Kill it.
This bill has a fundamental flaw. Superficially, it reduces penalties for "simple downloads", but it bumps them right back up if you are "distributing" them.
Well, what most people don't realize is that most of the peer to peer programs commonly used for file sharing of any sort on the internet depend on the "clients" who are receiving a file becoming "active seeders" of that file as it is downloading - meaning that the minute you are downloading something, you are probably uploading it concurrently - whether or not you realized it.
So, Prentice's "reasonable" penalty of $500/infraction (which is actually quite steep for a 5 minute pop song - about $100/minute of material) pretty much changes nothing.
Worse, this bill really does open up the Canadian environment to US-style lawsuits where greedy corporate entities will pursue anyone they can - because its profitable. This does nothing to stay the hand of corporate greed in Canada.
I'll finish going through the legislation in more detail when I have a few minutes. At first glance, I believe this is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that is little more than the HarperCon$ taking their marching orders from their Rethuglican masters.
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intellectual Property. Show all posts
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The HarperCon Propaganda Machine
In the world of politics, propaganda is nothing new. The way the Conservatives go about it adds a new dimension to the picture that Canadians should be wary about.
Now we find the HarperCon$ using public resources to buff their personal images on sources such as Wikipedia. Now, I don't have a problem with adding information or even putting in a legitimate counterpoint to criticism points on Wikipedia pages - deleting anything that's even remotely critical and replacing it with glowing praise smacks of the same kind of self-congratulatory propaganda that totalitarians around the world like to revel in.
Coming just ahead of an expected re-introduction of "Canadian DMCA" (legislation which would be a disaster if it ever gets passed) changes to copyright law, this is an interesting development. To me it suggests that the HarperCon$ are worried about this piece of odious crap - so worried that they will do anything they can to squelch controversy and discussion.
Perhaps in a move that tells us still more about the utter lack of honesty in the HarperCon government, we also find Flaherty talking about providing welfare to GM after GM announced that they would close a major truck plant in Ontario. Wasn't this the party that has argued so loudly in the past about the supremacy of the market? But then, the HarperCon$ are the same idiots whose "green car" subsidy applies to full size pickup trucks, but not to a Honda Fit with an Automatic transmission.
Now we find the HarperCon$ using public resources to buff their personal images on sources such as Wikipedia. Now, I don't have a problem with adding information or even putting in a legitimate counterpoint to criticism points on Wikipedia pages - deleting anything that's even remotely critical and replacing it with glowing praise smacks of the same kind of self-congratulatory propaganda that totalitarians around the world like to revel in.
Coming just ahead of an expected re-introduction of "Canadian DMCA" (legislation which would be a disaster if it ever gets passed) changes to copyright law, this is an interesting development. To me it suggests that the HarperCon$ are worried about this piece of odious crap - so worried that they will do anything they can to squelch controversy and discussion.
Perhaps in a move that tells us still more about the utter lack of honesty in the HarperCon government, we also find Flaherty talking about providing welfare to GM after GM announced that they would close a major truck plant in Ontario. Wasn't this the party that has argued so loudly in the past about the supremacy of the market? But then, the HarperCon$ are the same idiots whose "green car" subsidy applies to full size pickup trucks, but not to a Honda Fit with an Automatic transmission.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Prentice Delays Copyright Reform Bill
I'm beginning to put money that it appears as a rider on a money bill, since Prentice is delaying the bill, and the HarperCons aren't exactly known for wanting to debate the merits of their legislation.
Of course, I think a big part of this is that Prentice knows that what he's been ordered to do is based on a deeply flawed approach to begin with - and any real debate or analysis would expose those problems quite quickly.
Of course, I think a big part of this is that Prentice knows that what he's been ordered to do is based on a deeply flawed approach to begin with - and any real debate or analysis would expose those problems quite quickly.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Minister Prentice - Sliced and Diced...
Via Canadian Cynic:
Charlie Angus rips into Minister Prentice over "Can-DMCA".
I agree with Prentice on one thing - the current system of copyrights and patents has been rendered obsolete by today's technology. I've started to muse aloud about this whole conundrum back here. Fundamentally, what we cannot, and should not do is implement anything modelled even remotely on the now notorious US legislation entitled Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The consequences of that act in the US have been topics like the recording industry suing its own customers, and apparent bans on a common (and valid practice) known as reverse engineering of technologies.
