is ok for your employer to stop paying you because, since you don't have the money yet, you aren't "losing" anything. You're hired man! When can you start?

Reminder (1)

Xebikr (591462) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290880)

Any comparison between physical property and intellectual property will fail. [intrepidsoftware.com]

Re:Simple (1)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289842)

>The simple solution is to let the people decide what they want...

This is the simple solution.

>but eventually the people will revolt in such huge numbers the government can't do anything about it...

Um.. no? If everyone broke the speed limit, you can be the government would gladly do something about it, in tickets and fines. You want to have something? Fine, the government will just fine/tax/make it so difficult that it wouldn't be worth it.

>Isn't our business model 'The strong survive, the weak parish?'

Yes, but its money that makes you strong, not mass. Corporations are strong, people (in non-large amounts) are weak. Corporations have an interest in getting alot of money and feel they can do this my limiting P2P.

Re:Simple (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289866)

The simple solution is to let the people decide what they want...

The 'people' have decided. They want the entire catalog, online, in straight mp3 (or other unencumbered format), for free.

Now...tell me how that would actually work.

Do you go to work every day and give your employer the fruits of your labor for free? I know I don't.

Re:Simple (1)

hermi (809034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290542)

Do you go to work every day and give your employer the fruits of your labor for free? I know I don't.

Do you see music as labor, and there's no way music can't be labor?

Re:Simple (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290708)

No. But it is a full time job for some. Pretty hard to actually eat if no one is paying you for that full time job.

Re:Simple (1)

hermi (809034) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290724)

No. But it is a fill time job for some

true, but this has not to be.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290568)

Do you go to work every day and give your employer the fruits of your labor for free?
No, and if my employer decided to stop paying me, then I wouldn't go to work anymore. What I wouldn't do, is this: keep showing up for work, and complain to the government when I don't get a paycheck.

If the media companies don't like the offer they're getting from their customers, then can just reject the offer (i.e. stop producing). Then maybe their customers will think twice about what they really want and realize how [in]sane it is to keep stealing.

Re:Simple (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290731)

What I wouldn't do, is this: keep showing up for work, and complain to the government when I don't get a paycheck.

That is precisely what an awful lot of people do, through unions.

Re:Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290105)

The religious go to a parish.

The weak perish.

The strong survive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290258)

the weak go to Louisiana??? Oh, you mean perish!

It'll be over soon enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290495)

You're right. In our economic Darwinism, the best business models survive, and the weaker perish. Right now the RIAA knows it's business model is outdated, and is going down. So they're doing everything they can to prevent this - just short of overhauling themselves. They're trying to use the government to protect them, and to help ensure their business model. And since they have a lot of money and sway, the government is helping. But like you said, government intervention cannot stop the inevitable.

The RIAA has built it's empire on physical music medium. People don't want CDs or cassettes anymore. And hopefully they'll learn (before it's too late) that it just won't do to suppress P2P. To get our business back, they'll have to offer something better. They don't want to seem to do this though, but that's capitalism for you. Either the RIAA will have to revamp it's business model to embrace technology, or perish kicking and screaming. One or the other is gonna happen, and not too long from now I suspect.

How? (2, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289351)

How -- if at all -- should policymakers attempt to resolve emerging digital media conflicts?

Perhaps the policy makers at the RIAA should realize people are tired of bending over for them. People are sick of spending $18 on a CD with only a single new track and a bunch of old-favorites-remixed-so-they-are-like-new tracks. Actually, I think people are sick of paying $18 for a CD period.

Perhaps a little out of date, but Maddox still makes a good point [xmission.com] .

Re:How? (2, Informative)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289484)

People are sick of spending $18 on a CD

Then don't.

This is how our economy is supposed to work. If you think it's overpriced, don't buy it. If you buy it, you're sending a signal to the retailer and the record label that the CD is worth $18.

Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289736)

If you don't buy it, then the RIAA assumes people are copying it off the internet, and that they need to raise the price to recoup that "loss".

Re:How? (2, Insightful)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289793)

Then don't.

Traditionally I don't. I'll buy perhaps a single CD a year, if that.

