few months I've been holding back to not talk about these things (those who know me will appreciate the effort), mostly because some time that these things are left behind rationality, replaced by Marcianism demagogy, as appropriate. Previous entries in this blog I've covered the legal aspects of copyright and digital canon, but seen anyone more concerned about the issue, let's leave aside the right to be guided by common sense, and if anyone is interested to read them.
I must start by saying that while it may seem outrageous to me Internet does not seem as big a technological revolution. I remember discussions I had years ago with a friend, I was not able to convince you not buy online, buying by mail. And is that the Internet is to mail it to the printing press to the pen, but to count.
Piracy has always existed. Previously, for example, the hacker sent by regular mail you a list of games beautifully printed dot matrix printer paper (the one with holes in the sides), you made him the transfer by bank and I referred the floppy (ah, floppy ...) by mail. Or buy a disk among several friends and made several copies (issue can be considered a legitimate use of the right to private copying, but that is another matter.)
So the Internet has not done anything to simplify and streamline the process and leave the pirates out of work professionals (who were paid for these things), the first victims of this whole issue.
More important, in my opinion, is the widespread use of computers for any kind of content. Not so long ago was unthinkable used file formats for music and video playback on your computer with so little use of space (although this in high definition and increasingly, in short). The former was just hacking computer games, because that was all there was. The new formats also allow a reproduction of the same quality as the original, and also our home computers can burn DVDs or any other similar format. In fact, the generalization of computer in every home is precisely due to the ease of "hacking."
came with it also the first awakening of the user. That is, if I can burn a DVD my house for one or two euros how can that cost me 20 or 30 Euros in the shop? The explanation given is: you pay the author, promotion, etc, etc. But the authors paid a shit about each unit, and a Mozart disc is worth the same or more than one of The Bright. And when you buy the album on the Internet costs the same, having to burn a home.
So the struggle is not between the Internet (which is only the messenger) and the author (which is not usually make gold by selling copies), but between users and the industry suffered, that he has abused for years.
The aim of this struggle should be to find a way to access a copyright work it was rewarded for his work, if desired, but also the cheapest way for the recipient. This, and nothing else is what makes possible the wide dissemination of culture.
But we must do away with the obsolete structures that do not want to give up their benefits and have been used to hold the key to cultural diffusion (this is culture that they say it is, and nothing else) . And you have to thoroughly rethink the role of the managing bodies of copyright, because they are also obsolete instrument that has brought them back, in practice, to enrich the intermediary at the expense of the author.
In this context, is as unacceptable the strong defense of satatus quo that made the political forces (in this case with the government in the lead) as the opinion of many users that intellectual work is "free" (read free) and that therefore no "right "to spread, or dissemination is unlawful social progress.
The creator of a work of genius is he who is to decide whether or not to share it, and under what conditions. There are many people who live by their work, or aspire to do so. Despite attempts to provide social prestige, intellectual labor is so expensive, unpleasant and unworthy as I can be any other, and often do not receive adequate remuneration for their performance. Clearly advantage the work of others is ethically indefensible, is seen as light.
There is also another obvious fallacy, namely that the surfer who illegally obtains a movie or a song would have paid for them in the absence of piracy. Clearly it is only curiosity which moves certain discharges, and one does not repent of them later.
Finally I would like to make a suggestion to the managing bodies, or perhaps the government: they claim that their interest is the protection of copyright and culture, impleméntese a platform where those who have illegally downloaded a work ingenuity and, after enjoying it, repent and want to compensate the author, can do so by paying the amount they see fit, anonymously, and that such compensation is also go directly to the author (with logical withholding taxes).
would not be very expensive, and maybe we'd get a surprise.
Piracy has always existed. Previously, for example, the hacker sent by regular mail you a list of games beautifully printed dot matrix printer paper (the one with holes in the sides), you made him the transfer by bank and I referred the floppy (ah, floppy ...) by mail. Or buy a disk among several friends and made several copies (issue can be considered a legitimate use of the right to private copying, but that is another matter.)
So the Internet has not done anything to simplify and streamline the process and leave the pirates out of work professionals (who were paid for these things), the first victims of this whole issue.
More important, in my opinion, is the widespread use of computers for any kind of content. Not so long ago was unthinkable used file formats for music and video playback on your computer with so little use of space (although this in high definition and increasingly, in short). The former was just hacking computer games, because that was all there was. The new formats also allow a reproduction of the same quality as the original, and also our home computers can burn DVDs or any other similar format. In fact, the generalization of computer in every home is precisely due to the ease of "hacking."
came with it also the first awakening of the user. That is, if I can burn a DVD my house for one or two euros how can that cost me 20 or 30 Euros in the shop? The explanation given is: you pay the author, promotion, etc, etc. But the authors paid a shit about each unit, and a Mozart disc is worth the same or more than one of The Bright. And when you buy the album on the Internet costs the same, having to burn a home.
So the struggle is not between the Internet (which is only the messenger) and the author (which is not usually make gold by selling copies), but between users and the industry suffered, that he has abused for years.
The aim of this struggle should be to find a way to access a copyright work it was rewarded for his work, if desired, but also the cheapest way for the recipient. This, and nothing else is what makes possible the wide dissemination of culture.
But we must do away with the obsolete structures that do not want to give up their benefits and have been used to hold the key to cultural diffusion (this is culture that they say it is, and nothing else) . And you have to thoroughly rethink the role of the managing bodies of copyright, because they are also obsolete instrument that has brought them back, in practice, to enrich the intermediary at the expense of the author.
In this context, is as unacceptable the strong defense of satatus quo that made the political forces (in this case with the government in the lead) as the opinion of many users that intellectual work is "free" (read free) and that therefore no "right "to spread, or dissemination is unlawful social progress.
The creator of a work of genius is he who is to decide whether or not to share it, and under what conditions. There are many people who live by their work, or aspire to do so. Despite attempts to provide social prestige, intellectual labor is so expensive, unpleasant and unworthy as I can be any other, and often do not receive adequate remuneration for their performance. Clearly advantage the work of others is ethically indefensible, is seen as light.
There is also another obvious fallacy, namely that the surfer who illegally obtains a movie or a song would have paid for them in the absence of piracy. Clearly it is only curiosity which moves certain discharges, and one does not repent of them later.
Finally I would like to make a suggestion to the managing bodies, or perhaps the government: they claim that their interest is the protection of copyright and culture, impleméntese a platform where those who have illegally downloaded a work ingenuity and, after enjoying it, repent and want to compensate the author, can do so by paying the amount they see fit, anonymously, and that such compensation is also go directly to the author (with logical withholding taxes).
would not be very expensive, and maybe we'd get a surprise.
0 comments:
Post a Comment