For Canada to ape the US on this would be disastrous on numerous levels. The fact that the Con$ have not been consulting with Canadians boiled over in a protest crashing Prentice's Christmas Party at his constituency office. Whether Canada signed onto the WIPO treaty is academic today - that treaty came along in the 1990s, and the last decade has contained a plethora of technology changes that it does not address adequately.
The Con$ claim to be a more democratic, grassroots party. Let them show that in doing some real consultations with more than just whatever industry lobbyists currently have their ear on this subject.
Charlie Angus rips into Minister Prentice over "Can-DMCA".
I agree with Prentice on one thing - the current system of copyrights and patents has been rendered obsolete by today's technology. I've started to muse aloud about this whole conundrum back here. Fundamentally, what we cannot, and should not do is implement anything modelled even remotely on the now notorious US legislation entitled Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The consequences of that act in the US have been topics like the recording industry suing its own customers, and apparent bans on a common (and valid practice) known as reverse engineering of technologies.
For Canada to ape the US on this would be disastrous on numerous levels. The fact that the Con$ have not been consulting with Canadians boiled over in a protest crashing Prentice's Christmas Party at his constituency office. Whether Canada signed onto the WIPO treaty is academic today - that treaty came along in the 1990s, and the last decade has contained a plethora of technology changes that it does not address adequately.
The Con$ claim to be a more democratic, grassroots party. Let them show that in doing some real consultations with more than just whatever industry lobbyists currently have their ear on this subject.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Dear Access Copyright: Piss Off!
Access Copyright has just made itself the paper-and-ink version of the RIAA. How you might ask? They have just just filed suit against Staples for "illegally allowing customers to copy works protected by copyright.
This lawsuit is such an obvious derivative of the "sue your customer" model that the RIAA has used it's ridiculous. The claim is that because Staples offers a "pay to copy" service, that they are "profiting from the copying of protected works":
This is a direct assault on the legitimate notion of "fair use", which justifiably allows people to make copies of articles or portions of books for such legitimate purposes as research. It seeks to attack "fair use" by attacking an organization that makes photocopiers available for public use. The expansions on this are amazingly broad - ranging from suing any company that charges money for access to a photocopier (outfits like "UPS Store" and FedEx/Kinko's would be prime candidates for further lawsuits), or as the Canadian Recording industry has done with recordable media, get a levy imposed on copiers and scanner devices on the supposition that it will be used for "piracy" at some point.
The long run play for consumers? (including students, researchers and so on)
Basically, you will see your costs skyrocket largely because yet another unaccountable group "representing artists"(™) will be making it more difficult for you to do legitimate work and research without their hand in your pocket.
The very fact that this lawsuit has even been filed in Canada is offensive, and it further reinforces my belief that the Intellectual Property laws in Canada desperately need a massive overhaul - one that protects us all from the predations of corporate lawyers whose next bonus hinges on their ability to sue us individually or collectively on the supposition we are engaging in piracy.
This lawsuit is such an obvious derivative of the "sue your customer" model that the RIAA has used it's ridiculous. The claim is that because Staples offers a "pay to copy" service, that they are "profiting from the copying of protected works":
Staples/Business Depot is a sizeable, for-profit organization that has
built part of its business through a lucrative service that exploits the
published works of authors, photographers and publishers. Companies that
photocopy illegally are effectively taking money directly out of the pockets
of creators and publishers who depend on book sales and copyright royalties
for their livelihood.
"Companies that profit from illegal photocopying are undermining the work
of others," said Maureen Cavan, Executive Director of Access Copyright.
"Staples/Business Depot is no different from those organizations that profit
from illegally downloading copyright protected music or the unauthorized
sharing of videos and published works on the internet."
This is a direct assault on the legitimate notion of "fair use", which justifiably allows people to make copies of articles or portions of books for such legitimate purposes as research. It seeks to attack "fair use" by attacking an organization that makes photocopiers available for public use. The expansions on this are amazingly broad - ranging from suing any company that charges money for access to a photocopier (outfits like "UPS Store" and FedEx/Kinko's would be prime candidates for further lawsuits), or as the Canadian Recording industry has done with recordable media, get a levy imposed on copiers and scanner devices on the supposition that it will be used for "piracy" at some point.
The long run play for consumers? (including students, researchers and so on)
Basically, you will see your costs skyrocket largely because yet another unaccountable group "representing artists"(™) will be making it more difficult for you to do legitimate work and research without their hand in your pocket.