The issue is however that while like me many people have made the decision to boycott CDs to some extent, many of those same people still want access to new music. This means they download it - either legally or illegally - and the music industry has to understand that suing people is never going to fix the problem. When you have a product that can be easily reproduced and transmitted electronically then when people start boycotting the physical product it doesn't mean they won't acuire it through other means. It comes down to a decision: do they try fix the problem by lowing CD prices and attempting to offer better quality albums or continue to play the poor innocent victim by suing little Susie and Grandma May?

This is how our economy is supposed to work. If you think it's overpriced, don't buy it.

Indeed, in the physical world. But when it comes to soft-wares such as music, software, and movies new options have been opened up to people. Want to oppose the industry then don't buy their product, but that doesn't mean you can't still have it! If we could easily digitalize cars and then recreate them someplace else, the number of incidents involving grand theft auto would skyrocket.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is and there's no way to change it back to the good old days.

Re:How? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289893)

So protecting their copyrights is bad.

Even if they offered them up for legitimate download, people still would violate their copyrights, as we can see today.

Even if they increased the quality 100x, people would still violate their copyrights.

This is because some people feel justified in not paying for anything they can download, and it's pathetic.

Re:How? (1)

Xebikr (591462) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290991)

Even if they increased the quality 100x, people would still violate their copyrights.

Copyright is a system entirely supported by rule of law and the will of the people. If people no longer find value in supporting copyright, perhaps people aren't the problem.

Re:How? (1)

RailGunner (554645) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289524)

on a CD with only a single new track and a bunch of old-favorites-remixed-so-they-are-like-new tracks.

So *THAT'S* how Tupac Shakur is able to keep releasing CD's from beyond the grave.

Re:How? (1)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289614)

So what's wrong with iTunes? You don't pay $18 for a single song you want, you pay $.99

Re:How? (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289683)

Actually, I think people are sick of paying $18 for a CD period.

And the record companies are tired of people getting them for nothing.
There's a middle point. We just haven't found it yet.

Mod Parent Up!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289706)

It's about time someone made that counter-argument! Bravo, I couldn't have put it better myself!

Government intervention is currently premature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289354)

That won't stop them.

Somethings wrong (3, Insightful)

spac3manspiff (839454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289362)

Approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 CD copies must be sold before these costs are covered

No wonder 'artists' like britney spears whore theirselves out so much.

Re:Somethings wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289431)

I noticed you are not complaining.

Re:Somethings wrong (1)

abb3w (696381) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289512)

No wonder 'artists' like britney spears whore theirselves out so much.

While that might help the revenue stream, such would mostly be limited to certain jurisdictions in Nevada [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Somethings wrong (1)

philkerr (180450) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289608)

The thing is, this price-point is to a real extent set by the record companies themselves.

It isn't in their collective interets to use new technologies to reduce costs (as often happens in other sectors) as this lowers the barriers for others to enter the marketplace.

Re:Somethings wrong (1)

Feynman (170746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289725)

It isn't in their collective interets to use new technologies to reduce costs (as often happens in other sectors) as this lowers the barriers for others to enter the marketplace.

Actually, it's in their interest to reduce their costs if they can keep prices the same.

Can the record industry be considered an oligopoly? I'm not sure, but it seems likely.

Re:Somethings wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289703)

Well, here's [pogmania.com] a link to the internal memo about the policy from MCA.

Re:Somethings wrong (1)

swb (14022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289845)

Approximately 500,000 to 1,000,000 CD copies must be sold before these costs are covered

Isn't *anybody* asking why it "has" to cost $5-10 million dollars to record a pop record?

An artist that's rehearsed their material and knows what they're doing should be able to knock off an album's worth of material in two days; even if they're rough about what they're doing, we'll assume they're in the studio for two weeks. Even if you're recording lavishly, does it really need to cost $250K per day?

The problem with all aspects of the entertainment business is that there's just zero cost control. Outrageous spending, unbelievable salaries, and so on, and they expect to make it all up on the customer end.

When Has Gov't Minded Being "Premature"? (1)

kmactane (18359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289399)

The poster summarizes that "government intervention is currently premature because it is unlikely to strike an appropriate balance between the many competing interests at stake."

And this has historically stopped the government on exactly which occasions?

(Not that I disagree. Sure, the government should wait. But I don't think they're gonna.)

