Login/New-Account | Search | Submit a Story! | Greplaw!??
 
GrepLaw
- About
- FAQ
- Discussions
- Messages
- Topics
- Authors

- Preferences
- Older Stuff
- Past Polls
- Submit Story
- XML/RSS

GrepLaw
This site is a production of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society. Please email if you have questions, contributions, or ideas about improving this site.

F & F
Family

Friends

 
Orlowski Investigates Fisher's Proposal
posted by mpawlo on Wednesday February 04, @10:46AM
from the no-red-eye dept.
Copyright In his latest piece for The Register, Andrew Orlowski investigates the proposal for fees for downloading introduced by Professor Terry Fisher.

Orlowski states:

'Imagine a world where music and movies could be freely exchanged online, where artists are recompensed and the labels don't lose a cent, and where 12-year old girls need not fear harboring an MP3 of their favorite TV show theme tune on their PC.'

Read more in The Register.

See also the old debate Professor Fisher and The Red Eye.

Public Domain Enhancement Act | Doctorow Stays Open  >

 

 
GrepLaw Login
Nickname:

Password:

[ Create a new account ]

Related Links
  • Professor Terry Fisher
  • more in The Register
  • Professor Fisher and The Red Eye
  • More on Copyright
  • Also by mpawlo
  • This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Orlowski Investigates Fisher's Proposal | Login/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
    Threshold:
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    The Register is out to lunch on this topic (Score:0)
    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04, @06:57PM (#1464)
    The fatal flaw here is thinking that the media giants can be appeased with some sort of tax that will save us from DRM.

    All evidence from what RIAA-like bodies are doing around the world is that the entertainment industry finds such mechanisms quite attractive. But, it's only "wide-eyed techno-utopians" (see the article) like Mr. Orlowski who actually consider such measures "alternatives" to DRM, and it's only "wide-eyed techno-utopians" who are so scared of the DRM bogeyman as to consider these absurd bureaucratic schemes that I can tell you from real-world experience give the industry most of the advantages of DRM without the hassle of actually implementing a complex technology.

    In Canada we have had media levies for years--which are not intended as compensation for file sharing, rather for roughly what would be considered "fair use" in the US, but Mr. Orlowski doesn't believe me so I'll use it--but that's done nothing to stop DRM downloads, crippled CDs, threats of mass lawsuits, and ongoing attempts to extract royalties from providers of Internet access, hosting, backbone, and caching.

    "Compulsory licensing" schemes are seen by those actually implementing them as interim measures until DRM catches on, a means of dealing with the unprotected content that is already out there, a way to hedge their DRM bets, and how to collect tolls from every party that in some way benefits from or participates in the distribution of music. This is not my "interpretation" or "analysis," this is what industry representatives and regulators SAY.

    It would be a major strategic blunder to advocate such schemes at this time, that will get us the worst of all worlds. It is no more reasonable to think that DRM can be legislated away than for the entertainment industry to think that P2P can. If you don't want it, your only option is to not buy into it. Given the quality of most of the "product" most likely to be DRM'd to-the-hilt, I can't see that being a huge sacrifice.

    Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition. - Isaac Asimov

    [ home | contribute story | older articles | past polls | faq | authors | preferences ]