The very fact that this lawsuit has even been filed in Canada is offensive, and it further reinforces my belief that the Intellectual Property laws in Canada desperately need a massive overhaul - one that protects us all from the predations of corporate lawyers whose next bonus hinges on their ability to sue us individually or collectively on the supposition we are engaging in piracy.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Thinking About Intellectual Property
In my previous post on Intellectual Property I criticized the IP laws in both Canada and the United States as being fundamentally broken.
I've since had the opportunity to throw around some additional ideas about IP that form the basis of an interesting model that is neither copyright nor patent. Given that my own personal background is firmly rooted in software, this model reflects the flexibility and ambiguity of the software world, but I suspect that many aspects of it can be applied in other domains.
Additionally, one of my mental goals is to neuter so-called "Patent Shark" companies that exist primarily to sue others, or the RIAA which seems to exist to perpetuate its own lawsuits.
Principles:
(1) Recognition and Protection of Innovation
There is a legitimacy to the notion that innovation has a legitimate commercial value, and should be provided a reasonable degree of protection from predation.
This is balanced by a recognition that protection cannot be an eternal absolute, as that will be as damaging to the long term viability of creative processes.
(2) Fair Use
There are legitimate cases where the use of an innovation or solution bears no commercial value per se, or that an innovation has passed into the greater body of "common knowledge". Such uses should not be punished.
(3) Timeliness
Because so much of what is called "intellectual property" is the result of independent thought and creativity, there are legitimate times when two or more independent efforts achieve very similar results. Any system of IP management must recognize the validity of such situations.
Implementing The Principles
(1) Providing Protection
The expression of an idea or method whether it is an abstraction such as an algorithm, or something more concrete such as a mechanical contrivance such as a printing press shall be afforded some degree of protection from unfair duplication without permission.
(1a) Degree of Protection
The more abstract that a concept or method is in its description, the degree of protection provided is reduced. For example, a generic method such as "Method to Record Information On Magnetic Disk" that describes the concept would receive a lesser degree of protection than one which described in detail the implementation necessary.
(1b) Compensation
The owner of a protected work shall be afforded the right to recoup compensation from infringing works at a "royalty rate" commensurate with the degree of protection provided. In other words, a vague "concept" would receive a smaller royalty rate (say 2% of commercial value), where the more concrete would perhaps be eligible for a higher royalty rate (say 5% or more).
*** The numbers here are arbitrary - imagined more than anything.
Note: The notion of "punitive damages" as is common in today's courts is intended to be replaced primarily by the use of a royalty scheme for the most part. The use of "punitive damages" shall be restricted to those egregious situations where outright theft for profit has been demonstrated in a criminal court.
(1c) Finiteness
Protections are of limited duration.
In general, nothing has an "infinite" protection. A software algorithm (for example) may be protected for 10 to 15 years, after which time it is presumed to pass into the "common knowledge" of the discipline.
While "lifetime" protections may be assigned to individuals, they are not considered transferable to other entities such as their estates or to corporations. Once transferred to a corporate entity, the timer starts ticking.
Further, corporate entities which hold IP rights are constrained to specified, finite periods of ownership. After those rights have expired, new rights may be applied for, which shall be adjusted to reflect evolution of the IP involved, as well as its growing pervasiveness due to age and widespread use.
(2) Fair Use
The concept of fair use must apply to individual copies made for personal use, and non-commercial gain.
While it is reasonable to insist in such cases that the copied work be acknowledged in some way, we should not be punishing individuals for what is essentially personal activity.
This does not mean that commercial infringement, where the infringer is achieving economic gain as a result of the infringement is beyond reach. In fact, it is in those cases that compensation shall be due. (One note here: As with telephone systems, we should view ISPs as "common carriers", and not specifically liable for the information which passes through their equipment)
(3) Timeliness
As the concurrent works of Alonzo Church and Alan Turing demonstrated in the 1930's we cannot simply expect that the day of "release" immediately closes the gates on all others. There shall be a reasonable period of time to allow for equivalent, parallel work to emerge and both shall be granted equal protections in law and shall legitimately coexist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really, this is just a few random thoughts at this time - intended to record some ideas that will no doubt get refined over time.
I've since had the opportunity to throw around some additional ideas about IP that form the basis of an interesting model that is neither copyright nor patent. Given that my own personal background is firmly rooted in software, this model reflects the flexibility and ambiguity of the software world, but I suspect that many aspects of it can be applied in other domains.
Additionally, one of my mental goals is to neuter so-called "Patent Shark" companies that exist primarily to sue others, or the RIAA which seems to exist to perpetuate its own lawsuits.
