Copyright Industry Still Doesn’t Understand This Fight Isn’t About Money, But Liberty

vbimport

#1

With a lot of people streaming music and video from services such as Spotify, Pandora and Netflix, torrenting is less of a visible conflict than ten years ago. But similar fights continue in the shape of net neutrality and privacy, with the same values: it was never about the money.

Link: https://torrentfreak.com/copyright-industry-still-doesnt-understand-this-fight-isnt-about-money-but-liberty-151129/

:cool::cool:


#2

I read this yesterday, and though I basically agree with his views most of the time, Falkvinge does like to toot his own horn, which detracts from his presentation of the issues.


#3

Sorry for the late reply, but after finally getting around to read the article I realized how correct Kerry56’s description is. As a non-native, it more or less came across as a write-up on one subject: himself.

In some respect, I even find myself disagreeing with him as it is a little short-sighted.

“How will the authors get paid?” is an utterly uninteresting question in a market economy. The answer is equally utterly simple: “by making a sale”. There is no other way, and there should not be any other way.
I beg to differ, some of it becomes interesting when the industry are more concerned about robbing artists, at same time having shares in the streaming market. What we in reality have is a 'head and tail" situation. Compared to physical release on CD, little work is done for the artist considering old releases, still they strive to hold on to the same piece of the pie as before and leave the artists to pay the price.

Going into the Taylor Swift case, it is easy to follow and so yes it is about freedom and liberty, definitively, but it is thus far also a question of securing the performing artist so to preserve a good recruiting climate where artists can flourish. If not, we will only create music carpenters and not true artists in the future.

Writing with only one aspect in mind on this subject is short-sighted as I see it.


#4

Took me 5x reading to make some sense/point out of it - Kerry is right, it’s a terrible (self) “presentation”.

Who cares about the Swedes anyway?


#5

People would buy their stuff if they offered innovation and convenience instead of stuff chock full of DRM that does nothing but hurt the end consumer.

Like all this crap about it being illegal to make fair use backups if you bypass DRM to do it. Why should I have to go and buy the same movie three times if I want a backup DVD so the original doesn’t get damaged, or one for my iPad and one for watching on my computer? If I buy a retail version once, then wouldn’t it seem like fair use that I could create other versions for my devices? The copyright owner has made their money already.

It’s just like music. They keep selling lossy compressed files for the same prices or more than I can just get a CD for and rip myself. Why are they not selling CD-quality lossless files at the same prices that the digital downloads are selling for? Hardly anyone has dial-up 56k anymore, this isn’t 2001 where it takes 1hr to download an MP3.

And personally, how isn’t DRM and all their other schemes designed to create a monopoly or an oligopoly?

One of these companies should come out and sell DRM-free music and movies at CD and Blu-ray quality and they would make a killing. Go after the people that upload the stuff to torrent sites. Don’t make it harder on the end consumer like me who legitimately pays for the stuff.