Of Course they do... can't make you pay otherwise...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| JaseP Mar 01, 2007 4:54 AM EDT |
Of course the RIAA opposes the fair use bill. Otherwise the industry couldn't charge the unsuspecting public two, three, and multiple other times for the same content... And they would be forced to actually innovate and deliver more original entertainment. With the exception of the artists themselves, the industry is incapable of that. They just follow statistical trends of what sells and shovel more of it. George Orwell had it wrong,... "Big Brother" wan't going to be a totalitarian government,... it is ending up as a industry consortium... They want you to pay,... continuously... because they cannot justify their existence in a market where anyone has the capability of producing fantastic special effects, brilliant music, and stunning storylines and they can also distribute it themselves as well... And that is where we are headed technologically... The only thing that is lacking are tools that everyone knows how to use, and broadband that everyone can access... So, we are almost there. |
| dinotrac Mar 01, 2007 5:02 AM EDT |
This is really a knee-jerk reaction by the RIAA because the bill does absolutely nothing to protect fair use. Any language regarding fair use is advisory in nature -- no teeth. The encouraging thing is that any lawmaker has seen fit to recognize the issue and give it a little bit of light. Perhaps the jerk in the RIAA's knee is a well-founded fear that bills like this, toothless though they may be, are a step towards tarnishing the the white knight armor of pirate hunters, and exposing them for what they are: inquisitors and bounty hunters. |
| jezuch Mar 01, 2007 5:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:George Orwell had it wrong,... Orwell: 0, Cyberpunk: 1 |
| SFN Mar 01, 2007 6:44 AM EDT |
Quoting:Orwell: 0, Cyberpunk: 1I think I'd give the point to William Harrison ("Rollerball"). |
| cubrewer Mar 01, 2007 7:00 AM EDT |
dinotrac is right that FAIR USE falls rather short... I think RIAA's reasoning is amazing... Cracking digital media could be used for legitimate fair use reasons or it could be for piracy. So, applying that logic to other areas: Cars a now illegal because while they could be used to get to work/school, autos are also instrumental in such crimes as speeding, drunk driving, vehicular manslaughter, etc. Computers are now illegal because while they can be used to perform life-saving research or play gripping games, they are also instrumental in computer fraud. Prescription drugs are now illegal because while they may save your life, they are also a growing element of illegal drug use and abuse. Absolutely absurd. And we Americans pretend to be the land of the free?! |
| SFN Mar 01, 2007 7:05 AM EDT |
"The Wall" should be illegal because, while it can be used to bring hours of aural enjoyment, it can drive teenagers to suicide. I'm just sayin', is all. |
| Bob_Robertson Mar 01, 2007 7:13 AM EDT |
>Absolutely absurd. And we Americans pretend to be the land of the free?! I see by your surprise that you don't own a firearm. The machinations of the RIAA pale in comparison to the labyrinth of local, state and federal laws, regulations, guidelines and legal tripwires that owning, and woe be it for someone actually _using_, a firearm entails. Shall we add a gun to your list? A criminal using a gun is now illegal 12 times over instead of 11, since Paramount owns the copyright on using a pistol to rob someone by holding it to their back, as seen in the movie "The Maltese Falcon". ...or some other idiocy. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!