Slashdot Log In
Only 2 in 500 College Students Believe in IP
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Monday December 24, @07:05PM
from the ethics-classes-waiting-for-new-material dept.
from the ethics-classes-waiting-for-new-material dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "David Pogue of the New York Times has an interesting story about how fewer and fewer people believe that infringement is wrong. He mentions talks he gave back in 2005 where people were willing to believe that making backups of DVDs you own is wrong. Today, however, at his talks, he was only able to get two people out of a crowd of five hundred college students to say that downloading a movie or album is wrong. He goes on, like many before him, to bemoan the immorality of young people today, saying: 'I do know, though, that the TV, movie and record companies' problems have only just begun. Right now, the customers who can't even *see* why file sharing might be wrong are still young. But 10, 20, 30 years from now, that crowd will be *everybody*. What will happen then?'"
Related Stories
Firehose:Only 2 in 500 College Students Believe in IP by Anonymous Coward
Only 2 in 500 College Students Believe in IP
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 649 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Internet Protocol doesn't exist! (Score:3, Funny)
What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
So less than one percent believe in IP. If not Internet Protocol [wikipedia.org], which network layer protocol [wikipedia.org] do they believe in?
But seriously, there are reasons not to believe in "intellectual property" even if you do believe in copyright. For one thing, "intellectual property" confuses copyright law, patent law, and trademark law. [gnu.org].
Because Slashdot headlines are too short. (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, you are correct that Stallman disagrees on calling it IP, even if you choose to subvert it by expanding it as imaginary property. However, my belief is that you'll never get people to stop clumping them together so long as law schools, where there's certainly no shortage of pedantry, are more than willing to lump them together. Thus, subversion is not the better option, it is the only option for those who dislike the term.
For what it's worth, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and patents all have various flaws. Trademarks allow far too little fair use and fair use is too hard to defend (unless you WANT to pay a law firm big money to establish what a "reasonable person" might believe). Trade secrets, well, the theory is fine, but they're essentially impossible to protect thanks to the internet. The laws give a false sense of security at best. If you don't believe me, find a geek who hasn't heard of 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0. I have that stupid thing memorized. Copyrights, well, they'll live longer than I do, you can apparently copyright facts that aren't "facts" because they concern a work of fiction, I've yet to see anyone punished for sending out flat-out wrong DMCA notices no matter what the "perjury" part says. Patents, well, if they defended actual innovation, they might be somewhat reasonable. Why are they not legally able to take the fact that something was independently reinvented (possibly multiple times) as evidence of obviousness? It's not like anyone reads patents until they're sued for infringing upon them. They're written in incomprehensible legal gibberish that's no longer even marginally useful to an actual inventor...
So yeah, basically, I don't believe (i.e. trust) in any of that crap. They do exist, of course, but shouldn't. Not without a rewrite, but this time they should get people to examine the laws for perverse incentive and enforceability. Otherwise we have laws, but they do us no good. That's completely unreasonable, even if it's not hard to see how we ended up that way.
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
[College students] just don't believe downloading for personal use to be immoral.
Many of my friends didn't see anything unfair about heavy taxation and redistribution of wealth while they were students (and therefore paying no tax and probably claiming some sort of state funding toward their tuition expenses). In most cases, their views changed rather abruptly when they got their first real pay slip and looked at the deductions column.
The moral of the story is that your personal morals are at least in part a product of your own experience and view of the world. Most college students have a very narrow view of the world, being young and having yet to start the main working phase of their lives, so it's not surprising that their views on ethical issues like copyright infringement come from a one-sided perspective. It is, of course, regrettable how quickly certain people who have come through the education system and started work in knowledge industries forget their first perspective in their haste to advocate their second.
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
One supports the law that benefits oneself.
There are many people who advocate that their own taxes be raised in order to pay for a social program they believe to be for the greater good, whether it be public education, socialized medicine, intervention in the Balkans, the fight against AIDS in Africa, amelioration of global climate change and so forth. Many super-rich people ask quite explicitly to pay more taxes. Warren Buffet is a good example.
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What do the rest believe in? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hear hear!
