Posts by Steve Barnes
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
legislation seems to be being written by and primarily for the benefit of a commercial entity and of dubious value to the public as a whole. DRM essentially benefits the four major record companies and Apple, no one else (and certainly not the artists they represent)
And then I found this;
From
http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html
"In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music."
Let us not forget the fact that what the RIAA does will be followed by RIANZI do not have an understanding of the mechanics of how legislation is passed so if anyone would care to educate me I would be grateful.
Well, we vote for an MP, they get taken out to lunch, or given a free overseas (fact finding) trip by people that want things done, use up heaps of paper then have a quick vote while we're all asleep, hey pesto, new law.
-
DRM has been one of my pet peeves for quite a while now and it seems that it will only get worse. I have said before and I will say it again that the recording industry has, for many years, been exploiting both artists and public to a despicable degree. Back in the day when someone would writhe a song, take it to their publisher, who would then have a "Demo" made. the A&R man would find an "Artist" arrange recording, session musicians etc. have the "acetate" cut copied and pressed then distributed and marketed. The songwriter could expect next to nothing in return for their work and the public would spend half a weeks wages to purchase a single copy for their own use. This was an industry, today the situation is that that industry is all but redundant and is grasping at straws and gasping its last breath. These days it can be as simple as "Sing song press send"
The notion that copyright infringement is theft is, in my opinion, totally inaccurate as theft, in English law, is defined thus,
"Theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".It is ridiculous to say that by making a copy of a CD is tantamount to theft using this definition, the only thing you are depriving them of is their ill gotten gains.
I don't know how we are to protect legitimate claims to copyright now that everyman and his dog can access virtually everything that has ever been written, sung, played or photographed. but maybe, just maybe we could rely on the honesty of most and the loyalty and respect of many people to artists in general to ensure the continuation of what is merely an entertainment and not go down the road of turning every Joe Bloggs who plays a tune to his Granny into a criminal.
We do not want this to become a reality;
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2006/11/home-theater-regulations.html