IMO, Artists are just going to face facts that there are things as P2P, messaging and file-hosts in the world we live in instead of complaining about the loss of income. Cause that obviously isn't going to prevent people from downloading their work.
The problem is: how do you stop it? And can it really be stopped at all, at this point. One could add protection to cd's and DVD's, to prevent the files to reach the internet, which is already happening at the moment. This would also be a meritable situation for the online mp3-sellers, as they would eventually gain the upper hand. At least, in a perfect world.
In a normal world the first 'solution' would be set aside by the fact that as time evolves, somebody is bound to find a way to 'crack' the protection. A crack which he/she could share and spread all over the world (even though it still may be illegal). Sharing is definitely the key word here, because eventually the people who've bought mp3's of the net are going to share their stuff with eachother.
This means that the only way to solve this is to ban sharing on the Internet altogether - something which is impossible, unless the authorities are prepared to check EVERY file that is being transferred, all over the world, all the time.
Though this sounds like an 'Orwellian image of the world', this principle isn't so bad as it sounds. They (the 'inspectors') don't need to see the content of the stuff you download, just the format. One could make a monthly bill out of this, if a proper distinction is made between copyrighted downloads and non-copyrighted downloads - and moreover the distinction between 'previews' (stuff you download just to check what it is, but delete just about the same time) and permanent downloads (stuff stat remains on your harddrive). The next step is converting the market value and perhaps also the size of the particular file into a prize and the problem seems solved.
Seems. Cause we also can't exclude the existence of cd/dvd burners. Even though the disks may have better (and non-permeable) protection in the future, it still leaves us with the 'good old' handycams/sound recorders. When you go to a cinema, it'll be taken away from you, but what if you make a deal with friends bootlegging your tapes or music at home? And those friends could spread it with their friends and so on. Now this thing is done on a small scale, but it isn't unthinkable that the number of 'home bootleggers' will rise if they can't share it otherwise.
Which starts the whole thing over again.
Then the authorities could restrict the possibilities of the camcorders (no more transferring of files to cd's) also, but this would mean that people could never save a video of their child's first steps, just to name.
Moral of the story: Banning all carriers and transporters would lead to nowhere. Which brings us back to an issue I mentioned earlier in this thread, the protection of the particular file. For the monthly bill idea I proposed, recognition is almost equally important to distinguish the files from non-copyrighted files as well as fakes. So I think that what we need is an 'electronic watermark' for copyrighted files, to accomplish this. I'd prefer one that alters itself over time, but the adjusting of the reader to this altering is something I haven't put much thought in yet.
As for the Camcorders, one could prevent this by integrating a - for man and animal - unhearable sound that is converted to a schreeching sound when turned into a electronic file.
I have only theorized it a bit and not experimented with it, but at least it's a suggestion for the solution to the problem. A whole better way of dealing with the problem than whining about it, if you ask me. Until then it remains legitimate for people to download it, as there is no law which makes the act of a regular Kazaa or Bearshare fanatic illegal. Morally the people who're against it may be right, but you can't expect ir from others to overlook this great flaw in the law. Then the greater responsibility lies with the authorities, as they're the first to be responsible for maintaining that law. Which also puts the ball in their park, and not mine.
11 Jan 2006, 5:57 pm