I support the GPL over BSD-style licenses because I don't like the idea of Free code being used to improve proprietary software, but that's something I'm willing to live with if copyright is abolished, which is a more important goal.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think what will happen in 10, 20, and 30 years is that these college kids will finally get real jobs and realize that when folks steal their stuff without compensation, they don't get paid. Then they'll all bemoan the next generation who will be hacking copyright protection with their newfangled brain implants.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine though, a world where recording studios spend their time headhunting TALENT and then marketing that talent to artists. I'm not just talking about the musicians themselves, but the mixers, the choreographers, every step in between. A company that was a firm reputed to have power content creating talent and just needed someone to insert content would always have tremendous value to humanity until art is officially dead. You can pretty much s/recording studios/movie industry/ as well.
The problem with this is it would invert the power structure. This would put tremendous control into the hands of the actual content creators, as well as the various talented studio people. The companies would have to woo talent as being highly rated in terms of talent would be the only metric. This would create an environment where either studios have to woo potential content creators, or allow the creators to shop around. This would also create tremendous competition, with studios with price ranges for the already successful, ones who did well in their debuts, and ones who have to apply for a loan to even consider getting into he business to begin with (read: the ones who normally would have had to swallow whatever contract terms were to be had to have a significant chance of ever existing on the world stage). Granted, wealthy artists would then have a fair bit of leverage to create a new cartel that could suck, but then there ALREADY ARE artists producing completely independently.
If a company such as this was created, was profitable, and gained serious investment backing i think the current boys club would have a bloody stroke on the spot.
Then there are TV studios, whose current model is to have their customers pay for the privilege of having their eyes sold off wholesale for the content they offer. To boot, it's always the SAME offerings from any cable company anywhere for the most part. Hopefully the pushes for a-la-carte content will shift this current situation but who knows.
I imagine a world where customers pay for the content they want to see, and stations shift their model to being paid to provide the best range of coverage for their local regional demographic. Skews of what is popular changes by region a fair bit, and there would be value in doing the research to find what is popular in what proportions to see how to allot ones budget on the rights from the creators.
Sadly, I do not actually believe any of this will come to pass in a means that benefits the consumers.
Also sadly, many see copyright infringement as the means to nudge the current top-heavy structure, but I still find most people are merely rationalizing their desire for free-as-in-beer content that isn't free. If one is truly so self-righteous about it, consume truly free content. There's only metric goat-loads of it out there.
Too bad most people also think Good Content == { Shiny Expensive Effects , TnA , Celebrities } exclusively.
A Merry X-Mas Rant from Lower Canuckia
Re:Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright infringement isn't "stealing". One important distinction is that when something is stolen, the person or organization from which it is stolen is deprived of an object of value. When copyright infringement occurs, whoever owned the relevant intellectual property rights is not deprived of anything except possibly for potential income. And the statistics on downloading vs. legal sales (which basically show that the former doesn't do much if anything to actually decrease the latter) seem to demonstrate that the potential income in question would only rarely, in the absence of infringement, translate into actual income.
The vast majority of people who don't believe that downloading a movie off of BitTorrent is immoral will almost certainly tell you that shoplifting is immoral. And the above-mentioned difference is a large part of the reason for that.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kind of scarry to see this attitude (IP = imaginary) coming from american students. Forget right and wrong for a moment and think about survival and self-interest. Apparently these students don't realize that the country they live in has no other real 'industry' anymore. We have offshored a the vast majority of production, and we are in the process of offshoring services (call centers, more to come). Sure, there will always be some level of 'physical' work needed - but it has dwindled, and our economy exists now primarily based on the concent of intellectual property - because it's the main thing we produce in this country. Without it the US economy would fall apart. Those of you not from the US may chose to dismiss this out of hand, but it is also true for many other 'first world' nations to varynig degrees. It's one thing for chinese companies to ignore intellectual property and sell iPod clones in China. If we toss out the concept of IP in the US and they can sell those clones back to the US (and other first world nations that currently respect IP) then Apple goes out of business. I'm talking about exact iPod clones made by the same plants making them for Apple, if you're truely throwing out IP let's even put the apple brand on them and the Apple phone support number while we're at it - it's not "real" property, right? The same applies to many companies whose primary creations are intellectual.
Re:We don't need copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Well Sparky, since you're so friggin' bright, perhaps you can tell us how an author would make the money to reimburse him or her for the time and effort spent in writing that novel.
