April 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« What the Future holds for Sports and Copyright | Main | DRM: The Next Nitrate? »

December 16, 2004


I think you dismiss your "group one" people too quickly.

I would put myself in this group, despite never even having even downloaded a p2p client. The main reason being that I develop software for a living, and I've tried and failed to come with a definition of "p2p" that doesn't include things like FTP, the WWW, and the Internet itself. Guess what ? The Internet was created as a way to share files between peers. Does that make copyright infringement easier ? Of course it does, just like the casette recorder and photocopier before it.

I find it hard to believe that a country with such a strong protection for "the right to bear arms" (which, let's face it, is a technology designed to kill people, legally or illegally, and killing people is far more serious than infringing copyright, whatever the RIAA may tell you) fails to recognise that most technologies can be used for both good and evil, and that it's not p2p apps that infringe copyright, but people.

I agree "that copyright protection must be restored to previous pre-p2p levels" say about 1850 or even 1800 would be just about right. Currently the people with the 'power' (read content holders not creators for the most part) have hijacked the copyright laws to effectivly steal what were the people's copyrights. I don't (yet) download music. I however believe that most people have a inate sense of what is fair and the current system is unfair and so most people don't really see downloading as a gross wrong to be avoided. Why is it that the creative output on an engineer is allowed ~17 years of protection and the creative output of an actor is good for life plus 70 years?

The copyright system is out of balance. Because the slaves can now revolt and choose to do so is an indication that the system is broken. What was a fair and balanced trade in the past has become so lopsided that it effectively only is a benefit to one side.

The comments to this entry are closed.