Phil Da Lick! <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> Phil Da Lick! <phil_the_lickREMOVETHISSPAMTRAP@xxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Mark Kent wrote:
>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> [Dr. Berthold Rutz, EPO:] Shades of "Open innovation" through the EPO Scenarios
>>>>> lens
>>>>>
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | The powerful paradigm of open and collaborative innovation is no longer
>>>>> | limited to the area of software development but has found proponents in other
>>>>> | technical fields such as consumer goods, pharmaceuticals and automotive. Are
>>>>> | traditional forms of intellectual property protection such as patents,
>>>>> | copyrights or design rights still appropriate in a world where knowledge is
>>>>> | increasingly shared and innovation becomes a collaborative process? What role
>>>>> | will IP rights play in the future and what challenges will they face?
>>>>> `----
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.dime-eu.org/files/active/0/Rutz.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> The lawyers might disagree with him. They'd rather corrupt the system to secure
>>>>> revenue streams. Programmers were polled many times to show that they may want
>>>>> copyrights, not patents.
>>>>>
>>>> As the law stands at present, software is covered by copyright, not
>>>> patent... let's hope Dr Rutz's work will consider expanding the use of
>>>> copyright, and consider killing off, or at least, cutting back on
>>>> the patent process, something which dates back to pre-democractic
>>>> societies.
>>>>
>>> IAWTP in some instances I do think copyright protection needs beefing up
>>> a bit. Its not fair that a major studio in hollywood spends years and
>>> $millions making a film that then gets pirated so other people can make
>>> money from its distribution.
>>
>> I agree that illegal copying of copyright material is quite wrong and
>> should not be tolerated. I'm not sure what you mean by "beefed up",
>> though. From my point of view, if a broadcaster in the UK streams
>> something to my house, and I record it, re-code it in some way, and move
>> it to another of my devices for later usage (time-shifting), then I can
>> see nothing wrong in that. Similarly, if I purchase a CD, or DVD, and
>> rip it and recode it for use on another device, then again, I can also
>> see nothing wrong in that.
>>
>> If you're prepared to accept that the two items above are acceptable,
>> it must surely be the case that downloading someone else's recording
>> of something which was streamed to your house but you weren't there to
>> watch it, and forgot to set the video, should also be okay, should it not?
>>
>> And the same extension argument can be placed on the recorded CD argument.
>> If you've bought a CD, then presumably, downloading someone else's rip
>> ought to be okay.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the music/film industries don't see it that way, mainly
>> because it's quite difficult to police.
>>
>> There is another point I'd make here, though, which is that if the film
>> and music industry /really/ wanted to stop illegal copying, they could do
>> it at a stroke by reducing the headline price of their goods. If their
>> CDs and DVDs cost not much more than blanks, then a) they'd sell far more
>> of them and b) anyone planning to make an improper copy would look at the
>> cost time and effort, and realise it's cheaper just to buy the real thing.
>>
>> Why is this a major issue? It's about economies of scale. If it's less
>> expensive to buy your own CD writer and blank CDs than it is to buy the
>> proper copy, then there will always be temptation to make an illegal copy,
>> yet, the music industry should be able to churn out CDs for *less* than
>> the cost of a re-writable one - after all, the medium is considerably
>> less expensive, and their pressing plants are already in place, and per
>> CD, should cost a tiny fraction of the cost of making your own.
>>
>> I appreciate that it costs money to make recordings, and that people
>> have to be paid, and so on, but as they're mostly planning on selling
>> about 1 CD per person per year in developed countries, it should be
>> possible to make the £billions that they seem to need. I think that
>> 2006 had almost 60 million CD sales in the UK, as an example.
>>
>> So, to sum up, I think that the BPI's best protection against illicit
>> copying would be to drop their prices to a point where it's not worth
>> making home copies.
>>
>
> I agree with everything you said above, and wasn't really commenting on
> the music industry. The whole lot of them are leeches that have had
> their collective snouts in the trough far too long IMO. The sooner Simon
> Cowell et al stop taking advantage of impressionable youngsters and fuck
> off somewhere far away the better. I was referring more along the lines
> of cinema bootlegging.
It's amazing that the rock superstar types are held in such high esteem,
and yet are mostly rich through grabbing a proportion of the income of
kids, many of whom are not at all rich.
Cinema bootlegging is wrong, but likely to become more common as cameras
get smaller & more capable, although I still think that if DVDs were
priced more sensibly, there wouldn't be anything like such a market for
it.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