As far as clones, perhaps you don't understand the concept. It's taking something and duplicating it, not creating a product which simply performs the same functions.
"You might respond that Apple has to charge more because they have to pay for the research that went into designing the iPod, and I wouldn't disagree. But it's not my fault, or any other potential iPod owner's fault, that Apple chose to structure their business that way: paying the researchers out of money that might materialize down the road someday."
And here you demonstrate your utter lack of understanding of the world. How the hell would Apple pay their researchers? From the generous donations of people such as yourself, who altruistically want the world to progress?
At least be honest so you don't have to conjure up lame rationale. You just want the cheapest version of something and are willing to support rip-off scumbags to get it.
"It's a flawed business model, trading actual money today for imaginary potential money next year (when you may not be in a position to compete with others who are selling the same thing)..."
Not if they don't rip it off. What part of creating your own product do you have such a hard time with? Oh yeah, I already answered that. Paying for the result.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
I realise I'm in the minority here but I'm in my late twenties and have enough disposable income to regularly buy music CD's or films on DVD. Generally if I want something in particular, I download it. Either way I never pay for it if it's from the major labels or studios. To some this is reprehensible but to me the action of giving any company associated with the RIAA money is worse.
If the artists were getting fairly compensated then maybe I would have come around. If they hadn't lobbies so hard for all these bullshit laws then I might not have these opinions today.
As far as I'm concerned: the artists can starve. Let this entire industry crumble. I have a sneaking suspicion that people would continue making music anyway, because it's what they love. Today a band can form, play some live gigs, press their own CD's, and still turn a profit. It might not be enough to live on if they don't get really famous, but you can make enough to recover your costs and then some. For most bands signed to the labels this never happens - they are left with a debt to pay off.
Anyhow, my original point was that hopefully the kids of today will be just as alienated by the kinds of tactics that we're seeing that they won't grow up and get with the program. A guy can dream eh?
Morality and IP. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, if anybody is going to make any money on the product it is the corporations and this is iron clad.
As for the comments about Shakespeare, it was all security by obscurity. Play houses would steal other people's work by sending somebody with a good memory to go and write down the play as performed. This is where most of our records actually come from with the exception of Romeo and Juliet which was butchered so badly that it was published in order to get it right. If you look at the current ethic that the money making ability of IP goes to the owner, then it would allow people to have access to the plays but prohibit somebody else performing it. The article description of it as "immoral" is uncalled for. It certainly isn't as legally allowed, but the prohibition against sharing is non-existent whereas the prohibition against making money off somebody else's work without the owner getting a fair share is iron clad.
They are moral. They just do not respect the rights of corporations to do anything but make money. In fact, one could easily make the argument that torrents often get ratios above 1 (up/down), because it is required for the torrent to continue and as a moral imperative. What would happen if everybody stopped seeding after they had the file? The torrent would collapse. So morally (and I've actually seen that word used in this context) one needs to seed a torrent. Also, seeding is seen as giving respect to the torrent. That this is a good show/movie/album so *MORE* people should have it.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Informative)
I'd have to go look up exactly when copyright was conceptually founded (I believe someone posted in a article a couple of months ago that it has existed since the days of the Romans conceptually that puts it back into at least 1000AD or so), but it is explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. So it's been around since the late 1700's. I believe John Locke wrote about it prior to the 1780's or so. Johnson and Johnson is currently suing the American Red Cross over a trade mark registered in the 1890's. The U.S. Patent Office has been around since around the time of the founding of the United States. For instance, Abraham Lincoln was proud of the fact that he was a patent holder.
So at least two such concepts pre-date things like Women's Sufferage, or the concept that African American's shouldn't be held as Slave's in the South in the United States. Given those dates, I'm reasonable confident there is no one alive who remembers before the three concepts of Intellectual Property existed (alright, there might be a handful alive from the trademark date I quote, but I think trademarks pre-date the early 1890's, I'm just too lazy to go find out when).
So while you refer to them as "new"... You can only mean new in comparison to concepts like "bipedal humans that walk upright" or "humans forming civiliations and moving from hunter gather to agricultural modes of survival", and still be intellectually honest (or grossly uninformed on the concepts).