Why not let public libraries upload movies ? (1)

zymano (581466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289403)

Why not let them upload movies to your computer instead of renting a dvd in person? Have a program make sure there are no copies and will delete the downloaded material after check out time has expired.

This could really help out BOTH sides. The libraries would need to upgrade their collection .

Re:Why not let public libraries upload movies ? (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289609)

Im happy with this, I'll just burn it to CD and see how the program tries to delete that copy..

we can't even agree (3, Insightful)

BillFarber (641417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289429)

We, as a society, can't even agree on what "an appropriate balance" would be.

Young technophiles (slashdotters) want free exchange. Content execs want everything locked down. I think the general public justs wants content at a reasonable price that they can use in multiple areas of their lives. It's gonna be tough to pass any balanced legislation until we have balanced discussions.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289705)

I think the key to this is price. The success of P2P music swapping is, in my opinion, in large part due to the outrageous amount of money that the entertainment industry charges for its products. Up here, I can't get a decent CD for under $18-20, and sometimes more.

Piracy is bad, and I don't think there's any way to qualify that, but ripping off the consumer is bad too. Worse for RIAA is that the record industry has spent years screwing artists, so this sudden promotion to sainthood is particularly noxious.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

BillFarber (641417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289776)

ripping off the consumer is bad too

I don't really think you can rip off a consumer of something that is completely discretional. I have no interest in defending the music or movie industry, but it's not like gouging people for food. If the CD is not worth $18, don't buy it.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289969)

And I rarely do buy CDs any more (of course, this also has to do with the fact that most of the music released nowadays is, to my ears, utter crap). Most of the music released nowadays I wouldn't take for free (though they could try paying me!)

My only worry now is that all my old audio tapes (of which I have many) are beginning to die, and I have basically been told that if I download a copy of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band off a P2P site for free, even though I have in my hands an actual cassette copy I bought eighteen years ago, I've just committed a crime.

Am I really a thief if I bought Sgt. Pepper 18 years ago and now decide to download the same songs as MP3s? Is that really a crime? I don't think so, but apparently according to RIAA it is.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

BillFarber (641417) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290269)

Am I really a thief if I bought Sgt. Pepper 18 years ago and now decide to download the same songs as MP3s?

That's a really good and important question. I agree with you. I also have a lot of old tapes and LPs and I downloaded MP3 versions of them because I felt it was a morally (if not legally) justifiable thing to do.

On the other hand, when we bought those forms of the music, we knew they had a limited lifespan. That's one reason why people made tapes of their albums and only listened to the tapes. Part of the reason content companies charge more for CDs and DVDs is the longer useful lifespan.

I think it is issues like these that make it so difficult to agree on a solution, much less legislate one.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290447)

> On the other hand, when we bought those forms of the music, we knew they had a limited lifespan.
> That's one reason why people made tapes of their albums and only listened to the tapes. Part of the
> reason content companies charge more for CDs and DVDs is the longer useful lifespan.

That may have been the case even a decade ago, but I don't buy it any more. Producing DVDs and CDs is pretty damn cheap, though I suspect packaging adds quite a bit to the cost.

The fact remains that I'm supposed to be allowed to make archival copies. Now maybe it is stretching it a bit to say that downloading an MP3 of a song I already paid for is an archival copy, but I don't think it's a big stretch. I mean, I bought the song on audio tape, because it was, at that point in time, all there was other than vinyl.

Unfortunately it looks like even archival copies are evils in this new modern world. The movie studios and record companies have technologies to prevent me from even doing that. Basically the recording industry is violating my rights, so when they come whining that their rights are being violated, I'm afraid it's falling on deaf ears.

Re:we can't even agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289757)

How about this for balance:

Entire-copyright-system "opt out" - if you infringe copyright, you waive any right to hold copyrights of your own.

I'd be very happy with this (and a similar law for patents).

It is fundamentally unjust that those who do not seek to restrict others are restricted. ( remember, copyright and patent are rights to restrict the actions of others, you are not deprived of your own copy in copyright infringement, and you are not deprived of your own ability to use an idea in patent infringement, unlike in cases of physical property theft)

Re:we can't even agree (1)

melikamp (631205) | more than 9 years ago | (#11291042)

I think the general public justs wants content at a reasonable price that they can use in multiple areas of their lives.

