back to article SOPA poked an angry bear and set it loose on the net

I'm not defending greedy bastard corporations, says author Rob Levine, and you don't have to either. But we need something better than a broken digital economy. Published last year, Levine's book Free Ride seemed acutely well-timed. Online discussions about digital copyright are now so cliched, an artificially intelligent …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. veti Silver badge
    Black Helicopters

    Law changes aim at the wrong target

    The article touches on this point, but doesn't follow up:

    Publishers and content creators are *natural enemies*. They're doomed to fight each other over the limited pot of money that people are willing to spend on their products.

    A good copyright law needs to regulate the relationship between those two parties. A copyright law that focuses on what the *consumer* can or should do - is missing the point. Yet that's exactly the kind of laws that our lawmakers - prompted by the publishing industry - have been industriously pressing, these past 25 years. Allowing themselves total freedom to screw content creators to their hearts' content. (Remember Peter Jackson's trouble with New Line Cinema, for example?)

    1. Charles 9

      Re: Law changes aim at the wrong target

      Trouble is, as a work ages, the consumers become natural enemies of the creators because works get locked away in a free society. Copyright is supposed to be limited. It's just that no one can ever come to a binding agreement on those limits because at least one side of the arguments finds these kinds of limits practically an existential threat. They go into "cliff's edge" mode and won't budge an inch since that inch will take them over the edge in their view, and the lawmakers have an interest in all the parties involves since they contribute one or more of votes, money, or other "goods" such as jobs in a tense economic climate. So basically, it becomes an irrational argument, and you can't have a proper compromise with an irrational argument: compromise isn't possible. Barring some miraculous change of stance (unlikely) or some edict of the state (also unlikely), copyright is only going to get worse and worse.

  2. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
    Pirate

    I have a major interest in this:

    I will just say that I am now going to boycott ALL content produced by the majors. This really is bordering on Fascism with the merger of the state and government with corporations. (Cheers for that Il Duce)

    Economic warfare. I have NO money left. I go without to buy my software I use. It's only because I am a little bit autistic that I can achieve it - a normal, 'sane' person wouldn't be able to 'hack' my lifestyle. I talk to the developers, I beta test for them, I do free content packs that get thousands of downloads - equivalent to and better than some 'paid' content. I pirated everything at one time, when I was young and was checking things out. Now, there is no way I would have the brass balls to walk into a studio or have someone walk into mine and be seen to be using cracked software.

    That is on the one hand. On the other, I am a writer and producer. I don't get paid for what I do, but all it will take is a dip in the social fashion continuum and, like my long lost cousin in Nigeria that contacted my via email the other day (hi ;-)) - I will be VERY RICH MAAN!

    You must read this seminal essay by Adam of The Sisters Of Mercy:

    Why you've got no chance of making a living out of music -

    http://www.the-sisters-of-mercy.com/gen/rrr4.htm

    Short, sweet, to the point and enlightening.

    The artists very rarely see the benefits of their sales. It generally takes multi-million figures, before it really substantively trickles down to the average bass player or drummer. Then again - they probably did not write the songs - the singer or lead guitarist probably did. When there is a hit and the singer (whose ego is already out of control) moves into that mansion on the hill and the bass player is still left scraping for the next cigarette, animosity can and usually does ensue.

    That is why, most of the most successful bands like, say for example: R.E.M. and U2, have a policy of 'ALL ROYALTIES TO BE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN ALL BAND MEMBERS REGARDLESS OF WHO WROTE THE SONGS'. This also has a rather pleasing creative knock-on effect of taking the pressure off the main songwriter (thus easing potential 'writers block') and encouraging the aforementioned drum and bass players to get stuck in and 'write a good 'un'.

    Yes, I'm looking at YOU - Mr. Roger Taylor - who is in love with his car, and you Mr. Deacon who might have been 'Under Pressure', until the royalties rolled in. Actually, my point was: that I believe ALL members of Queen were payed equally, regardless of who wrote what. It pays creative dividends as well as keeping the band together.

    How many bands split after their first 'hit' album?

    That is why, when I work with an artist, I tell them, Ok, I wrote this song, I produced it. But you know what? If it is a hit, I will split my share with you equally. There are some exceptions to this, but you get the picture. I am still waiting for my chickens to come home to roost and I honestly doubt they ever will, but that is my ethos, nonetheless.

    As for the majors: they are going down and they are going away. There are far bigger issues here - like the police becoming the henchman of the money men. The police have now officially become the 'Thug Caste' of this once great country.

    Serious Organised Crime - Go Fuck yourself! You are a shame on this country and a shame on the Police 'Force' in general. (I am thinking about the recent act of terrorism via the RnB website debacle). You have frightened and terrorised people so much that they are in a state of -Pre-War, ready to do battle with all the adrenaline pumping through their veins, that an Archer might have felt at Agincourt.

    So, no, I don't need no stinking royalties, eating is nice, and living in a peaceful country not run by proto-Fascists, would be even 'nicer'.

    To quote the great Black Uhuru:

    Push push, ahaa

    Mind you push that over man.

  3. ideapete
    Mushroom

    Incompletelyretilehensible

    Quote - but I wouldn't favor a tax rate that's incomprehensible." ?

    Welcome to America we have had one of those for years

  4. ChaosFreak
    FAIL

    Most Consumers are Happy to Pay

    Levine commits an amateur error when he confuses activists with the vast majority of consumers. Admittedly there are many activists who believe passionately that "all information must be free" but they are a vocal fringe. The vast majority of consumers are willing to pay a reasonable price to consume copyrighted content (as is evidenced by iTunes and Netflix's sales numbers).

    The controversy occurs because content owners get greedy and try to bilk consumers. You buy a DVD of a movie but you can't use it when you travel overseas (region coding). You have to pay again to buy a new DVD when it's released on BluRay. Want to watch it on your iPad? Pay again! Want to stream it to your phone? Pay again! You're a Netflix subscriber? Don't try to watch those movies when you're traveling overseas! Until content owners offer a blanket, perpetual license to consumers, it will never be a balanced market.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like