Interesting you mention the teenagers thing - I was at my neighbour's barbeque last weekend, and as well as me and my family they invited some other of their friends along.
I was sitting at the table eating with a few other people, and one father and his daughter were talking about music - they got onto buying CDs, and she was winding him up by asking for some money to go to HMV and buy some music (or something like that). Anyway, the father then said to the daughter, "so why don't you split the cost between you and your friends and then just copy it?" to which she replied "yeah, that's what we normally do." The father didn't just seem ok with this, he positively encouraged it. And to be honest, I've done the same with my friends in the past. The whole 'filesharing ethos' doesn't just come from teenagers, it comes from their parents who also think that the cost of mass-consumed media is too much these days (and seem to be positively encouraging it)! In terms of the whole DRM argument, I suppose it's time for me to weigh in here. I go home for a weekend and come back to umpteen million messages all on the same topic... My opinion (which I'm sure others share) is that one system is just as bad as another. DRM is a temporary thing, eventually it'll go away (like a rash) but until then it's a continual sore point for both originators and consumers. If Apple changed the way FairPlay worked, and the BBC started to use it (or if they dumped WMDRM in favour of Apple's solution) I'd probably stop using any services like iPlayer altogether (for reasons of my own which I don't feel I have to explain)... But this whole debate brings to mind something which I think was already said on this list by somebody else; Is it ok to buy a CD and copy it for yourself for safe keeping? Is it ok to buy a CD and copy it for someone you know over the Internet? What if you copy it for somebody who lives down the street? What if you copy it for a family member? What if you copy it for your partner? Where do the ethical and moral lines get crossed? As this is STILL a grey area in both moral and legal terms (when was the last time you heard the music/movie industry prosecute a guy for copying something for his wife? But isn't it illegal?) I think both the distribution and content creation industries need to have a good think about this whole issue before they try to impose any kind of rights restrictions upon their consumers. I don't see this and previous generators who grew up with online filesharing as morally corrupt; I've shared music with friends and I've downloaded music. I've also bought a helluva lot of music (I have several thousand pounds' worth of vinyl on its own so I could hardly be accused of depriving artists of their income). I think the real problem here is that the industry, faced with the prospect of a more obvious kind of filesharing (because come on, mixtapes? Mix CDs? Sharing albums with your mates (and them potentially making their own copies)? The free dissemination of music has always gone on, it's just that the industry wants in, doesn't know how to make an inroad and establish that link of loyalty with the consumers because at every step they try to make it difficult, nigh impossible for the consumer to just buy something and have it *play*, and then they can't understand why their approach doesn't work. The fact that they treat all consumers as potential criminals (as echoed by someone from EMI when they lectured us at Uni last year), that they 'just can't trust us to not share music [that we've bought]' (verbatim), smacks of them reactively trying to move the goalposts to blow an activity which really hasn't increased _that much_ in the past ten years entirely out of proportion - and criminalise something that's gone on for decades pretty much unfettered. Their press releases that blur the lines between casual copying and international piracy which is funding drug smuggling / prostitution / arms sales really doesn't help either, because everybody just picks that up and (rightly) ridicules them. I read the IFPI 2007 online music report, and to be honest I laughed at some of the stuff in there. They're fighting a losing battle and trying to put a brave face on the whole thing, and I'd put money on it that most of the board of directors' children download music off the web. It's not as simple as 'more people are copying x therefore we get less y income' these days; as other people have rightly observed the changing economic landscape is playing a big factor for both consumers and labels, plus the actual quality of content has changed a lot in the past decade. Labels increasingly pumping and dumping new talent like penny stocks because they think 'that's what works' doesn't help matters, and that ever-present shadow of ROI hangs like a black cloud over everything they try to do. I'm worried that EMI's acquisition by that venture capital firm will spell the end of decent investment and development of their new artist roster, which is only a bad thing for the industry and will perpetuate current practices until eventually all the departments of EMI are sold off to the highest bidder for a nice profit. Will DRM plug the music-sharing hole? Nah. And, rightly, because of all of this malarkey us consumers are getting fed up! I hereby declare a tea break - all respondants to this conversation are now allowed ten minutes to stretch their legs, make a nice cup of tea and watch some Fawlty Towers before replying :) > -----Original Message----- > From: David Greaves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 June 2007 16:51 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [backstage] www.FreeTheBBC.info > > Dave Crossland wrote: > > Hi David! > > > > On 12/06/07, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> If however you say "making a copy of this DVD for your own > use (eg in > >> case of > >> damage) is OK but it is wrong to give it away or sell it. Please > >> don't do that." > >> > >> Then you are actually treating the consumer as a reasonable person. > > > > No, you're attacking their civic spirit and the nature of > friendship, > > and that's not cool. No one self-respecting is going to agree to > > betray their friends and neighbours like that. > > So you're saying that _not_ filesharing is betraying friends > and neighbours? > Because it's morally correct to share something that is not > diminished by sharing? > > So where is the balance? Or do you believe that the content > creator (and as Michael pointed out, colleagues) doesn't > deserve recompense? > > The 'rules' of our society include exchanging money for > products and services. > In the media area we used to buy physical records and tapes, > now I like to think we buy a right to listen/watch for us and > our family. > > As a rabid anti-DRM person I do not object to paying to > listen/watch - it costs money to create this stuff and I > expect to contribute. > I do however object to having to pay Microsoft/Apple/Sony to > listen/watch. I also object to not being able to listen/watch > on my home-made gizmo. I want to listen/watch my media in my > car; I want to innovate and listen/watch in my bath... > And I object to having to pay for each of these things. I > object to paying for a new copy because my old player died. > > >> For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF LAW ABIDING PEOPLE*, which is > more likely > >> to work? > > > > Neither. Talk to teenagers - file sharing is here to stay. > > > > By saying "law abiding," you're invoking the law as an authority on > > ethics, which is ill-conceived. The law is, at best, at attempt to > > achieve justice. Often, if doesn't: law abiding people moved to the > > back of the bus. > > You're right, try: > >> For *THE VAST MAJORITY OF MORALLY SOUND PEOPLE*, which is > more likely to >> work? > If your argument is that we raise morally bankrupt children > then so be it. > Teenagers however, are not the vast majority of people. > > David > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To > unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