We have the works of Shakespeare and Newton, because they eventually fell into the public domain. Now, if you want to argue that current U.S. copyright law is just stupid, I'll back you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as a citizen of the U.S. and the U.S. being a signer of the Berne Convention, means that Copyright Law can't be made to be sane. It could however be lowered to limits of the Berne convention, and then at least copyright would expire in 50 years after the work was published.
Assuming that Disney isn't successful forever, Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck will fall into the public domain. The entire music catalog of the Beetle's will be in the public domain in Britain within the next 20 years (they refused to increase copyright past 50 years recently). The original works of Einstien, Dirac, Godel, Turing, Plank, Hemmingway, Authur Miller, Tennesse Williams and others should eventually fall into the public domain (contemporary notable scientists and and playwrights). Hopefully within my life time (the next 40-60 years). The works will be preserved as long as it takes to get them into the public domain. The sad part is that 99% won't be. Only the things that were recognized as great works at the time will be. Who knows, maybe Shakespeare had a truely great pupil lost to the sands of time. It'd be far easier for libraries and other archivest to preserve if they didn't have to worry about copyright being an issue. It'd be easier to stand on the sholders of giants if I could use giants who were alive during my lifetime...
Kirby
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Informative)
The first modern copyright law (as opposed to the stationers' copyright, which was a different animal) was the Statute of Anne, enacted in England in 1710. The very basic underlying principles are related to (though quite distinct from) patent law, which dates back to the Venetian Patent Ordinance of 1473. However, we do know that the very fundamental concept of patent law dates back to at least circa 215 BCE -- sort of. There was this joke about the Sybarites, who were Greek colonists who had, some centuries earlier, lived on the Italian peninsula, and who were infamous for their luxurious lifestyle. The joke was that if a chef in Sybaris invented a new recipe of merit, he could have the exclusive right to make that food for one year. This was intended to encourage chefs to create new recipes which would then ultimately be enjoyed by everyone once the period of exclusivity ended.
but [copyright] is explicitly mentioned in the U.S. Constitution
Well, not explicitly. The word copyright never appears; it's just an "exclusive right" granted to authors for their writings. The term 'copy right' was already known, though; in fact, Congress had used it prior to the drafting of the Constitution. But this is neither here nor there.
The U.S. Patent Office has been around since around the time of the founding of the United States. For instance, Abraham Lincoln was proud of the fact that he was a patent holder.
Well, no. The United States was founded in 1776, but the United States did not grant patents or have any power or means for doing so, until 1789, and even then the first US patent law wasn't enacted until 1790, effectively creating the Patent Office. Lincoln wasn't around until quite some time later.
but I think trademarks pre-date the early 1890's, I'm just too lazy to go find out when
Trademarks are ancient, probably dating back to before recorded history. Federal trademarks are of more recent vintage.
We have the works of Shakespeare and Newton, because they eventually fell into the public domain.
Actually, copyright didn't exist in Shakespeare's time, and as far as I know, Newton never sought any. More importantly, we have their works because they published them or because noble pirates pirated them, thus happening to preserve them for us.
Now, if you want to argue that current U.S. copyright law is just stupid, I'll back you wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, as a citizen of the U.S. and the U.S. being a signer of the Berne Convention, means that Copyright Law can't be made to be sane.
All we have to do is withdraw from Berne. The political branches can do this fairly easily if they choose. It's far from impossible, and since the one most called-for copyright reform is for terms shorter than Berne permits, I think we can anticipate withdrawal for sure. I look forward to it, as Berne is worthless.
It'd be far easier for libraries and other archivest to preserve if they didn't have to worry about copyright being an issue.
Again, something that is far easier if we dump Berne.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:4, Insightful)
The belief that major corporations have the right to make a profit through IP, even if it harms the public, is not correct. The point of patents and copyrights are to promote the publics best interest by creating an incentive to create new works that benefit all. After a period, the works are then supposed to go into the public domain for use by anybody that wishes to use them.
The reason why so many young people don't believe in IP isn't that they think that the works aren't valuable, its that they don't think that they are as valuable as the corporations are wanting them to believe. Realistically, as Lincoln said, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." And that's what's happened, the media outfits in particular have pushed so far to force a profit that they've actually managed to undermine their position.
And to throw in a Star Wars quote: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
The media corporations largely brought this on themselves by pushing to extend their protection to beyond the average life expectancy of a person born on the day a work is created. If they wish to have people respect their rights, perhaps they should respect the rights of the public at large first. I have very little faith in them to ever do so.
