The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about Copy Protection, Part III
© Thomas Williams
Why doesn't the recording industry go after bootleggers?
If one goes to the RIAA website, they state that they actively work to stamp out counterfeiters and anyone else who pirates recordings. However, copy protection isn't designed to stop counterfeiting and pirating:
At a minimum, digital copy prevention is subject to the analog hole: regardless of the digital restrictions, if music can be played on speakers, it can also be recorded. Copying text in this way is more tedious, but if it can be printed or displayed, it can also be scanned and OCRed.
Since this basic technical fact exists, copy prevention is not intended to stop professional operations involved in the unauthorized mass duplication of media, but rather to stop casual copying in which one friend makes a copy of a disc for another friend and thus (arguably) decreases the possible market for that disc by one copy. (Wikipedia, pars 3-4)
The question begs to be asked, if copy protection is intended for the casual user, then why have it at all?
What does it all mean?
According to John Gilmore of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), we are headed down a slippery slope that ends up leading to the recording industry being able to dictate what can and cannot be seen, heard or read. This is clearly a violation of free speech. Yet, the recording industry continues to build up more and more laws to make it impossible for anyone to do anything but watch or listen to anything that the recording industry bestows upon the people.
The RIAA and the music industry insist that copy protection is necessary, that through the use of file sharing their profits have dropped. Is this really the case? Is it all due to file sharing? The answer is arguable at best. At the same time the music industry was decrying losses in profits, copy protection technologies were being introduced on several CD releases. Meanwhile, the prices for CDs have never declined; instead, they have steadily risen since their introduction. This alone is counter- intuitive in terms of new technology reaching the marketplace. Generally speaking, when a new technology is introduced, its price is expensive; but, as it gains acceptance, the price comes down. This is true for the players, but it has never been the case for the media.
The recording industry has become obsessed with the usage of computers and file sharing to the point of introducing draconian measures to prevent the average user from doing anything outside of simply listening or watching something they have produced. It is not intended to suggest that the recording industry should be denied just compensation for their work.
Go To Page: 1 2
