Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Old Neon
With all due respect, that’s a load of shite – despite what you may choose to believe, the digital utopia you might prefer to live in, artists certainly do retain the writes to their creations – and could not survive otherwise. Using your logic, I, along with the remainder of the earth’s population, am/is no longer obligated to actually pay for anything that is available digitally – software – music – books – movies - digital content yet to be created, you name it.
The problem with this, where does it end? Now, more than ever, as more and more of our traditional media makes the transition to digital, rather than weaken copywrite laws, it would appear to me as though they need to be strengthened.
What do you propose in place of copywrite laws and DRM in some form or another?
|
Well I like that used the word 'shite', seems very English to me
My proposal is very simple, we create as we have always created for the sheer pleasure of the creation and then release it and see what happens. I, myself, use Creative Commons copyright on what I produce - a share-alike, attribution, no-derivs, no profit license. Although I'm thinking of dropping the no-derivatives portion as I feel it is too restrictive.
We can't strengthen the original copyright, because it has already become meaningless to most people. Creative Commons is a good step forward, it seems to cover most bases. I'm quite happy with what they offer so far, a nice balance between creator and audience. And I was not arguing that artists don't retain their rights, I was merely stating that once a work is out there in a digital form, the artist can't control it. He can do all kinds of things to protect his rights, but once its in ones and zeros those protestations are as useful as shouting at a wall to fall down.
Oh and DRM is the most useless thing in the world. It doesn't work, never has worked, and will never work. There is no replacement for it, because it was never needed in the first place.