A reasonable price for making a copy of a publicly available work is zero. The general public is not going to fight and die for a right to pay. The only people who really want the information to be "reasonably priced", and in our case it actually means "commercially distributed with copying restrictions", are content holders. Everyone else is tired of paying for the distribution.

There is one thing that costs money: organising the content. That is, providing the client with an interactive process which enables the client to obtain information he/she needs. Look at Google, Craigslist, Slashdot, etc. -- these sites thrive having virtually no content of their own. A Napster-like (the original one) music service offering tracks at a reasonable price of 5 cents would be able to thrive too, if only their music database was superbly organised and cross-referenced, because your vanilla P2P, albeit free, is a huge mess.

Whoever does that best can make money in the world without copyright; moreover, these content organisers would be able to support the content providers (artists) and thus garner more support (yes, people have a good will!) from the consumers.

This is not some anarchist bullshit; IMHO, I have described a viable business model for producing art, and it happens not to infringe on our right to speak whatever we want to whoever wants to listen. This is what a consumer wants -- easy and painless access to the information at the cheapest rate possible, without fear of landing in jail for sharing a song; and this is exactly what publishers should be doing today. Lowering CD prices won't cut it.

Re:we can't even agree (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11291224)

There is one thing that costs money: organising the content.

One problem is that a large part of "organising the content" consists of fixed costs that remain the same whether a site distributes one copy or a million. Who pays for the equipment that the recording artist uses? Who pays for checking to make sure that the underlying song doesn't infringe the copyright in any other existing song?

Who does P2P hurt? (1, Insightful)

el Davo (847338) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289433)

I would say that P2P only hurts labels. I don't think it hurts the musicians at all since they only get a small fraction of the album sales. The musicians have always just looked at album sales as advertising. Most of the money made is from concerts and shows. I heard David Bowie talk about this awhile ago. I know he's one of the richest but the future is a world of electronic music and the sharing of it. You can't fight it--if you do, your fans will hate you. Just ask Metallica :)

Irrelevant - whole discussion (3, Insightful)

jimbro2k (800351) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289492)

The reason why this discussion is irrelevant is that congress will do what their constituents want.
Realities don't matter. They never have.

The only remaining question is who congress' constituents are: Is it those pesky damn voters, or is it the ones who made the biggest campaign contributions?

If you were in congress and wanted to remain there (like they all do), to whom would you pledge your allegiance?

Re:Irrelevant - whole discussion (1)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289723)

> If you were in congress and wanted to remain there (like they all do), to whom would you pledge your allegiance?

That's an obvious one, you would serve the contributors! There is a direct relation between how much you spend on a campaign and how many votes you get.

In the past 20 years or so I haven't observed a similar relationship between the issues a candidate believes in and his votes, or anything else.

It's all money.

Democracy is broken.

Re:Irrelevant - whole discussion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290064)

Democracy is broken.

AMERICAN democracy is broken.

(Sorry, couldn't resist...)

just another scare tactics???? (1)

msjumbu (763237) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289554)

just another scare tactics????

How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289640)

How -- if at all -- should policymakers attempt to resolve emerging digital media conflicts?

Perhaps the policy makers at the RIAA should realize people are tired of bending over for them. People are sick of spending $18 on a CD with only a single new track and a bunch of old-favorites-remixed-so-they-are-like-new tracks. Actually, I think people are sick of paying $18 for a CD period.

govn policing? (1)

demon411 (827680) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289722)

the govn't should be looking into why a cd cost the same as a dvd. you'd think it'd be cheaper to produce a bunch of audio tracks than it would a movie (ya i realize that movies get box office sales but artist get show sales too) The whole distribution model for music has to change and these guys realize they might lose their market hold and are fighting to keep it. The problems right now is even if someone comes up with a better solution current artists can't hop on. most are lockd into contracts forbidding them to sell any cds from non RIAA approved companies. the radio stations are all pretty much in on this too, only playing songs approved by these companies. rich ass artists need to band together and cut out the middle man and set somethign up for the little guys trying to make it the music biz.

need for truely P2P network (1)

ekeup1 (847343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289728)

All the problems that exist stem from P2P networks have central servers. Most of the lawsuits are against those who operate the central servers. If these central servers weren't needed it'd be almost impossible for users to be singled out. Maybe I'm wrong, but are any of the P2P networks truely P2P?

Resolve attitudes or accept them (1)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289760)

You cant legislate peoples morals. The reason most people don't go around killing each other isn't because its illegal but because they don't want to. It might sound stupid but just let people use P2P and see what happens, meanwhile make products better - e.g. put more things like music videos and multi-format tracks on CDs, make dual DVD-CDs that play in old CD-players but include much more on the DVD part. It costs nothing to just stick the existing music videos in decent quality in the disk. Most people can't be bothered to rip mp3's or wait for them to download so if you have mp3 versions on your CD they will see it as a time saver if they have an mp3 player. Carry rare music that people can't find in most stores or they will resort to Kazaa. Give away things with CDs that just can't be downloaded - lazy artists who spend most of their time miming and think they can just stick their generic voice on a crappy cover, how about you try personally signing some of your CDs? do more concerts, after all music was originally a live art until recording devices allowed people to get lazy. Get off your high horse and stop being so full of your 'IP' allot of music is treated by the label as worthless - its played over and over on radio, tv and in shops where people listen to it for free (ok the radio etc is actually paying but the listener is perceiving it as free) which means people get used to the idea of hearing your song for free, If i hear an entire song in a shop and on the radio several times, why in my mind would i figure i have to pay to hear it again? People download music because they really don't understand the concept of having to pay for it, it doesn't feel like stealing ergo people will do it and whatever 'law' is applied will be largely ignored.

Please don't forget the artists (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289796)

There seems no voice here for artists and producers.
The record and film companies shout loudly. The p2p users and end listeners shout loudly. No one seems to care that much about what us artists and producers have to say in all this. There are thousands of independent film and music makers producing very high quality material, we are starved out of the equation at present. We are the small minority, who have neither the consumer power, nor the money, nor the control of distribution, but ultimately isn't our art (which you laughably call a 'product') what this is all about? Maybe its time that musicians unions , artists guilds and independent representatives of the SOURCE of all this material got together and worked out an orthoganal system and policy that both bypasses the established media industry and gives the audience what they want, our work directly to them cutting out the Golgafrinchams.

Moth to a flame. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11289839)

Rather than engage in another flamebaity article designed to maximize readership.

Why don't people educate themselves about the issues.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309064996/html/ [nap.edu]

Then you all will be ready for Michael's next posting.

Initial thoughts... (2, Insightful)

e6003 (552415) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289892)

A nice paper. It makes out from the start that "all" that is threatened are current business models - not the end of the world, as the pigopolists would have us believe. A nice quote: "The new technologies vitiating those practical barriers... are demonstrating just how empty those legal rights may be and how poorly matched they may be with cultural norms and practice. Consumers are exploiting the exciting potential for greater interactivity and involvement with content, and are thus finding themselves in conflict with many of those who make content possible." I haven't read the paper too deeply yet but I do take issue with the "make content possible" bit - the ones who make content possible are generally the ARTISTS, not the middlemen whose business model is being circumvented by P2P. Plenty of artists support P2P distribution.

Also the paper's title touches on something that is rarely found in the mainstream media: control. There's some balance: "evidence that file sharing has caused losses to the music industry is controversial and film industry revenue is currently on the rise, online infringements reasonably can be expected to reduce revenues in the long run." Some core truths are expressed in an iron fist/velvet glove manner: "Many believe that DRM is an illusory barrier to piracy. Even if DRM were able to preclude most people from distributing a given work, even one unencrypted copy can quickly propagate through a P2P system. No DRM is uncrackable, and, even without circumventing, files can be re-encoded into an unencrypted format once burned to CD or as they are outputted in analog form."

This looks like a very interesting paper and I shall enjoy reading it.

General Piracy Comment (1)

Eric S Raymond (234230) | more than 9 years ago | (#11289907)

Do you know why John Carmack never put protection
in Doom, Doom2, etc...? It's because he knew it
was futile, being a former hacker himself.
Also, and this is my guess, he knew that giving
Doom no protection or serial number would ensure
that everyone everywhere would tryout the game
with it completely unprotected. Then people
would really be talking about it. "Hey dude
you've gotta check out this game, is freakin'
awesome, here just copy my disks"!

