dmca
This post will not be able to cover all my thoughts about the DCMA--not even close. I've spent a lot of time thinking about this things as a person interested in intellectual property, a teacher, advocate of broad interpretations of fair use, supporter of open source software, and partner of a savvy computer programmer and game designer. None of these positions make me sympathetic to the "Micky Mouse Act" copyright term extension, digital protections that ensure your ownership of media is only ever provisional, and arguments for poor, starving recording artists.
The recording industry argued against radio play during the 1920s and again in the 1940s (I learned this studying jazz ages ago, but here's another reference to this). It argued against VCRs in the early 1980s (see Sony vs. Universal Studios 464 US 417, 1984). Now it's arguing against circumvention of all the crappy DRM stuff that is embedded in the media they sell to consumers, or the larger issue, that their consumers are trading their music and assets without giving them more money. For each of those earlier arguments, after some kicking and screaming, the industry eventually realized they couldn't argue against the new technology, and simply had to adjust their market strategy to survive.
They're surviving perfectly well now, but it's true that file-sharing is dipping into their profits. But they're supposedly creative...can they imagine giving consumers something they're willing to pay for? Live concerts are still untradable, so are paraphrenalia of bands such as t-shirts and posters and really awesome CD cover art and packaging. If people are less willing to pay for the songs themselves, would they be willing to pay for accessories of these songs, or perhaps licenses for legit mash-ups?
The recording industry argued against radio play during the 1920s and again in the 1940s (I learned this studying jazz ages ago, but here's another reference to this). It argued against VCRs in the early 1980s (see Sony vs. Universal Studios 464 US 417, 1984). Now it's arguing against circumvention of all the crappy DRM stuff that is embedded in the media they sell to consumers, or the larger issue, that their consumers are trading their music and assets without giving them more money. For each of those earlier arguments, after some kicking and screaming, the industry eventually realized they couldn't argue against the new technology, and simply had to adjust their market strategy to survive.
They're surviving perfectly well now, but it's true that file-sharing is dipping into their profits. But they're supposedly creative...can they imagine giving consumers something they're willing to pay for? Live concerts are still untradable, so are paraphrenalia of bands such as t-shirts and posters and really awesome CD cover art and packaging. If people are less willing to pay for the songs themselves, would they be willing to pay for accessories of these songs, or perhaps licenses for legit mash-ups?
posted by advee at 9:44 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home