[LINK] Digital copyright: it's all wrong

Frank O'Connor foconnor at ozemail.com.au
Tue Jun 10 15:01:18 AEST 2008


I started having problems with copyright when:

a) Hollywood copyrighted classic English works of fiction (Bronte 
Sisters et alia) simply because they had done a film based on them.

b) The copyright period kept getting progressively extended ... and 
not to the benefit of the writers and musicians.. 40 years back 
copyright on a book extended to 50 years after the death of an 
author. (Before that it was 25 years) Nowadays it extends to 75 and a 
100 years.

c) Legitimately bought copyrighted material added the 'feature' of 
DRM - whilst illegal copyright violated copies didn't contain same.

d) 'Fair use' basically went out the door.

e) Government saw it as its duty to provide a free CP service for 
these leeches (none of whom actually created the copyright in the 
first place) funded by our taxes, to institute an enforcement regime 
that the leeches can take advantage of. And this for industries that 
basically make it their business to fund themselves using tax 
minimization schemes and the like, that are fundamentally funded by 
government via grants and direct subsidies, protected by governments 
by import tariffs, quotas and the like.

Me? I think it would be cheaper just to give anyone who said they 
were a film producer, or music industry executive, $10 million on 
condition that they don't produce anything ... and just buy the 
movies and music (sans copyright problems) from the artists, 
musicians and the like at a much more reasonable price than the 
current antiquated distribution network and business model can manage.

In the good old days it was de riguer to add value to product if you 
existed in any trading food chain ... otherwise, what was the purpose 
of your enterprise? Nowadays they detract from the value of product, 
regard their existence and ownership of copyright as a God given 
right and justification ... and then demand that the public purse be 
used to help them out.

Parasitic, no-talent turkeys!

I still pay for what I get via digital entertainment (DVD's, music 
and other entertainment streams et alia) - silly me. But the longer 
these putzes go on resisting change, the more inclined I am to just 
go with the anti-copyright flow.


At 12:31 PM +1000 10/6/08, Rick Welykochy wrote:
>David Boxall wrote:
>>  I recently took delivery of a Beyonwiz PVR.  Not a device I'd recommend
>>  to anyone without a bit of technical nous, but otherwise lots of fun on
>>  a rainy weekend.  The thing has a 200GB hard disk, two high definition
>>  digital tuners and an Ethernet port.  I can easily copy razor-sharp
>>  digital recordings to any machine on my home network and (once I figure
>>  out how to handle .ts files) potentially burn them to DVD or just retain
>>  them indefinitely.  Total hard disk space on the network exceeds a
>>  terabyte, so the latter is feasible though unlikely.  In this
>>  environment; what price copyright?
>What price indeed. When laws and treaties are enacted by lobby forces
>for the benefit of the few, democracy is being corrupted. This style of
>corruption is rife and a real threat to the democratic process. Witness
>the actions and reasonings of Sartor in NSW or Woolongong city council,
>let alone what has happened with IP legislation out of the USA in the
>past twenty years.
>Regarding .ts files. They are "transport streams" that contain digital
>video in MPEG-2 format. My own Topfield PVR creates .rec files which
>is a simple wrapper for the .ts file.
>MPEG StreamClip <http://www.squared5.com/> is a wonderous free product
>that runs on Winders and Mac OS X. It allows you to pick apart transport
>streams, edit them and then package them up again. It also converts
>some of the many and IMHO too many video codecs from one format to another.
>>  What changes would restore credibility to copyright?
>The biggest change I've witnessed was the move from IP infringement being
>a civil offense (law of torts) to being a criminal offense. One good
>move would be back to tort. Decrimininalisation.
>Some credibility would be restored by a well defined and widely publicised
>fair use policy that applies internationally.
>I have no qualms with the copyright owner of a work obtaining damages
>from a "pirate" (stupid term, that) selling and profiting from copies
>of the work. The tort court should suffice for this.
>Consider this. I purchase a licence to use a work when I buy, say, a
>record album. For example, I bought the Beatles' White Album on vinyl
>years ago. That copy was stolen. So I bought another one to replace it.
>So I owned two such licences. Then I purchased the double CD set of the
>same album. Three licences! I see nothing wrong with giving away two
>of those licences to other people via a copy of the original, or the
>original itself.
>I have real problems with zone control on DVDs and the use of
>technology to throttle technology. Just because some companies cannot
>keep up with technology and adapt their business models appropriately
>should not give them licence to lobby for draconian legislation that
>hobbles the rest of us who get with the plan.
>Rick Welykochy || Praxis Services || Internet Driving Instructor
>Filling the tank of an SUV with ethanol requires enough
>corn to feed a person for a year.
>       -- The Economist: "The end of cheap food"
>Link mailing list
>Link at mailman.anu.edu.au

More information about the Link mailing list