It's the shareware concept, just taken further to
a new and unspoken height. It's not anyone would
come out and say it's ok to copy their software,
but secretly or subconsciously they know that
piracy is good, it helps spread awareness about
software and word of mouth advertisement.

Re:General Piracy Comment (1)

Internet_Communist (592634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290754)

I tend to agree with you, recently the only games I've even been considering purchasing have been ID games, particularly because I respect ID, and their policies. The linux support is the icing on the cake...it's hard when you don't have much money to spare though.

tv recordings that are not available (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11290176)

Is there any information on tv recordings that are not available elsewhere.

For instance some tv footage of a news event broadcast and recorded by somebody. Why can't this be made available for free.
Well it can under some countries' (not us presumably) laws cause it's news footage and that can be copied. Fair use should cover recordings like these.
Though what about rare tv events such as festivals. If they are available on dvd, that's a legit source. But if they aren't made available?

Loaded research (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290515)

From the .pdf at the linked article:

Introduction ...
The digital era threatens current <b>revenue models</b> by changing the environment in which copyright operates. To prevent unauthorized copying of their works, copyright holders have traditionally relied on practical barriers as well as their legal exclusive rights to control reporduction and distribution. The new technologies vitiating those practical barriers--peer-to-peer (P2P) services, digitial compression technologies, and others--are demonstrating just how empty those legal rights may be and how poorly matched they may be with cultural norms and practice.
I quit reading the .pdf after that. There's no Constitutional right to protect a revenue stream. That the authors mention "compression technologies" in the same context as P2P, in hurting their revenue model, is disgusting. As for "cultural norms and practices"... sharing music and entertainment has been something our culture has done since prehistoric times.

And, under the DMCA (and other existing laws), I probably just violated the copyright of the publishers of that .pdf by quoting it verbatim without their prior written consent. Screw 'em.

Re:Loaded research... loaded with good analysis =) (1)

thpr (786837) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290829)

At the risk of feeding the trolls:

I quit reading the .pdf after that. There's no Constitutional right to protect a revenue stream

Too bad you stopped reading. It shows just how closed minds have become on this particular issue that when a simple statement of fact is made; it is interpreted as "loaded".

It's actually a pretty good article, which is not limited to legal analysis. It shows they probably tapped some of the knowledge in their moderately good business school there at Harvard (yes, that's facetious).

The article never said there was a constitutional right to protect the revenue stream, and actually brings up how different potential models may benefit the actual content creators while threatening the labels and industry associations. The point the article was making where you lost your interest was that P2P networks (by facilitating distribution) and compression (by reducing the size of files and therefore also facilitating distribution) threaten the existing revenue models (where the label's revenue is derived solely from the distribution of the copyrighted work). Whether the impact will cause problems is actually an issue left open by the article, it stresses that the behavior is a threat ([n.] One that is regarded as a possible danger - source www.dictionary.com; emphasis added), and we need to understand more about potential ways to deal with the danger if it arrives (or even sitestep the risks altogether) before government takes action.

Re:Loaded research... loaded with good analysis =) (1)

SilverspurG (844751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11291170)

After being labelled a "troll" I took the time out to read the remainder of the .pdf. I guess that makes you a troll because you used an insult to initiate an action.

They discuss CBL and ancillary products and services. The paper is a collection of ideas to preserve a lucrative revenue stream. I see no reason why that lucrative revenue stream should be preserved. Remove the stops, remove the controls, remove the supports, and let the industry sink-or-swim the way the rest of us do.

Legislating Social Change (1)

Flooded77 (730881) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290547)

Unfortunately, I don't think it is really possible to legislate a social change. The lack of foresight on the part of the RIAA/MPAA is what created this mess in the first place. Instead of thinking ahead, they waited for companies like Apple to provide a product that consumers desired years before hand.

If they had developed their business model to include the 'MP3 revolution' when it first began I don't think that p2p would be as engrained in our society as it is and thus we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. Now, the RIAA and MPAA want government help because they didn't develop their business model. Maybe the government should help all business that couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper bag.

The Only Interests that Matter... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11290734)

...are those of the consumer. That's how capitalism works. The interests of the business, come last.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?