Comments on: Congress to legislate file swapping?

California senator issues peer-to-peer ultimatum: "Either it's going to be legal, or it isn't going to exist."

[Hydrofirex]

Cut, Copy, Paste: You cannot stop P2P

From day 1 the ability to copy, change, and transfer has been built into computers. Indeed, it is a fundamental precept of computing: the plasticity of data. Let's add to the problem the idea of Open-Source software and private data networks, and you'll soon realise that nothing is going to stop P2P. As long as digital infromation is digital it can, by its very nature, be modified or distributed. Sure, shut down companies who are profiting from P2P - your left with individuals who still want the material. It's ironic that it all comes down to the very supply and demand structure that the government is trying to defend.

Personally, I applaude the whole process. I don't beleive that music, culture, or art should be the preserve of the rich, or even only those that can afford it. The whole point of the net, and of computers, is that information can be spread to everyone, everywhere, anytime. What did everyone think was going to happen when that power became widespread? When the companies can provide an incentive to purchase, consumers will purchase. Many games don't allow online play with hacked copies, many albums come with inserts and album art - not to mention the fact that a live perforamce can't be pirated or substituted. I can go on and on with examples and solutions, and I can admit that for some things there are none, but in the end the whole discussion is moot. Welcome to the 21st century - It only gets crazier from here.

[Hydrofirex]

Cut, Copy, Paste: You cannot stop P2P

From day 1 the ability to copy, change, and transfer has been built into computers. Indeed, it is a fundamental precept of computing: the plasticity of data. Let's add to the problem the idea of Open-Source software and private data networks, and you'll soon realise that nothing is going to stop P2P. As long as digital infromation is digital it can, by its very nature, be modified or distributed. Sure, shut down companies who are profiting from P2P - your left with individuals who still want the material. It's ironic that it all comes down to the very supply and demand structure that the government is trying to defend.

Personally, I applaude the whole process. I don't beleive that music, culture, or art should be the preserve of the rich, or even only those that can afford it. The whole point of the net, and of computers, is that information can be spread to everyone, everywhere, anytime. What did everyone think was going to happen when that power became widespread? When the companies can provide an incentive to purchase, consumers will purchase. Many games don't allow online play with hacked copies, many albums come with inserts and album art - not to mention the fact that a live perforamce can't be pirated or substituted. I can go on and on with examples and solutions, and I can admit that for some things there are none, but in the end the whole discussion is moot. Welcome to the 21st century - It only gets crazier from here.

[ddesy]

Gotta love the US...

People who don't care about humanity on the right, people who are starting to bow to the technology-limiting interests on the left. So I guess now it isn't just Republicans that are ruining things... the Democrats have joined the party.

Let's just split and make a liberal country and a conservative country.

[Sewer Kraut]

Already Happened...

The genesis of that kind of a split happened more than 200 years ago.

One country is called the United States of America, the other is called Canada :D

[ddesy]

Gotta love the US...

People who don't care about humanity on the right, people who are starting to bow to the technology-limiting interests on the left. So I guess now it isn't just Republicans that are ruining things... the Democrats have joined the party.

Let's just split and make a liberal country and a conservative country.

[Sewer Kraut]

Already Happened...

The genesis of that kind of a split happened more than 200 years ago.

One country is called the United States of America, the other is called Canada :D

Tax the medium, not the message

In Canada, recording media (VHS, CD-ROM, DVD) are taxed with the assumption that they will be used to copy copyrighted media, and the tax is gathered on behalf of, and distributed to recording artists. This is a proactive approach to rewarding artists for their intellectual material. This is something the government can control. Because of the global reach of the Internet, governments will only take two steps backward for every one step they try to take forward, when it comes to preventing the use (abuse) of P2P networks.

Here is a novel idea, remove a corporations right to own and sue for copyright infringement, and return that right to the hands of the actual artists who produce this intellectual property and I bet you'll have less people shouting about this issue, and you'd probably have more people willing to exchange their money for services offered my individuals, as opposed to power hungry corporations. No one like a greedy middle man. If you don't think so, you don't know Jack!

Recently I was at a Pearl Jam concert, and these smart guys knew what to do. Immediately after the live concert you could download a copy of it from their website for the reasonable cost of $9.99. The sound quality was excellent, the price was right, and they were able to head off initial copyright infringement by being the first to market with their live and 'offical' bootleg.

Tax the medium, not the message

In Canada, recording media (VHS, CD-ROM, DVD) are taxed with the assumption that they will be used to copy copyrighted media, and the tax is gathered on behalf of, and distributed to recording artists. This is a proactive approach to rewarding artists for their intellectual material. This is something the government can control. Because of the global reach of the Internet, governments will only take two steps backward for every one step they try to take forward, when it comes to preventing the use (abuse) of P2P networks.

Here is a novel idea, remove a corporations right to own and sue for copyright infringement, and return that right to the hands of the actual artists who produce this intellectual property and I bet you'll have less people shouting about this issue, and you'd probably have more people willing to exchange their money for services offered my individuals, as opposed to power hungry corporations. No one like a greedy middle man. If you don't think so, you don't know Jack!

Recently I was at a Pearl Jam concert, and these smart guys knew what to do. Immediately after the live concert you could download a copy of it from their website for the reasonable cost of $9.99. The sound quality was excellent, the price was right, and they were able to head off initial copyright infringement by being the first to market with their live and 'offical' bootleg.

It will only work if it is win, win, and win.

1. Given the quality of reception available today there is nothing stopping anyone making a 'copy' using a microphone or two.
2. I am sure that the only problem with 'pirated copies' is that someone else is making money out of it. They can make a copy, produce the box and the pictures and sell it for a fraction of the 'original' and still make a handsome living, they and their friends.
This means that the business model employed by the 'originals' is wrong.
The more you sell the less the price. If you are immensely popular and each song you record is going to sell in excess of 10M copies you need to price accordingly.
The graph of income would become a curve and not remain a straight line.
Why, you say should you do this, - to protect yourself and your income.
When your, the companies income becomes so great that other find it lucrative to infringe on your 'copyright', then your best defense will always be, not to make it so lucrative.
Technology has allowed an artist to have an audience many many times greater than what it would be without that technology, concede the point and also concede some profit as well.

It will only work if it is win, win, and win.

1. Given the quality of reception available today there is nothing stopping anyone making a 'copy' using a microphone or two.
2. I am sure that the only problem with 'pirated copies' is that someone else is making money out of it. They can make a copy, produce the box and the pictures and sell it for a fraction of the 'original' and still make a handsome living, they and their friends.
This means that the business model employed by the 'originals' is wrong.
The more you sell the less the price. If you are immensely popular and each song you record is going to sell in excess of 10M copies you need to price accordingly.
The graph of income would become a curve and not remain a straight line.
Why, you say should you do this, - to protect yourself and your income.
When your, the companies income becomes so great that other find it lucrative to infringe on your 'copyright', then your best defense will always be, not to make it so lucrative.
Technology has allowed an artist to have an audience many many times greater than what it would be without that technology, concede the point and also concede some profit as well.