Principles:
(1) Recognition and Protection of Innovation
There is a legitimacy to the notion that innovation has a legitimate commercial value, and should be provided a reasonable degree of protection from predation.
This is balanced by a recognition that protection cannot be an eternal absolute, as that will be as damaging to the long term viability of creative processes.
(2) Fair Use
There are legitimate cases where the use of an innovation or solution bears no commercial value per se, or that an innovation has passed into the greater body of "common knowledge". Such uses should not be punished.
(3) Timeliness
Because so much of what is called "intellectual property" is the result of independent thought and creativity, there are legitimate times when two or more independent efforts achieve very similar results. Any system of IP management must recognize the validity of such situations.
Implementing The Principles
(1) Providing Protection
The expression of an idea or method whether it is an abstraction such as an algorithm, or something more concrete such as a mechanical contrivance such as a printing press shall be afforded some degree of protection from unfair duplication without permission.
(1a) Degree of Protection
The more abstract that a concept or method is in its description, the degree of protection provided is reduced. For example, a generic method such as "Method to Record Information On Magnetic Disk" that describes the concept would receive a lesser degree of protection than one which described in detail the implementation necessary.
(1b) Compensation
The owner of a protected work shall be afforded the right to recoup compensation from infringing works at a "royalty rate" commensurate with the degree of protection provided. In other words, a vague "concept" would receive a smaller royalty rate (say 2% of commercial value), where the more concrete would perhaps be eligible for a higher royalty rate (say 5% or more).
*** The numbers here are arbitrary - imagined more than anything.
Note: The notion of "punitive damages" as is common in today's courts is intended to be replaced primarily by the use of a royalty scheme for the most part. The use of "punitive damages" shall be restricted to those egregious situations where outright theft for profit has been demonstrated in a criminal court.
(1c) Finiteness
Protections are of limited duration.
In general, nothing has an "infinite" protection. A software algorithm (for example) may be protected for 10 to 15 years, after which time it is presumed to pass into the "common knowledge" of the discipline.
While "lifetime" protections may be assigned to individuals, they are not considered transferable to other entities such as their estates or to corporations. Once transferred to a corporate entity, the timer starts ticking.
Further, corporate entities which hold IP rights are constrained to specified, finite periods of ownership. After those rights have expired, new rights may be applied for, which shall be adjusted to reflect evolution of the IP involved, as well as its growing pervasiveness due to age and widespread use.
(2) Fair Use
The concept of fair use must apply to individual copies made for personal use, and non-commercial gain.
While it is reasonable to insist in such cases that the copied work be acknowledged in some way, we should not be punishing individuals for what is essentially personal activity.
This does not mean that commercial infringement, where the infringer is achieving economic gain as a result of the infringement is beyond reach. In fact, it is in those cases that compensation shall be due. (One note here: As with telephone systems, we should view ISPs as "common carriers", and not specifically liable for the information which passes through their equipment)
(3) Timeliness
As the concurrent works of Alonzo Church and Alan Turing demonstrated in the 1930's we cannot simply expect that the day of "release" immediately closes the gates on all others. There shall be a reasonable period of time to allow for equivalent, parallel work to emerge and both shall be granted equal protections in law and shall legitimately coexist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really, this is just a few random thoughts at this time - intended to record some ideas that will no doubt get refined over time.
Intellectual Property and the RIAA
One of my regular readers brought two little tidbits to my attention regarding the RIAA's ham-fisted lawsuits.
The first is their ongoing attempts to sue anyone who dares download a file off the web.
The second is a lawsuit filed against UseNet.com in an apparent effort to shutdown one of the oldest discussion forums in the Internet - Usenet. Whether you find Usenet useful is open to discussion. I don't particularly, but that's not the point at all here.
The RIAA is perhaps the most illustrative case of how badly broken the legal notion of Intellectual Property has become. Yes, an organization has a legitimate right to protect its "IP" - but doesn't there seem to be something fundamentally broken when you start running around suing people left right and center - starting with your paying customers????
Sure, some people will pirate stuff all the time. That's neither new, nor particularly surprising. It's gone on for years - whether that's people tapping cable TV illegally, pirate satellite dishes or whatever.
For the most part, the claim that each pirate copy represents lost revenue is a crock. 99% of those copies are going to be sales you never had in the first place - and never will have. Let's face it, only a small fraction of music makes it onto the radio - and an even smaller fraction is something that any one individual is going to be willing to purchase. If the radio played one song an hour that I would want to own a copy of, I'd be surprised.
