RevanA4 Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 I don't know if most of you have heard of this act but I just happen to have to debate on this in my speach class and in researching it I found it to be an unnecessary act I wanted to see if those of you that know what it is about thought about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 22, 2005 Share Posted July 22, 2005 No, infact it is the most idiotic act ever. In essence they'd have to ban 99.9% of the internet to uphold it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted July 22, 2005 Author Share Posted July 22, 2005 Originally posted by InsaneSith No, infact it is the most idiotic act ever. In essence they'd have to ban 99.9% of the internet to uphold it. um technically they would have to outlaw printers also since when you print out and online doc you are breaking it:eek: and can technically get fined 500 dollars for doing that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 25, 2005 Share Posted July 25, 2005 no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipperthefrog Posted July 26, 2005 Share Posted July 26, 2005 ...More proof that our fair use rights is under attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted July 26, 2005 Author Share Posted July 26, 2005 actually most of what the dmca says is already in the copyright act and to give a full explaination would give everybody a headache:( trying to figure it out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Copyright, Patents, the DCMA and Fair Use have all become horribly intertwined in a mess that will be almost impossible to unravel. Copyrights and Patents were originally designed to promote creativity, protect innovation and ensure that all great ideas were shared and entered the public domain. Unfortunately over the years they have been abused, corrupted and intertwined to the stage where they do exactly the opposite of their original intention. Fair Use as a concept was then introduced by the courts in order to try and give the consumer a break in this new complicated world. THe DCMA was then big business's attempt to fight back against this idea. Like most recent legislation it was horribly indiscriminate, badly drawn up, missed most of the issues, had far broader implications than the politicians grasped and was mainly influenced by lobby groups. Many of the cases it has been cited in can not have been what the original politicians had in mind... many of them are downright obsurd. Same with copyright and patents, with microsoft recently patenting Smileys, amazon sueing shops with online shopping baskets etc.. Basically big media companies are going for the situation where you never own anything, you just license the right to use it for a period... this means that you become tied to them for life, and is far more profitable than simply selling you a product. You can see this approach in the business models of everyone from sony to napster to microsoft... from movies to games to music. Unfortuately what they don't realise is that most people, when they buy something, simply then consider it to be theirs, to do with as they wish. If i buy a table then i don't end up with a license to use a table... with restrictions n how many times i can move it, what rooms it can be placed in, and that insisted on calling home to validate itself every so often. I just buy a table. I ca do what i want with it. Now, if i rent a track from napster I can only use it on certain machines, only move it certain ways, and if I leave i loose all rights to it. If i buy a track from itunes then in 2 years when we all have 100gb shuffles I'll have to buy it again at higher quality. If i buy a cd or dvd and want to rip it I'm breaking the law... even if its just to watch it on my xbox or portable player. If I buy a game i'm not actually buying a game, just the rights to use it.. so i can't make backups and (with games like HL2) possibly can't even sell or buy it second hand. They need to re-write the whole system to get back to its original ideals... but with the powerful lobby groups finding the politicians (and microsoft spreading FUD to get people to use its technology) its not gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Copyrights are a good idea that are almost impossible to enforce in the age we now live in, when perfect digital copies of almost anything you can imagine are easily distributed. The DMCA is an attempt to enforce the impossible, and as a result, doomed to fail, and make everyone's life miserable in the process. It's based on an outmoded, and now non-existant model of copying and distribution of "product". The music, print, and film industies haven't really come to terms with the realities of the digital age, and are trying to force the old paradigms on the new ways of doing things. If they want to survive they will need to re-invent thier mindset over what copyright means. The entire law will need to be re-written from the ground up to ever truly work today. My views on the subject (as well as a modest proposal for perhaps solving all the of copyright and fair-use woes now besieging us in the all-digital age) can be found in a thread here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 :explode: you do know that it has an exceptions clause but it also has exceptions to the exceptions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 The crazy thing is that in many other industries they'd pay (and infoact do pay) for the kind of distribution/refferal network that file sharers and P2P apps have created. In a lot of worlds you'd be getting loyalty points based on how many people you uploaded a song to, not the other way around. I remember seeing some system for a P2P where you pay a fee for downloads, but get back loyalty points to use against future purchases for uploads... not sure if it will take off, but its an interesting idea. But i think that since the music industry has missed its big chance (napster) it might be too late for anything other than a tax based solution. Basically, if i buy a song, i want to be able to use that sonf in any form (cd, mp3, aac, ringtone, etc..) on any device. Maybe they could just have a central track of what songs i've bought, and then i could have a pin that allows me to access them from any service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 The big part of the problem is that record companies ARE NOT, NOR EVER HAVE BEEN in the business of selling music or songs. They are in the business of selling the public little discs of plastic. What's encoded on those discs is, (and always has been,) totally immaterial,.. and only acts as incentive to get the pubic to buy the plastic discs (or wax cylinders, or reels of tape in plastic cartridges, or disks of vinyl, or what have you...) in the first place. Take away the need for the public to buy plastic disc in order to get the music encoded thereon, and the sole reason for the Recording Industry's existence disappears... and it seems the public is finally starting to understand this fact. THAT is why they fight this so very hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 My problem with the DMCA is it gives big business too much power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted July 27, 2005 Author Share Posted July 27, 2005 this isn't meant to offend you but have you read the act completely most of the stuff it has I impossible to enforce and what makes it worse is how general it is because If i were to print of a page of this forum I could be fined 500 dollar for doing it also if you put you cds on you computer and change them into mp3's you can get fined 500 dollars per song even though you own the cds which makes no sense at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted July 27, 2005 Share Posted July 27, 2005 Yes I've read it. If you follow it completely you'd find it renders google and a majority of the internet itself entirely illegal. Hell if Lucas cared, LF could be shut down due to the DMCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 True... its also been used to justify things such as phone taps... which it was never intended to cover. Bad Bad Legislation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted July 28, 2005 Author Share Posted July 28, 2005 off topic. I do feel sorry for the poor soul that comes in trying to prove it is necessary. but on topic. the DMCA is written so vaguely that it can be interpreted in a number of different ways. plus it specifically states that anything related to education is exempt but they never take that into mind when making a judgement or some other ruling so everybody is so scared that they won't do anything of that nature out of fear of prosecution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Well, something is nessesary... just not this. But the situation can't stay the way it is, with both consumers and copyright holders feeling like they are getting the shaft. Something needs to resolve it... some fair comprimise that works towards both sets of interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 Pretty soon the book authors will be complaining that the internet allows people to easily sell second hand books and this cuts into their profits... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/28/technology/28scene.html?ex=1280203200&en=33765024cbf62d4c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss And then they will want the DCMA to be extended to books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted July 28, 2005 Share Posted July 28, 2005 They tried that crap with used CDs a few years back... but it didn't fly. (I think Garth Brooks of all people spearheaded that one.) Good thing it failed too... 95% of my CD collection is from used CD shops. Used book trading has been around for centuries though... I can't imagine that practice is in any real danger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted July 29, 2005 Share Posted July 29, 2005 of any interest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.