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Funny)
Abe shot first!
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? After all nothing was taken...
Interesting question of sociology and morality (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Interesting question of sociology and morality (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course not, but that's not a completely arbitrary human concept which only exists for as long as it's supported by the population composing the society from which the concept arises.
Re:What will happen then? (Score:5, Informative)
The good stuff starts at the bottom of page 7 of the PDF.
The misinformation campaign has already begun! (Score:5, Insightful)
In 30 years we might not see what we would expect. The RIAA and MPAA has deeper pockets than the nerd crowd and they have a lot more to lose.
No one here, or really anywhere else, could believe the RIAA would win that fucking case in Duluth and yet they did. For whatever reason there are still people out there that can be easily swayed by the bullshit that is strewn from the mouths of those douchebags.
I fear the worst. Support those artists that support freedom of music and media before your money is used against people just like you.
Re:The misinformation campaign has already begun! (Score:5, Insightful)
The case in Duluth was lost by an incompetent defense that tried to pull the wool over the jury's eyes. The jury saw through it and punished them for it.
Re:The misinformation campaign has already begun! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly wrong. The RIAA and MPAA are trivially small compared to the set of people and companies that can benefit from cultural freedom. As an example, consider just the electronics manufacturers that sell devices that are used to share. And as for "a lot more to lose", the group that stands to lose the most here is humanity itself if the absurd idea manages to persist that culture can be owned and people can be excluded from it so some few can make a few more dollars.
Our understanding will change... (Score:5, Insightful)
First everybody will believe that IP doesn't exist. Even now many people (including reasonable nerds such as we are) believe that IP does not exist in the form it struggles to exist today.
The context of IP is changing and it has to change according to Internet rules. People think that it might seem unethical but the availability of sharing (especially when there is more than a single network node for each human being) cannot be just neglected by the trivial assumption that people should respect for IP.
I don't believe in IP and I don't think they deserve it. Is the amount of effort they are putting to produce a song, really worth the millions of dollars they are claiming that they must make?
No way.
That's why they will lose. That's why they are losing every second. And at some point, they will really understand that resistance is futile.
Internet will prevail
Re:Our understanding will change... (Score:4, Insightful)
The other piece of terrible logic is your false dichotomy of freedom to copy and profit. This is simply not true. There are many, many companies who profit from software as a service (IBM, Red Hat etc) in the tech industry alone. These companies' catalogues of software are largely freely re-distributable.
Innovation wouldn't come to a "grinding halt"; that is entirely preposterous. Innovation is, in fact, massively hampered by copyright and patents. Useful reuse of ideas is specifically not allowed: no one can use old work and ideas as the base for new work because it's illegal (and if it isn't, it's wildly expensive). The case you implicitly make is that this reuse wouldn't benefit innovation, and you're wrong.
Additionally; software isn't a car. Cars cannot be easily copied. Cars are therefore a terrible analogy, and one I will not address - there is little need for metaphors when the actual objects of discussion are right in front of us.
fix the law and we might care (Score:5, Interesting)
after that its fair game. public domain. and no. you cant gouge the hell out of us on price to make up for it. create more crap and get another 5 years for that instead.
the time of beyond lifelong copyright and patent protection needs to end. its sucking up way too much time and resources. and gains nothing for the world.
and we just dont want to listen to people whine anymore.
Old news... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's one reason why I think that the politicians are trying to erode individual rights. They're scared shitless about what's going to happen when the children grow up and start making public policy.
Progress will happen then. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, as more and more content is released under permissive licenses and that pool is getting larger everyday and is irrevocable short of making giving away your effort illegal... I guess we'll all turn into small contributers that others remix into great works. And in turn we'll remix others contributions into our own (maybe great) works. Kind of like a cottage industry on steroids. And we have the great tubes to thank by reducing the barrier to entry and more importantly providing a means to replicate information effortlessly and cheaply.
Common sense will ALWAYS prevail over LAW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many feel bad a bit about downloading a pay tv only show like Dexter, but SOMEONE paid for the right to view it and record it. All the companies involved got their money.
And that is what people see, they see all this IP crap as nothing more than a extra greedy money grab. Almost everyone sees that Comedy central pulling youtube clips as 100% greed and when people see greed they retaliate against it.
