> > Unfortunately this is already in place in several countries, notably here in > Spain but in a different form. It's called the Digital Canon and is a tax on > all > storage media on the assumption that people will be inevitably infringing > copyright with that media. It was introduced by a state undersigned rights > management society deeply hated in Spain by the name of SGAE. >
yes, I read about this. if enforced fairly/intelligently - and with proceeds actually going to copyright holders - I thought this might even have worked, but terrible if it's so heavy-handed and there's no exceptions for non-private users... also seems a bit pointless now with storage media being used less and less. > The opponents of 'net-neutrality' have also talked about what you propose > often, I'm certainly for net neutrality and against ISPs fudging their bandwidths for commercial reasons while claiming to offer advantages. I actually think ISPs aren't being held accountable enough for their role in fostering/hindering different aspects of net traffic; our much-publicised data privacy is also a bit of a joke from an ISP perspective, seeing they can (and do?) monitor almost everything. interesting wikipedia read, thanks. > The problem isn't the fact people are downloading the content the problem is > corporations to which artists have willing signed non-pro-copy right licenses > are making a lot of money claiming they're losing billions to downloads, a > logical fallacy when you give it a second's thought. Meanwhile those same > corporations are absolutely embracing moves from CD content to digital media.. > > They're just trying to make a buck in while CD content transitions out of the > industry, with their help... > > Secondly artists are choosing to sign with these labels/record deals giving > away > their rights in the first instance. It's their fault: don't sign with Island > records and then complain you don't have rights over your stuff. well yes, these are all valid points and are well familiar from the music copyright discourse, but the point I was trying to make was that file sharing today mostly infringes film/tv copyright, and that this makes it a different ballgame due to the dramatically higher production costs involved. supposing that film/tv was in fact "losing billions to downloads" (which it can't be far off from), I think this might spell a fairly rapid end to either film/tv or to downloads... or maybe I'm too pessimistic, maybe the millions of downloaders watch all their illegal content on top of their regular idiot box diet (but I doubt it). if I'm right though, and film/tv is the biggest loser right now (and for the foreseeable future), then that's what the copyright debate should jump on - some workable fair ideas as alternatives to the inevitable cash-cow ideas from the industry. cheers, jo _______________________________________________ Ada_list mailing list [email protected] http://aotearoadigitalarts.org.nz/