When you go after the very people you wish to market your product to, you've already lost. Not only will you lose your customers, you'll eventually run out of cash flow to. (I'm beginning to suspect that the RIAA's cash flow is looking bleak given the way that they are thrashing about) Worse, real piracy (the ones you should care about - those who bootleg to make money off it) is going to flourish because the serious pirates live on the "thrill of the chase" - the ever escalating war of copy protection and tools to break it will never cease. The idea you might be sued is mostly a lark to them - added danger if you will.
IP law in both Canada and the United States is badly broken. A series of legal rulings have all but destroyed the notion of "fair use", and our legislators have been unwilling to address the problems. The digital era has made it easier to make copies of material than ever before, and neither the concepts of copyright or patent really work very well in protecting the interests of those who create (or invent) new works.
The emergence of companies who exist solely to acquire patents and sue other companies is perhaps a bellweather of how broken things really are. Those companies exist to make money by exploiting a broken system.
A good example are so-called "software patents". At some level, I can agree that something truly new and innovative warrants protection. Broadly written patents that describe concepts rather than actual practical implementations are completely asinine (and they happen!). Implementation is too specific, and covered by the concept of copyright (sort of).
We need a new, and more flexible notion of IP to be brought into action. It must recognize the distinction between legitimate "fair use" of a material, and malicious infringement or piracy. We need to have a series of legal and/or review processes in place that consider the legitimacy of a request for IP recognition that considers the application and the context of the field in which it exists to decide the degree of "protection" that will be provided.
For example, our existing patent laws exist to protect physical inventions (mechanical devices, etc), and the law reflects that fairly well. The digital media world doesn't quite map into that notion of patent - it's too easy for different people to achieve similar results through recognizably different processes.
Current RIAA practices are in fact arguably damaging to key freedoms that are part and parcel of the democratic process - such as freedom of expression and communication. It's difficult to see how there is any freedom when someone is sniffing every IP packet that crosses a router.
The first is their ongoing attempts to sue anyone who dares download a file off the web.
The second is a lawsuit filed against UseNet.com in an apparent effort to shutdown one of the oldest discussion forums in the Internet - Usenet. Whether you find Usenet useful is open to discussion. I don't particularly, but that's not the point at all here.
The RIAA is perhaps the most illustrative case of how badly broken the legal notion of Intellectual Property has become. Yes, an organization has a legitimate right to protect its "IP" - but doesn't there seem to be something fundamentally broken when you start running around suing people left right and center - starting with your paying customers????
Sure, some people will pirate stuff all the time. That's neither new, nor particularly surprising. It's gone on for years - whether that's people tapping cable TV illegally, pirate satellite dishes or whatever.
For the most part, the claim that each pirate copy represents lost revenue is a crock. 99% of those copies are going to be sales you never had in the first place - and never will have. Let's face it, only a small fraction of music makes it onto the radio - and an even smaller fraction is something that any one individual is going to be willing to purchase. If the radio played one song an hour that I would want to own a copy of, I'd be surprised.
When you go after the very people you wish to market your product to, you've already lost. Not only will you lose your customers, you'll eventually run out of cash flow to. (I'm beginning to suspect that the RIAA's cash flow is looking bleak given the way that they are thrashing about) Worse, real piracy (the ones you should care about - those who bootleg to make money off it) is going to flourish because the serious pirates live on the "thrill of the chase" - the ever escalating war of copy protection and tools to break it will never cease. The idea you might be sued is mostly a lark to them - added danger if you will.
IP law in both Canada and the United States is badly broken. A series of legal rulings have all but destroyed the notion of "fair use", and our legislators have been unwilling to address the problems. The digital era has made it easier to make copies of material than ever before, and neither the concepts of copyright or patent really work very well in protecting the interests of those who create (or invent) new works.
The emergence of companies who exist solely to acquire patents and sue other companies is perhaps a bellweather of how broken things really are. Those companies exist to make money by exploiting a broken system.
A good example are so-called "software patents". At some level, I can agree that something truly new and innovative warrants protection. Broadly written patents that describe concepts rather than actual practical implementations are completely asinine (and they happen!). Implementation is too specific, and covered by the concept of copyright (sort of).
We need a new, and more flexible notion of IP to be brought into action. It must recognize the distinction between legitimate "fair use" of a material, and malicious infringement or piracy. We need to have a series of legal and/or review processes in place that consider the legitimacy of a request for IP recognition that considers the application and the context of the field in which it exists to decide the degree of "protection" that will be provided.