As long as the media companies are acting insanely stupid and publically showing their insatiable greed this will not only continue but will grow in the opposite direction. If they keep it up we actually may see common folk caring about copyright to the point that they want copyright laws repealed.
The one dark nightmare that make media company executives wake up screaming at night.
Summary? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most people would believe that artists and their associated support network should retain their rights to their music or other works. And if things were available at reasonable prices, with reasonable ability to archive and move to new media, then people would pay, respecting the rights of the owners.
But $20 for a CD with one formulatic pop song that's a bit catchy, and a bunch of filler, makes rationalizing copying a lot easier than it should be.
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Hyperbole has backfired on the "IP" Barons (Score:3, Insightful)
The risible rhetoric that the "Intellectual Property" barons has been pushing for so long has been so plainly wrong that they don't even have the credibility left to make reasonable claims and be believed.
Insistently equating trespassing on someone's copyrights with armed robbery ("piracy") and "theft" when it plainly is neither for so long means that now a lot of people have trouble taking the whole concept of copyright seriously, unfortunately.
Sick and tired (Score:3, Insightful)
Yay, finally a slashdot discussion of IP (Score:5, Funny)
Only 2 in 500 care enough to raise their hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Flower Power! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in IP... (Score:4, Insightful)
- I was raised in an analog world, and now have my youth in a digital one. In my analog world, if a TV show came on when I couldn't watch it, I simply programmed the VCR and listened to my parents whine that they didn't know how to do so. In the digital world, if I am to record it using consumer equipment, at one day, those who are NOT in charge (Remember, those that are, that is, the USC, said it was OK.) can take away my right to do so. Therefore, I'm not going to give them the chance. I will use BitTorrent to time and format shift my television viewing.
- In my analog world, the only rule for renting a video was "Be kind, rewind." In the new digital world, I'm also told that I will be prevented from copying the video for my own personal use. I never had any use to before - a movie rental is just a 2 mile drive and $3.00, but since you decided to prevent me from doing so, my curiosity was provoked, and I will now copy the video just to say that I can.
- In my analog world, if I didn't like all the crap on an album the shills are trying to sell, I could purchase the single, and probably get a B-side or two with it. Now, I can't. Furthermore, with digital distribution, I'm asked to take a quality hit in order to help defray the costs of the distributor. Not likely. I'll download it.
- In my analog world, if I hear a song that I like, I can call up my favorite radio station, ask the DJ to play it, and then tape it. Unfortunately, due to payola and the ClearChannel buyout of my entire county, sometimes I can't do that - but it is still my right under US case law! In the digital world, however, RIAA tries to require safeguards to keep me from doing that. Therefore, if I hear a song on internet radio, I'm going to have no qualms in downloading an MP3 version of it.
- In my analog world, $20 used to be able to get you two movie tickets, two sodas, and a big ol popcorn. Now, when I go, I'm carded for the R movie (I'm twenty-one), searched for a camera (and I'm a slim person), and then charged upwards of $35 for a low-quality (DLP) show in a sticky auditorium. Being searched for a camera in order to watch a movie is too much, so I'm going to download it.
I'm not immoral. The powers that be simply think the rules should change now because it's a new system, and I'm sorry, they're not going to. If you try to take away what rights I had, I'm going to disregard
But this is just normal for college students. (Score:3, Interesting)
When I was in high school and college we made mix tapes (yes we had CDs, but burning wasn't cheap or easy) and pirated software with no concern at all. Now that I make my own living off software I appreciate the value of paying for useful software which has value added over open source. I also buy CDs because I want to support the artists I listen to; of course the value proposition there is changing, but there's still the basic idea of buying a product.
Asking college students if piracy is wrong is like asking Buddhists about Catholic heresies. It's just not meaningful except as a curiousity.
Cut out the distribution overhead (Score:3, Interesting)
Come up with a model where I can more or less directly pay to the studio/publisher after playing past the first quarter of the album or movie or reading past the first quarter of a book, and I will happily follow it. Yes I have my credit card ready -- to pay the creators only, and only for what I consume (not just download).
2 in 500? Doesn't matter what the question is. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not reduce? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's my take: (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll "grow up"/sell out like the Hippies and turn into reactionary fear freaks who will be as easily manipulated as all previous generations?