Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
By whom? I have never seen anyone even suggest, with the slightest degree of seriousness, the idea of scanning every email sent with the intention of identifying copyright violations, which is the scenario Engstrom depicts. I'm not even sure such a thing would be possible in the EU, which has stricter privacy laws than the US.
|
In addition to various countries proposing versions of "Three strikes" laws for filesharers, there is also pressure being put on governments by the media industry to pass laws that require deep packet inspection by ISPs to enforce copyrights. I don't know how much traction they are gaining, or the likelihood of the laws being passed, but it's certainly beyond the realm of the absurd. It is already being talked about between media industry lobbyists and lawmakers.
Quote:
|
To be clear about one point though, I would not say that "all creativity will come shuddering to a halt." However if artists are unable to get compensated for their works, they won't be able to continue producing those works, particularly works that require extensive resources and labor (e.g. movies).
|
If the supply of creative works drops low enough the demand will increase to a point that somebody will be able to figure out how to make money from supplying it. Right now the creative market is over saturated, likely due to the excessive protection that copyright is giving to the industry side. That's one reason that consumers don't see the same value in the content that the industry would like them to pay. If things swung too far back in the other direction, where creative works became scarce and consumers were demanding more, then the value that they see in it will increase.
Copyright needs to balance the interests of the industry with the interests of the consumer. Right now it is extremely unbalanced in favor of the industry. The article is talking about reforming copyright, not eliminating it.