For anyone that thinks that copyright and free speech can be enforced simultaneously on the Internet, the statements and actions of the MPAA can be a rude awakening. The MPAA and others are trying to get ISPs to build in packet-sniffing technology into the architecture of their networks solely to enforce the interests of copyright owners. Trouble is, there is no standard for identifying certain 1's and 0's over a wire as 'copyrighted' and others as 'not copyrighted.' Not to mention that you can't try and determine the copyrighted-ness of data without examining all of the data, thus violating the privacy of a (formerly) two-party, private exchange.
The MPAA's Dan Glickman has a lot of laughably misinformed opinions and spouts a number of misleading statements in the Ars article which merit addressing.
"Protection of content from theft."
Woah, buddy. "Theft" is when I steal something. You can't steal data. It's impossible. When I make a copy of someone else's data, they still retain that data. Contrast that to say, stealing a car, which is an act of theft after which the rightful owner can no longer use the car. Peer to peer file sharing also differs from theft in that the transaction is consensual, whereas with theft it is not.
"Piracy costs the studios $6 billion worldwide every year"
$6 billion, eh? Well, it's worthwhile noting that you have an interest in inflating this figure to make the "problem" seem like it is larger than it really is. Second, where are you getting these figures? Studies have come out that argue that file sharing actually increases sales. I can't find the link, but I think I remember reading that the RIAA attorney in Capitol v Thomas said that there was no basis for determining those figures. Even if that isn't true, the way the MPAA is coming up with these figures is arbitrary.
"'Traditional organized criminals would drool' over the margins made by pirates."
Oh, really? You think everyone that downloads anything is making money off of the transaction somehow? Get real. 99.9% of file sharing has to be non-commercial between fans who just want to trade songs that they are interested in. I would also think that robbing a bank would pay WAY higher margins than selling DVDs of Police Academy on Chinese streets. The cost of production is essentially the price of the physical DVD, and there's no significant barrier to entry. So if you charge a billion yuan for Rush Hour 2, someone will certainly undercut you, if not download the movie for free themselves.
"Piracy"
Let us also remember that this term in and of itself is overloaded. This used to be a term for distributors that would print an author's work without paying him. (See Stallman's Free Software, Free Society) Let's call it what it is: file sharing of copyrighted content that is illegal in the American jurisdiction. Not 'piracy.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment