Laws, international and then federal, which attack me personally!
WIPO: World Intellectual Property Organization
In 1967, 16 member nations of the United Nations met to discuss the protection of laws in place for intellectual property (when did Darpa first go online? The implication here being that the internet would test the law in ways it had never been tested regarding intellectual property)(1). Of course the United States does not really take this seriously for almost 30 years when they give us the enormously uncreatively titled Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, in 1996 (signed by Clinton 1998):
"It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users" (2)
So, how do I assimilate this information? Time to dl everything I think I'll need for the next 10 years. And it's interesting that the United Nations knew what was happening in 1967. That seems very prescient.
1) World Intellectual Property Organization. A wikipedia article accessed November 29, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization
2) Digital Millennium Copyright Act. A wikipedia article accessed on November 29, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
3) On Piracy and the Future of the Media. A documentary from topdocumentaryfilms.com. Watched November 30, 2009. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/on-piracy/
Posts
Is this post still in progress? How are these laws attacking you personally?
ReplyDeleteDo you presupppose that authors, musicians, directors, and artists should surrender their work to the public by means not of their own volition?
Authors, musicians, directors, and artists don't make what they make for money. The only artist I've heard making a fuss over this is George Lucas and look at what a fraud he has turned out to be (fraud as in money-hungry and power hungry).
ReplyDeleteI would argue they do. To clarify, I don't think they create to necessarily become rich. But our societal structure demands they find means to afford housing and food and materials. So by this clarification, we all “create” for the purpose of money. Now, one might argue that they don’t receive much of the money profited by their product, but again I will return to our societal structures. Few people can buy a house without a loan from a bank. Similarly, few musicians can produce an album without a label, few artists can sell art without a venue, few authors can publish books without printing houses, and few directors can make movies without producers.
ReplyDeleteWe have seen what happens when a minority of people start abusing the system of the banks in regards to housing. Should we not implement laws to protect those that inspire to create?
The laws are too simple though don't you think? Laws go up, business adapts and attacks the consumer (you and me) by charging exorbitant prices. What I've learned is that the market price is somehow corrupted by some of these influences to the point of unaffordability ($30 for a DVD, fuck that and fuck them as a person could watch 2-5 DVD's per week x 50 weeks = 200 DVDs x $30 = $6,000). So I should just stop watching so many DVDs/documentaries/media right? No, it's too important to my learning and this is a case where the markets are conservative for their own self interest to too large a degree as the internet makes the delivery of media SO much cheaper than before.
ReplyDeleteWhen I learned it cost less than a dollar to make a DVD I knew I was being attacked and until these people are more honest I will not comply to their consumer-is-a-chump system.
All that I can offer here is anecdotal. Netflix only charges $14/month for 2 DVDs/time and unlimited exchanges (limiting factor being mail-service). But couple this with sites like imdb.com and topdocumentaryfilms.com and an individual really does have a huge number of movies/documentaries at her/his disposal. Itunes now allows music lovers to download individual songs as opposed to buying complete CDs. Libraries and google/books provide access to millions of books free of charge.
ReplyDeleteNow we need to define “owning” someone’s product and acquiring information. If an individual wants to “own” a product they are susceptible to market demands/prices. If an individual wants to acquire knowledge transmitted by means of aforementioned products, than this can be done at a relatively cheap price.
You are mimicking the oppressive tendencies of “the man” by your own methods. Stealing from a thief does not exonerate both parties.