Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Laws meant to govern the traffic in a horse & buggy era do not work on interstate highways. At one time, when a car came to an intersection, traffic laws required the drive to stop, get out with a light, walk into the intersection, and determine that the horses were out of the way before proceeding. That is, in my view, where we are with copyright.
|
We've had the "horse-and-buggy vs cars" argument around here many times; yes, the laws need to be fixed. I continually notice, though, that no one seems to have a workable model to replace copyright.
In this case, though, it hardly matters, because the details of copyright laws aren't the real problem here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
As for enforcing those laws, all I can say is that the current copyright laws, particularly the DMCA, are fairly analogous in their structure to the laws attempting to enforce Prohibition.
Good luck with that. My personal reaction to that sort of law is to support repeal, and make my own beer.
|
Are you prepared to write all your own books? Good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
It seems to me that people in general believe that they are entitled to have the media they want, when they want it & how they want it. They'll pay for that, so long as they don't think they are being gouged. Try to take this away from them on the pretext of enforcing copyright or fighting piracy is a losing proposition.
|
People decide they are "entitled" to a lot of things. Laws and enforcement are there to tell them otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr ploppy
What would have helped, if they hadn't already allowed a whole generation to grow up used to downloading whatever they want would have been education. But it's pretty much too late for that now. There's been a paradigm shift in the way people consume entertainment over the last 15 years or so, and the entertainment industry are only just starting to adapt to that shift. Once they have fully adapted I doubt casual piracy will be much of a problem.
|
People were used to not paying for television in the U.S. for 2 generations. Cable TV, and enforced laws, broke them of that. People weren't used to buying things by using computers in their living rooms...
ever. That changed, too.
Lesson:
It's never too late to change the habits of a population.
Everyone seems to be allowing the particulars of copyright laws distract them from the real elephant in the room:
Enforcement. Without enforcement, it doesn't matter whether your laws are good, bad or non-existent; you'll have chaos either way.
It's not surprising, of course, that no one is immediately in favor of better enforcement of laws; it is a natural inclination to oppose something that seems, on its face, to remove your ability to do something (even if that thing is wrong, like disobeying traffic laws and endangering other citizens).
On the other hand, when citizens have been clearly faced with losing something, like rights, property, health or opportunities, they usually support such laws and enforcement, or accept them once they are in-place. It wasn't speeders that urged enforcement of speeding laws; it was those who were endangered by the speeders.
In this case, we as a people are faced with losing literature... not completely, of course, but we are faced with the shutting-out of independent authors, the higher costs of mainstream published books, continued format and platform disconnections, and a continuing narrowing of choices. A media run by a couple of publishers, Amazon and Disney.
When people fully understand the implications of that, they will be more inclined to appreciate better security and enforcement for copyright laws (as they are, or amended for the digital realm) in order to preserve their access to quality literature.
Until then, copyright might as well be an all-or-nothing proposition... for all the difference it will make.