[kwlug-disc] are you going to be a criminal?
unsolicited at swiz.ca
Fri Jun 4 21:47:22 EDT 2010
John - how are your thumbs? You're getting a lot of content out at a
really good clip, on your blackberry! (-:
John Van Ostrand wrote, On 06/04/2010 8:17 PM:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> John Van Ostrand wrote, On 06/04/2010 2:46 PM:
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> Discussion ...
> My implicit alternative is "no digital locks". How does a lock
> protect the public? What good does it do the public?
Industry is a part of that public, too.
> Will is stop
> piracy, or even slow it down?
Presumably that's their position.
> As I understand it Canada is obligated to abide by WIPO treaty as I
> posted before. Those were politicians working on our behalf and I
> doubt there was a vote on it. There certainly wasn't a public
> consultation. We are bound by it because we are part of the UN.
OK, so we are bound by it, and, presumably, the law is just stating
what we are bound by.
So, tongue in cheek, what's all the fuss about?
> The UN and many other "international" bodies are heavily influenced
> by the US, who holds rare veto power. I'm guessing there was some
> collusion in passing such a rigid international copyright law. I
> don't know for sure, but I can imagine which country makes the most
> licenses from content.
But we are bound to it.
>> So, proposals must include alternatives that accomplish those two
>> objectives, or we're doomed.
>> Problem: The industry is immovable on the digital lock (and its
> Fine let them not move. Should we allow corporations to just write
> their own copyright act? I think that's what we are doing with
> digital lock anti-circumvention laws. Let's not forget that the
> corporations only exist because the government laws make it so.
And the government laws make it so because we the public want it to be
so. That corporations and businesses exist, it is the framework we
have established in law, yada, yada.
And through corporate taxes, the government gains the ability to
redistribute the wealth more evenly. In theory.
> government can take a corporations right to exist away.
But they won't. Slippery slope.
> corporations aren't making the content, in fact they tend to stifle
> creativity in favour of formulaic money makers that insult our
> collective intelligence.
Granted, but then you're back to having politicians decide which are
'good' corporations, and which aren't. Nasty road to go down.
> Writers will continue to write without the
> large corporation, musicians will continue to make music, and now
> with digital editing and effects, movie makers can make movies
> without large corporations too.
We'll let go that much of today's movies are crap. All effects, no
content. Bah. Jim Carrie comes to mind. Let alone Dumb and Dumber,
>> Solution (unlikely): It is better for the politician to not give
>> in to the pressure. I have no idea how you get there. [Or provide
>> the industry with another means to accomplish the same thing /
>> what they want - chicken and egg there.]
> The corporation say they want to prevent piracy. We all know that
> anti-circumvention won't stop it.
We don't actually. We can't, until we try it. That's the problem, the
chicken and egg. We can see by analogy it hasn't been successful
elsewhere. But industry presumes "We'll get it right, this time!"
To be clear - I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to try. Too slippery
Part of the industry premise, presumably, is the desire to move to a
solely per viewing model. Which I disagree with, I want the copy of
the content - and it's mine, to play whenever I wish, on whatever
device I wish. (Take all the netbooks out there, HD capable, sans disc
drives - that's the whole point of the netbook! If the law passes, I
can't copy the DVD to my netbook so I can watch it on the plane.)
I am not interested in a solely streaming, uncapturable, model.
> I think the real truth is they
> want to extract more money from us.
Of course. Or, rather, they're trying to stop the degradation of their
revenue levels. They're part of the public, advocating their own
positions. (Problem is, they are also employers, etc., etc., etc., so
they have more weight than the average Joe.)
Part of my points here, have been, if we cannot show the politician
how industry is mistaken, and/or be a louder noise than industry, our
goal of stopping the bill will not be achieved.
Moreover - how often do we complain that politicians don't vote the
way their constituents want them too. There is an additional hurdle to
> I've heard it said that one
> person immediately doubled shampoo sales by adding two words to the
> bottle: "and repeat". When new media comes out, content publishers
> will double their sales because people will have to repurchase what
> they already legally own and are legally allowed to move to a new
> media. "And repeat"
>> So, it's insufficient to say "It's bad because." without "You can
>> accomplish the desired impact via <x> instead, which is more
> Yeah, it's just tough to say they can make more money by ...
Granted, and who wants to? Certainly part of my problem is that they
want too much, price wise. Let alone that you can't judge how much it
was worth until after you've made the purchase. Ever tried to return a
movie because it was crap? Good luck with that.
But, to their point, they are experiencing theft, without redress, as
things stand currently.
I suspect they are less concerned about making more money than ceasing
the loss of revenue due to theft. And who can blame them. Status quo
preservation. Or, at least, that's what they'd like you to believe.
As opposed to not liking that you can hold content rather than watch
only a broadcast go by. THAT is the basic principle being fought here.
Actually, if you think back ... going from radio to 'albums', this is
(was) all, really, different industries competing against each other.
The broadcasting of the same content via different means. Today's
problem, is that the industries have consolidated.
A historical problem has been that content authors have had no other
choice but to go to these distributors, and be raped, if they want to
get their content out.
Even taking the part of the content authors, movies - no matter how
you slice it, cost a lot. Even not passing the law, and assuming no
more distribution companies, the content authors cannot recover their
costs - too easy to steal. Therefore, ultimately, no more content will
be created. Or, at least, that is the premise.
>> Is local reinventing of the wheel (analysis, it's bad because)
>> effort better spent in enhancing efforts such as Geist's?
>> Looking to the future, presuming all content is going to be
>> delivered over the internet, presumably via streaming, the desire
>> will be to capture that streaming. And, of course, doing so would
>> mean breaking a digital lock, and the future looks like where we
>> are already.
> Except now it's legal, in the future you are charged with an
It's currently legal to remove the broadcast flag? Then why is it not
more prevalent? Industry agreement to not provide such facilities?
Or, why then do the sellers of such capability, usually only
purchasable from a 'foreign' country, feel like the 'underground'.
It's currently possible to capture streaming? (I've not come across
such.) i.e. Theoretically, it's possible, of course, I just don't know
of anything that will.
Or, I'm not interested in capturing such streams, to date - podcasts
come to mind. Full NTSC, or better, or nothing. BAH!
Back to the point ... presumably even photocopies are legal if you own
a copy of the content and are making a backup. The presence of the
digital locks prevents the making of the backup copies, and that is
the (an) issue. As stated elsewhere, repeatedly, in the list. Sorry
for the digression.
> Richard Stallman sure looks and sometimes talks like a crazy man,
> but I heard that as crazy as he appears, he's always right.
> He says that authors are held hostage by publishers, musicians
> don't make any money selling CDs because of the contracts and have
> to make money on concerts and merchandise.
Granted. So that's a point to be made - the bill does nothing for the
'public', such as authors, it only benefits the distributors. And the
distributors benefits don't outweigh the detriment to the rest of the
public body. So, say no to the bill.
> The corporations used to control distribution and used that
> position to take all the money from the content creators. This is
> reversed from what the original law was designed to do, protect the
> author. That protection was lost to gigantic multi-national
> corporations long ago.
OK, but to say 'bad distributors' is to force the government to
somehow come up with some value that the content creators should be
paid. Slippery slope.
> Give those giant corporations laws tailor made to increase their
> monopoly, like an anti-circumvention law and see how well it works
> for the authors.
Agreed. As in, don't pass it.
In the end, there must be a better way, so don't pass it.
Not passing it is more likely if that better way were proposed.
And that 'better way' had better satisfy treaty obligations.
More information about the kwlug-disc