For example, our existing patent laws exist to protect physical inventions (mechanical devices, etc), and the law reflects that fairly well. The digital media world doesn't quite map into that notion of patent - it's too easy for different people to achieve similar results through recognizably different processes.
Current RIAA practices are in fact arguably damaging to key freedoms that are part and parcel of the democratic process - such as freedom of expression and communication. It's difficult to see how there is any freedom when someone is sniffing every IP packet that crosses a router.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Oh, Please!
Don't take away our preview screenings Mr. Warner, it'd kill us.
I see that the Movie industry has taken the same approach that the big dollar recording industry has - punish the consumers of their products for "piracy". A month or so ago, it was Fox threatening to "delay" releases in Canada; this month we find Warner Bros. taking away our "preview screenings".
The argument is that "most" movies are pirated in Canada by people going into the theater with a camcorder and recording it. Apparently, recording things in a movie house is not "criminal", and therefore won't get you thrown out of the theater - at least in Canada. The movie studios want us to implement harsher laws a la what exists in the States. (Such as the DMCA - one of the most brain damaged pieces of legislation ever promulgated by congress...)
Personally, I've seen one or two of the bootlegs made via camcorder. The quality generally is pretty shoddy. Frankly, a movie buff isn't going to be happy with the quality, and the people who are happy with it probably don't care enough about movies to bother going to the theater at all.
As for the "street market vendor" selling bootleg DVD's in China or other countries with a very different idea of "intellectual property", they'll just find a different source for their wares; or live with the fact that their "supplier" will be delayed somewhat.
So-called "Piracy" of entertainment products is pervasive - it's been around as long as consumer recording media has existed. The recording and movie industries (among others) that peddle their wares in the consumer market need to learn to make "piracy" their ally, not their sworn enemy. In a game of "spy vs. spy", the other guy can always come up with a new way to bootleg things.
Warner Bros., Fox, Universal and others need to come to the realization that for the most part, pirate versions represent phantom sales that they would not have had in any event. Simply put, the movie buff isn't going to give up their theater screening, and the consumer of the pirate versions probably never go to the theater in the first place.
If Warner Bros wants to undermine the pirates, quietly pre-release a low quality "bootleg" version of their movies in a viral marketing campaign within hours of the first screenings. Stick a few ads into it if you "must" make revenue from it, and see what happens. It won't kill the serious commercial pirates, but I'll bet that it will be more successful than trying to punish your customers on the assumption they are pirates.
I see that the Movie industry has taken the same approach that the big dollar recording industry has - punish the consumers of their products for "piracy". A month or so ago, it was Fox threatening to "delay" releases in Canada; this month we find Warner Bros. taking away our "preview screenings".
The argument is that "most" movies are pirated in Canada by people going into the theater with a camcorder and recording it. Apparently, recording things in a movie house is not "criminal", and therefore won't get you thrown out of the theater - at least in Canada. The movie studios want us to implement harsher laws a la what exists in the States. (Such as the DMCA - one of the most brain damaged pieces of legislation ever promulgated by congress...)
Personally, I've seen one or two of the bootlegs made via camcorder. The quality generally is pretty shoddy. Frankly, a movie buff isn't going to be happy with the quality, and the people who are happy with it probably don't care enough about movies to bother going to the theater at all.
As for the "street market vendor" selling bootleg DVD's in China or other countries with a very different idea of "intellectual property", they'll just find a different source for their wares; or live with the fact that their "supplier" will be delayed somewhat.
So-called "Piracy" of entertainment products is pervasive - it's been around as long as consumer recording media has existed. The recording and movie industries (among others) that peddle their wares in the consumer market need to learn to make "piracy" their ally, not their sworn enemy. In a game of "spy vs. spy", the other guy can always come up with a new way to bootleg things.
Warner Bros., Fox, Universal and others need to come to the realization that for the most part, pirate versions represent phantom sales that they would not have had in any event. Simply put, the movie buff isn't going to give up their theater screening, and the consumer of the pirate versions probably never go to the theater in the first place.
If Warner Bros wants to undermine the pirates, quietly pre-release a low quality "bootleg" version of their movies in a viral marketing campaign within hours of the first screenings. Stick a few ads into it if you "must" make revenue from it, and see what happens. It won't kill the serious commercial pirates, but I'll bet that it will be more successful than trying to punish your customers on the assumption they are pirates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)